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: Agricultural Reform.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Axis Mundi Democratic Bloc
Status[?]: passed
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 2498
Description[?]:
| The SGP proposes the following. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
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 farm size.
Old value:: Farms that grow too large are broken up and the land redistributed.
Current: Farm size is not regulated.
Proposed: Small farms are encouraged to merge together into larger ones.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:55:58, December 05, 2007 CET | From | Axis Mundi Democratic Bloc | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | The SGP submits the following for consideration. Article One will guarantee a decent standard of living for a vital sector of our economy and society. If we do not support our farmers, then we will become ever reliant on imports. Article Two proposes that small farms be merged into communal farms. This will provide a variety of different grains and produce from a single source, or a greater amount of a single crop. The quality of the crop will also be standardised if farms are merged, (same land, same resources, same weather etc). |
| Date | 20:43:35, December 05, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | (1) STRONGLY support; (2) ADAMANTLY oppose; INEFFICIENT domestic farmers should not get subsidies. Rather, we should import farm crops from countries which are more productive and efficient while we export to those countries what are more efficient and productive to us. However, the current law of local governments crafting policy is ok, but if the bill stands as is, we will abstain. |
| Date | 01:50:41, December 06, 2007 CET | From | Axis Mundi Democratic Bloc | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | With the cost of imports, we could subsidise our own farmers who in turn could produce the crops we need. It seems inefficient to rely on imports when it is possible to increase self-sustainability for a similar cost. Also, a diplomatic conflict with a country we are importing from could result in a shortage of vital crops and would force us to look elsewhere for our needs, most likely at a higher price. |
| Date | 05:45:33, December 06, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | SGP, Likatonian Farmers (literally) LEAD the world in Biotechnology; however, some of the less developed nations are more efficient (meaning they can produce MORE at a lower price) in the production of RAW agricultural crops. Therefore, instead of "subsidizing," would it not be BETTER for us to negotiate a Multi-Lateral Trade Agreement where Likatonian Farmers EXPORT their biotechnology (service) to the less developed nations, and then they, in turn, export their raw crops to our markets at a lower price than what our crops would bring??? |
| Date | 06:45:54, December 06, 2007 CET | From | Permissive Social Union | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | We will support this legislation. Congratulations to the SGP for overhauling this long-neglected area. |
| Date | 07:36:01, December 06, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | CWFP - you entirely missed an important element... if we import our food, other nations have us over a barrel. If we have conflicts, all they have to do is cut off our food supply. Even if we don't conflict with that nation, any given nation can harrass our supply lines. Being dependent is never a good thing. Being dependent for FOOD is just stupid. We wish we could support this bill - the old AM SuDP leadership still hold some sway, and we've been very divided on it - in the end, we must oppose, because the bill removes the local control element. |
| Date | 18:18:47, December 06, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | TDP, under my Free Trade plan, Likatonia will NOT be "dependent" on others for food, per say, b/c it will be clearly stipulated in the trade agreement that in order to sell food to us, they MUST buy our biotechnology where we will be connected. Therefore, if they cut off the food supply, we cut off the biotechnology and revert back to subsidies while they STARVE. Most likely, they will renege on our deal and risk starvation as "third world status" |
| Date | 19:55:27, December 06, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | The CWFP are long on ideas, and short on clues. If we establish a relationship with - for example, Hobrazia - that says we buy their food, and they buy our biotechnology, we DO form a dependent relationship - a mutual dependency. But what happens if there is war with Hobrazia? (It doesn't have to be war - that's just an example - it could be Keymonese pirates or a hundred other factors). They cut off our food, so we cut off their biotechnology. 1) What if it is Keymonese privateers that are the problem? We turn Hobrazia against us. more importantly: 2) We start starving. So we resort to a subsidises economy - that's the CWFP plan. Then we wait a year for the food to grow, right.... The CWFP plan ignores the fact that we will have an entire growing cycle to wait. Last point: 3) We cut off their biotechnology... and? So - they can still use what we have sold them. Biotechnology isn't something you 'eat up'. WE are the ones who starve. The CWFP really need to get a clue about how the world works. |
| Date | 21:15:01, December 06, 2007 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | No to both - farmers are intelligent enough to know if the size of their farm is appropiate or not, and need no subsidies to produce effeciently. |
| Date | 02:30:02, December 07, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | We will support. |
| Date | 05:56:46, December 07, 2007 CET | From | Permissive Social Union | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | The LFF will support. |
| Date | 20:28:56, December 07, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Workers' Party and CTUL List | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | Lovely. We support. |
| Date | 03:28:39, December 08, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | "We DO form a dependent relationship - a mutual dependency. But what happens if there is war with Hobrazia? (It doesn't have to be war - that's just an example - it could be Keymonese pirates or a hundred other factors)."---TDP TDP, you still miss the point about why free trade is important. You see, if nations across the world became MUTUALLY dependent on one another, then that automatically would lessen violent conflicts and war. In fact, that is the ONLY way to bring about World Peace: that is to TRADE. [OOC] In fact, the famous Russian Novelist, Ayn Rand, made a very interesting point: "If nations do not let goods and services cross their border, then SOLDIERS will!!!" |
| Date | 06:57:13, December 08, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Agricultural Reform. |
| Message | OOC: more real world nonsense? Ayn Rand never made a point worth repeating. I'd be more likely to look to Hitler for good sense. IC: How ridiculous. The CWFP honestly believes all trade is equal? If we are dependent pm another nation to feed us, they don't need to be violent with us. All they have to do is withhold food, and we'll capitulate. Terra is crisscrossed with international trade, and yet we still see wars... obviously trade doesn't assure peace. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 309 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 83 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 274 |
| Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner. |
| Random quote: "In any country there must be people who have to die. They are the sacrifices any nation has to make to achieve law and order." - Idi Amin |