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: Independent Farming
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate 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 2056
Description[?]:
| A return to farms being owned by people and not government. We propose a system of CSA farms permitting sustainable farming practice with little government intervention. The local governments are required to purchase their needs for welfare support and government use from such farms. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: All agricultural operations are state-owned and operated.
Current: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Proposed: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:47:57, May 18, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | Farms are owned by THE people, collectively, as they should be - not by a few individuals. We do not support this attempt at a return to oligarchy. |
| Date | 20:48:40, May 18, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | The farms are owned by the people you say, but they are not free to do anything with the land but farm and are not free to do that even. They are controlled by the local boards and the government to farm what they say. By permitting small farms that can respond to the desires of the people as a CSA will without the danger of bankruptcy we develop a more practical, sustainable agriculture. we would like to point out the need of the LibCom party to cite an example not in farming to show how this system will work. Forced collective farming does not work in practice and those wanting to create collective farms are free to engage in this behavior without the need of the government. |
| Date | 21:07:34, May 18, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | The PP has made some quite absurd assumptions, as we have not even begun to establish the 'local boards and the government' that will administer the collectivized farms. Once again, the PP would rather wreak the institution rather than work to create or better it. This bill is unwarranted until we have established the applicable institutions, a process we hope the ministers of agriculture and economics will begin in the near future. |
| Date | 04:47:18, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | quotes from the debate passing the bill " They lose exclusive property rights over the land, but they still effectively control it as long as they're working it." Sounds like the land is locked into farming unless the local boards say otherwise. It's been four yrs since the creation of the law, how long will it be until the establishment of the local boards. Again we must state that this creates (or perhaps doesn't create since the program is yet to be set up) a needless governemental office which accomplishes nothing. |
| Date | 10:59:58, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | Let us note that the Farm Collectivization bill passed under the FRP-PP led coalition, where it languished for the first two years. You had your chance to define it or set up how it was run then and your party's leaders dropped the ball. Last term was a transition from one government to another, and the issue is only now moving up the agenda. One can hardly blame us for taking our time on a delicate issue, especially given the recent inactivity of the PP's leaders. (ooc: since the rest of us have lives too) This issue can be revisited after the institutions are created and established, and of course the PP will have their chance to take part in that discussion. However, if the PP is so anxious to overturn the Farm Collectivization law then let them be upfront with the fact that they don't want to give the program a chance to work, and would rather adhere to its own ideology without examining new alternatives to our present, and inadequate, economy. |
| Date | 12:27:01, May 19, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | "Sounds like the land is locked into farming unless the local boards say otherwise." PP, are you suggesting that it should be possible to make major changes in land use without any form of planning permission whatsoever? |
| Date | 14:59:22, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | Farmign should not be colectivised. thats where we stand. |
| Date | 18:04:42, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | addressing the LibCom's comments: No we are saying there is a difference between a zoning board, who will look at the impact of the change in use on the area, and a agriculture board who will only see the loss of a farm. Addressing the comments of the LevP: we are not hiding we are against collective farming. We have stated that forced collective farms have not worked in the past. We have stated the current law has created a more bloated governement without an effective change in the system. We must object to the comments of the LevP which state the PP is unwilling to try new alternatives. We have suggested a new system which attempts to create an effective combination of private ownership with safety nets in the form of government support and local involvement. |
| Date | 18:41:45, May 19, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | Note that the original Farm Collectivisation bill says farms will be "operated collectively by those who work on them, with input from their local communities and regional and national planning coordination bodies." So those who work on the farms have the final say - the planning bodies only function in an advisory capacity. In fact the planning bodies are made up of delegates from the farms, and their purpose is to enable individual farms to coordinate their activities rather than working in isolation, so as to avoid shortages or gluts of any particular crop (which would be damaging to everyone). Of course, the RCP is currently responsible for implementing this, and may have a different interpretation. |
| Date | 21:46:16, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | There is nothing new or alternative about private ownership with safety nets; such programs are hold overs from outmoded Keynesian idologies. And right now the PP's criticisms are pure speculation, and yet they expect us to give their nay saying the weight of a proven fact. |
