We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Agriculture and Rural Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Covenanters (IA)
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2096
Description[?]:
| An Act to improve rural communities and their economies; while ensuring farmers are rewarded for using techniques that serve the environment, rather than commercial farming techniques that are harmful to the environment and lead to animal cruelty. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government subsidises agriculture based on market demand for the crop being grown.
Current: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Proposed: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning genetically modified (GM) crops.
Old value:: invalid choice
Current: All activities related to production, selling or researching of GM crops are allowed.
Proposed: Production and selling of GM crops is banned. Research is allowed.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: Private hunting and fishing practices are banned.
Current: Hunting and fishing is not regulated.
Proposed: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:52:06, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | Ideally I'd have liked to have seen an option for subsidising farmers for management of the environment, and for using organic farming methods, but this wasn't available. In any case, subsidising low-income farmers is preferable to subsidising based on demand. |
| Date | 01:19:40, August 14, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | are you kidding? do you have any idea how subsidies work? when it comes to crops, there are easy crops , and there are hard crops. the easy crops are low maintanience, high output, high profit, and the hard crops are exactly the opposite. if it were left for the farmers to decide what they grew, they would all grow easy crops. (quite understandably) but that ignores the rules of supply/demand marketing. if everyone grows the same crop (the easiest one), then the market will be glutted with it. the supply of the easy crops will be so high that competition drives the prices way down. with such low prices, the farmers will take home almost no profit: severely limiting the amount of seed they can buy for next year. the following harvest will be minimal at best, and there will be major problems. enter: the subsidy. in the ideal market, each crop has a certain profit value (the easy ones higher, the hard ones lower) in order to encourage farmers to diversify their crops, they must be reimbursed for the money they lose by not growing the higher profit crops. the subsidy reduces the losses suffered by growing higher maintainence crops, and encourages the farmers to not all grow the same thing. come harvest time, the farmers are able to sell at stable market prices, instead of competing eachother out of business. they make enough profit to grow well for the next season, and the cycle continues. subsidizing by demand ensures that the crops that are grown are the ones that everybody needs, even if they do not make as much of a profit: not the ones that are easiest to grow. |
| Date | 01:22:52, August 14, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | oh yea: GM crops avert many disasters (higher density corn makes better use of each acre, whereas vegetables that need less water stop the next drought from becoming a famine, and the tomatoes that automatically repel aphids will dramatically decrease the amount of pesticides in use.) i also will not approve of any law that permits the murder and turture of animals in the name of 'entertainment' |
| Date | 05:41:05, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | I will vote no. |
| Date | 09:43:41, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | The NFP's ideas about subsidies are preposterous. If the farmers were to flood the market with "easy crops" the price would drop and market forces would make them consider different crops. The subsidies should be used purely to encourage organic farming methods and support farmers who have a positive effect on the countryside. |
| Date | 09:45:11, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | LLP: Don't be so wet - we're talking about peoples' livelihoods here. |
| Date | 20:58:51, August 14, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | ("The NFP's ideas about subsidies are preposterous. If the farmers were to flood the market with "easy crops" the price would drop and market forces would make them consider different crops.") do you expect them to grow a whole new get of crops by the time they figure it out? high demand crops are not always the crops that bring in the most profit. the farmers will be reluctant to grow a crop that brings them less profit when a crop that gets them more profit is available. subsidies overcome that reluctance, ensuring that there are enough crops to meet demand. |
| Date | 21:09:58, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | Nonsense: supermarkets and food chains overcome that reluctance by demanding the crops their customers want and adjusting their offer prices accordingly. |
| Date | 01:16:34, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | Yes, we are talking about peoples lives, we subsidise these crops because food should be cheap and easily available, and we ask farmers to provide a variety of crops because a varied diet improves health. We are not against farmers because we subsidise them, how can we be trying to bankrupt them by paying them? |
| Date | 08:35:52, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | You shouldn't be voting against then, you shell shocked lunatic. We want to pay the one's that need it most (and ideally the ones that help the environment) and save the country sports industry from the ruin created by the hunting ban. |
| Date | 09:10:00, August 15, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | hahahaha! "ideally the ones that help the environment" and yet: ruin created by the hunting ban so apparently, it's fine for hunters to damage the environment for entertainment, but not OK for farmers to damage it while growing food? i would also like you to point out the part where it says the money will go towards the environmentally farmers. |
| Date | 09:19:32, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | Shell Shocked Lunatic, wow, your 100% right there. I'm certifiable, because I don't like WMDs, I'm not a full blown monarchist, I support GM crops, I want to build shelters for the public, I want to give aid, I want to accept refugees, I'm not homophobic, etc, etc, etc. If you can't debate on the merits of the proposal, don't turn this into a shouting match. I am persuaded by a bills effects, not on whether I'm insulted good (although I have to give you points for Shell Shocked Lunatic, another party we once had just stuck to calling us Commies, variety is the spice of life). |
| Date | 10:11:45, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | I am role-playing a very vocal party leader here ;) Hunting with dogs aids the fox population by enhancing natural selection. Controlling the same fox population by trapping and shooting does nothing to aid natural selection as the fast, young, healthy foxes can still be trapped. poisoned or shot. That is how it aids the environment. |
| Date | 10:41:08, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Agriculture and Rural Reform |
| Message | That is the most unique use of Darwinism I have ever seen that actually makes sense. Although I didn't realise we trapped or shot any animals here. We have very strict animal rights legislation. Two thumbs up for the Darwinism argument. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 82 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 555 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 55 |
| Random fact: Particracy has been running since 2005. Dorvik was Particracy's first nation, the Dorvik Social Democrats the first party and the International Greens the first Party Organisation. |
| Random quote: "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike." - Oscar Wilde |