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: Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kirla Tea 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: April 3678
Description[?]:
| While digging through numerous acts and thick volumes of current legislation, our party specialists have discovered the disturbing regulations concerning the agriculture, which clearly is relict of old, dark days, where people were considered human resources without any laws. Article 1. The criteria for the subsidies made 'having inefficient, low-income land' a proffitable way to cadge the subsidies. The abuse of the subsidies had also negative impact on real,hardworking farmers who didn't get subsidies, but had to pay taxes to support the imposters instead. Article 2. Old law prevents the real farmers to grow their farms and make them more efficient. Small, not efficient farms were the first reason why we had need to put subsidies there(look Art.1). Without the size regulations, farmers will be able to maximize their work efficiency. Article 3. Forest regulations where only nationalized forests are allowed, prevented citizens from planting their own private forests, and if they had done so in the past, they were losing the rights to their land which was seized by the government agencies. Not only it limited the private and economic freedoms, but it also had negative impact on the enviroment. Deregulation in this aspect won't change the status of the national forests we have now, but will add new privately run forest areas and as another long-term effect it will influence the lower prices of wood-made products. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Current: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Proposed: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
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: Farm size is not regulated.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Current: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Proposed: There is a national agency which exists side-by-side with commercial forestry companies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:16:36, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Kirla Tea Party | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | Article 1. The criteria for the subsidies made 'having inefficient, low-income land' a proffitable way to cadge the subsidies. The abuse of the subsidies had also negative impact on real farmers who didn't get subsidies, but had to pay taxes to support the imposters. Article 2. Old law prevents the real farmers to grow their farms and make them more efficient. Small, not efficient farms were the first reason why we had need to put subsidies there. Without the size regulations, farmers will be able to maximize their work efficiency Article 3. Forest regulations where only nationalized forests are allowed prevented citizens from planting their own private forests, and if they had done so in the past, they were losing the rights to their land which was seized by the government agencies. Not only it limited the private and economic freedoms, but it also had negative impact on the enviroment. Deregulation in this aspect won't change the status of the national forests we have now, but will add new privately run forests and as another long-term effect it will influence the lower prices of wood-made products. |
| Date | 18:28:25, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | We voice concern over article 2. The policy is anti-trust in nature to our understanding (in line with anti-monopoly policies in other areas of industry), and helps to break up corporate factory farming (and it's myriad of ethically dubious actions, and the downsides of overly centralized economies) in favor of preserving the noble institution of the family farm. What say the kirla tea party to this? |
| Date | 19:39:03, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Kirla Tea Party | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | Answering Virtue and Righteousness Party concerns: It is immoral to force consumers, as well as taxpayers to sustain a business that can't sustain itself and compete on free market. We believe that in matters like this it is final consumer who decides. If choosing products from traditional family farms, over large business is the best for consumers, they will choose those products. People know the best what's the best for them. If people choose evergrowing monopolies & for some reason those monopolists try to implement doubious practices, as long as we'll have free market, competition offering better alternative will show immidately. We don't reserve right to decide what's the best for people. We let each person to decide for themselves. |
| Date | 20:55:10, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | Consumers are oft blind and irrational, and most certainly don't know what's best for themselves. Granted I believe in a fairly large degree of freedom in people spending their own money, partly out of the efficiency of the system, and partially because I believe in people being free, even if they're stupid and make wrong choices. But I draw the line here. |
| Date | 20:59:16, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | Ooc: should have said "we" not "I" |
| Date | 22:19:03, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Kirla Tea Party | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | 'Food and beverage labeling regulations: Companies must clearly label food and beverage products, in a manner that can be easily understood.' As long as they can read, there shouldn't be much problem. |
| Date | 22:26:45, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | Not all factors in why someone should or should not purchase a product is in the labeling , and that assumes they choose to read it or understand what the ingredients and their effects are... |
| Date | 22:46:25, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | In reality the consumer-centric approach is not realy the way We look at this in the first place. We believe in the small and local, not the distant and powerful: both in politics and economics. Whether private or public the fact is that power tends to be abused, big government and big business are powerful. In addition those whom make decision distant from you are less responsive and more exploitive because they have less societal pressure (outside the local community) to act moral and in addition they usually view you as "out-group" and thus their is a division between theirs and yours interests. Also big businesses use their private power to influence public policy in their favor, whether subsidies, bail-outs, regulatory capture (making regulations that mostly hurt the competition), etc. they encourage big government, in addition since less people are business owners in a centralized economy and because they are exploited by those whom have power they too begin wanting bigger government and petitioning for interventionism. The political elite become blurred with the economic elite. Communists believe in solving this is centralization on the state, but this power is often abused even more so as the state is more powerful then the private sector in terms of brute force and direct social controls. We argue for small government and small business. |
| Date | 05:31:21, June 08, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawa Liberal Party | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | I don't know why the tea party thinks these regulations are in their words "Disturbing" these laws are perfectly fine and we see no need to change them. |
| Date | 14:18:34, June 08, 2014 CET | From | Kirla Tea Party | To | Debating the Anti-agrarian-collectivism reform |
| Message | They prohibits our citizens to act freely Citizens aren't permitted grow their farms too big. Citizens aren't permitted to plant forests. There is a number of useless regulations here, that limits freedom of our citizens. Was it caprice of ruling parties of the past to make lives of our citizens more limited? And can we really accept treating people as the mindless slaves in the current modern times? Looking at how many members of assembly vote 'NO' to this proposal,we were able to see that political class is still thinking of themselves as 'electable slavemasters'. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 224 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 493 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Your user name is not your party name. Choose a concise and easy to remember user name. You can change your party name at any point in time later in the game. |
| Random quote: "A man who has no office to go to - I don't care who he is - is a trial of which you can have no conception." - George Bernard Shaw |