| Date | 21:58:02, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | How does the governement suggest to a farm to produce a lower income crop that may be needed, when it will be in the financial interests of the farm to grow a cash crop which will increase their income? Are there financial incentives? Why did we feel it necessary to take the land from the owners to lease it back to them on the condition they continue to work the land? We understand the desire of the LIbCom party to redistribute the wealth to the workers but was this law the best way to achieve it. Now the land is owned by the government, the workers did not gain it. We again refer to the original debate. " They lose exclusive property rights over the land" Their wages may have gone up but it seems like using a sledgehammer to drive in a thumbtack. We again must state that forced collective farming has not worked in the past, and we see nothing different in this inactment which will change our expectations. CSA's are a good foundation to build upon. The farms are locally managed by the owners/workers. There is a local interest in keeping the farm active. There is financial support to the farmers from the locals. There is the ability to target niche groups where farms cater to the different appetites. There is not the same danger of overlap as in large scale farming since each farm is responding to those who have purchased shares of the yield, thus the food is already sold, before it is even planted. |
| Date | 23:21:36, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | The land is, categorically, NOT owned by the government. To quote the original bill: "Note that 'state-owned and operated' in the proposal should be interpreted as meaning that the farms are socially owned, and operated collectively by those who work on them" Social ownership is a form of ownership where all members of society have equal claim to the products of the property in question, but the property is still administered privately. In this case, the farms are run as cooperatives, while the production and product are overseen by the population throgh planning boards. This is not a centralized planned economy, it is a coodinated economy that preserves ex post market adjustment. We should also consider the issue of food security; cash crops are rarely grown for domestic consumption, and it is equally rare that crops intended to feed the local population are as profitable as export crops. If the PP were to research the causes of the failure of collective farming efforts in the past, most, if not all, failure can be traced back to the failure to provide farmers an incentive to produce more than what they needed for themselves, since they gained no additional payment for growing excess food. We, of course, do not intend to repeat such an obvious mistake, and the problem can be solved quite simply. Pay farmers per ton. Problem solved, as we have retained the incentive to produce as much as possible, rather than as much as they need locally. So to review, the government does not own the farm land, nor does the government administer it. The manner through which it is adminstered is now a question of implementation. The PP's opposition to this program is not rooted in any normative questions of efficacy, but in an ideological prefernce for private ownership, an institution that has produced more inequality and poverty than any ideology on the planet. This attempt to create a functioning method of food production that does not create structural inequality should be allowed to go forward, rather than be obstructed by the very definition of reactionary parties. |
| Date | 11:21:00, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | forced collective farming is ridiculously outmoded and has never succesfully worked in history. Farmers can form unions and work together if they choose. In South America, farmers willfully collectivise their land based on need and incentive. especially in coffee growing areas. in other areas, it is more economical to form a union to manage the sale of crops so everyone earns a living. forcing collectivisation is not a good idea because it is property theft on a grand scale. why should farmers turn their property into a farm when they know they lose property rights to the land? what about current farmers who purchased the land themselves, suddenly its no longer theirs! its legalized property theft in the name of an old communist ideal that never worked. |
| Date | 15:41:15, May 20, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | Property is theft in the first place. It was all communally owned until the rich and powerful carved it up amongst themselves by force. Collectivisation simply re-levels the playing field. Smallholders have nothing to lose by it - as you point out they often do it voluntarily in any case. In any case it's already done. Do you propose that the workers who now control the land return to wage slavery? |
| Date | 17:31:49, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | Smallholders do lose out in the ability to do what they want with the land. The workers do not control the land, they are just working for a different boss. |
| Date | 17:34:15, May 20, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | The act makes it perfectly clear that the workers do in fact control the land. Who's this different boss you claim they're working for? |
| Date | 22:29:56, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | Currently the worker no longer gets paid for their efforts, rather the efforts of their community of which they are only a small part. This encourages less then optimal output since those who work the hardest get a lower benefit for their increased effort. While those who work less receive the same rewards. Thus the workers are not working for themselves rather they work for the different boss of the entire collective. The workers may have a say in the running of the land but each one cannot plant for themselves but for the commune, thus they do not control their land. Only willing collective farming has led to an increase in production levels over independent farming. We are decreasing the effectiveness of our farm lands by our current system. we should be strengthing the productivity of the land not weaking it. |
| Date | 05:50:58, May 23, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Independent Farming |
| Message | "Currently the worker no longer gets paid for their efforts, rather the efforts of their community of which they are only a small part." Once again, assuming facts not in evidence. "The workers may have a say in the running of the land but each one cannot plant for themselves but for the commune, thus they do not control their land." See above regarding facts in evidence. The fact is that the PP's view of 'collectivized' farming is based on only one possible model of how you organize agriculture without private ownership. That they assume this one alternative is the only alternative shouldn't be held against the rest of us who know better. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 31 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 69 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Cabinet ministers who disagree seriously with the head of government would usually be expected to resign. Parties within the cabinet may attempt to manoeuvre to replace the head of government though, for example by proposing a new cabinet bill or voting for an early election. |
| Random quote: "Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life." - Potter Stewart |