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: Agrarian Reform Act of 3148
Details
Submitted by[?]: Genuine Progress Alliance
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: March 3149
Description[?]:
| This bill aims to allow an individual to own up to seven hectares of farm land. If it exceeds the seven-hectare limit, the land must be broken and redistributed between the original owner and the individual tenants of the farm. From this redistribution, each tenant can acquire up to three hectares of irrigated land or up to five hectares of unused land. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning farm size.
Old value:: Farm size is not regulated.
Current: Farm size regulations are determined by local governments.
Proposed: Farms that grow too large are broken up and the land redistributed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:12:24, July 07, 2011 CET | From | Social Democrats Union | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | No, way, this is communism. A farmer has had to work hard to get the farm to that size and to take it away and redistribute it is a redistribution of wealth which is communism. |
| Date | 07:19:04, July 07, 2011 CET | From | New Aloria Party (NAP) | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | redistribution of wealth is Socialism is it not? Accroding to the 2008 U.S. Preisential campgain. xD "I understand where this bill is coming from but, they did work hard for this land and it should be theirs"-Senator Lee. |
| Date | 07:19:38, July 07, 2011 CET | From | Genuine Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | It would be good if this was because of a farmer. The problem is that the owners of the farm don't necessarily have to be farmers themselves. They just own it and have farmers as tenants to work for them. This proposal is intended to help out the little guy, which in this case are the individual farmer-tenants working in that particular farm. Also, if an individual were to own a huge portion of farm land, he may be able to create a monopoly in his area. |
| Date | 07:24:09, July 07, 2011 CET | From | Social Democrats Union | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | GPA, shouldn't the farmers be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labour? PP, socialism and communism are basically the same thing its just that people get away when they call themselves socialist but not when they call themselves communist. Strange isn't it? |
| Date | 07:36:24, July 07, 2011 CET | From | Genuine Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | SDU, that's true. But then, if we leave farm sizes to be unregulated we could have a province wherein all of its agricultural land is owned by one person. He doesn't even have to be a farmer himself; he could have just inherited it from his ancestors who happened to be farmers and simply allowed individual farmer tenants (who do NOT own the land) to do the farming for him. OOC: I'm actually basing this proposal on the agrarian reform program in my country. Not exactly the best program ever, but it aims to help out poor farmers who toiled so hard on farming a land they don't even own and only get a small percentage of its earnings, while the owners themselves don't have to do the farming yet acquire the agricultural profit. |
| Date | 07:44:01, July 07, 2011 CET | From | Social Democrats Union | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | A whole province owned by one farmer? That is very unlikely and extreme example there. Anyway, what if the farmers who receive the land are not even good farmers at all but are just people from the city enticed by the prospect of owning a large and healthy farm? Then the farm will fail, the policy will fail and there will be food shortages. GPA, this sort of thing happened in East Germany before re-unification in 1990. East Germany was basically a puppet state of the Soviet Union and the farms in East Germany just failed due to this policy and when we reunited, the government had a big problem to fix up all the farms and get them up to standard with West Germany. What seemed like a good idea at the time turned out to be an utter, utter failure. Kind of like mass immigration, no integration and multiculturalism but thats another story altogether.......... |
| Date | 07:57:27, July 07, 2011 CET | From | Genuine Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | That is why the land will be given to farmers who had served as tenants of the land. We don't give it out randomly to interested individuals; it would be given to those who already had experience with farming in the land. And a whole province owned by one farmer? Maybe unlikely, but how about a whole family? Specifically, a whole political family? One point I'd like to emphasize is that the land owner isn't necessarily a farmer himself. He just owns the land, period, and can always leave the farming to his farmer-tenants. Maybe it's because we're thinking of different kinds of farms here. I'm actually referring more on the hacienda system, where very rich people own huge portions of farm land. |
| Date | 09:46:24, July 07, 2011 CET | From | Social Democrats Union | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | Rich people owning huge portions of land? Whole political families owning masses of land? I'm sorry but that is called feudalism and the world (well Europe at least) has moved on from feudalism about 600 years ago. This sort of policy is not needed as it will fail and we don't live in a feudalist society anymore. What's next? Collective farming? |
| Date | 04:14:17, July 08, 2011 CET | From | Genuine Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Agrarian Reform Act of 3148 |
| Message | Actually, political families owning huge masses of land still exists up to this day. The best example I could give you is the Hacienda Luisita property in Tarlac, Philippines. The property is owned by the Cojuangcos and the Aquinos. It is a 6435-hectare plantation estate that primarily plants sugarcane. It's also the second-biggest family-owned piece of land in the Philippines. As you would expect, the Cojuangcos and the Aquinos would inevitably have considerable political power as well not only in Tarlac province but also in the Philippines itself. When President Corazon Aquino took over, she initiated a comprehensive agrarian reform program to distribute huge pieces of land to farmers. Interestingly, though, the Hacienda Luisita of her family was exempted. And guess who our president is today? President Noynoy Aquino. Until now, the issue with Hacienda Luisita is still very much alive especially with another Aquino as the nation's president. If you want more resources, you can refer to these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacienda_Luisita http://www.chrispforr.net/row2/chrisphil3/luisita/luisita.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/world/asia/15phils.html |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 176 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 130 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 444 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." - Ambrose Bierce |