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: Farming
Details
Submitted by[?]: Seosavists Republican party
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: December 2152
Description[?]:
Agriculture highest:211 / 1000 Agriculture is higly under-developed. Fortunately, no-one will starve, even if there is a poor harvest, but agricultural production is still low, and food imports are often necessary. lowest:157/1000 Farming is subsistence-only, and takes place on a few small and arid fields in the local dustbowls. If the rains fail, farmers face starvation! People are staving we need to help them! |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: Agricultural crops which are considered beneficial to the enviroment or to the continued ecological safety of the state are subsidized.
Current: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Proposed: The government subsidises agriculture based on market demand for the crop being grown.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 21:52:09, December 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | That's what I always supported. |
Date | 22:04:46, December 06, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | This will promote short-sighted industrial methods that damage the environment and the health of our subjects. |
Date | 03:15:04, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | I'm in a deep moral quandary. Do I support a bill that will damage the environment, or let people starve. I'll vote for this, and look for other ways to help both agriculture and the environment. |
Date | 20:29:23, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | As I've just said in the "Save the Forests!!!" bill I'll vote yes for that bill if both DUP and GSJ vote yes to this. |
Date | 21:17:09, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | We can't vote for this. At best it's interfering with the free market: at worst a path to ecological disaster. |
Date | 21:26:28, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | The free market isn't working, we need to raise productivity and invest in farmers then when they are properly established and can afford to reinvest in themselves we can bring back the current law. PEOPLE ARE STARVING! |
Date | 21:35:56, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | I'd rather a few starve than us all be forced to pay for GM, pesticide-ridden, processed food that I wouldn't feed my dog! |
Date | 22:37:47, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | Where does what's put on the crops being debated! THIS IS ABOUT THE CROPS THEMSELVES, the current law is a about giving to crops that don't affect bio-diversity and don't interfere with wild life, nothing to do with what you're talking about. And if that's your opinion then other people might agree with you hence there is market demand for non-GM, non-pesticide-ridden, non-processed food, or people might not be as paranoid as you. Now I'm done trying to change your opinion, we all know that you don't let facts and you being mistaken over what something is about ever get in the way of your opinion!! |
Date | 07:13:14, December 08, 2005 CET | From | United Conservative Party | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | Give me a break. |
Date | 09:07:51, December 08, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Farming |
Message | Okay. Arm or leg. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||
yes | Total Seats: 328 | |||||
no |
Total Seats: 422 | |||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
Random quote: "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire |