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 Land Regulation Act of 2073
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution 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: June 2075
Description[?]:
| There needs to be some kind of policy. In this case, it is best left to the prefectures. That way, areas with sensitive ecological centres can keep land for farming from encrouching on protected land and those without can encourage growth. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning farm size.
Old value:: Farm size is not regulated.
Current: Farm size is not regulated.
Proposed: Farm size regulations are determined by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:59:28, June 29, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | SLP: I believe you are mis-understanding this bill. It has nothing to do with the total amount of land farmed or with the environment. It is simply about how much land a single farmer can own and operate. At present, they can own as much as they can buy, but are still subject to local zoning laws, which can stop them from encroaching on protected land sufficiently already. Our preference is that the land is broken up and redistributed. That should alleviate the problem of environmentally and economically unstable "corporate" farming practices. |
| Date | 22:00:37, June 29, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | The only problem with land reform schemes are the inefficiencies and potential corruptions of them, both of which are problems that are legion. So, on second thought, we are in favor of farm size being unregulated. |
| Date | 22:55:21, June 29, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | We're with LFP ...unless he changes his mind (again) |
| Date | 00:30:48, June 30, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | PP: My mind is changeable because, unlike you, I work for the good of the country rather than appealing to my constituency. If someone else offers an alternative that is superior to my established position, then I go with the one that will help the nation more. And in other news, I'm starting to doubt the patriotism of my fellows in the Council. All of you seem hell-bent on your own ideologies and not giving a damn about compromise, unity, or moderation. Have you all become radicalized? Everyone keeps demanding alliances out of me and accusing me of "backstabbing" my allies. Once and for all, stop thinking of yourself as my ally! I align with that which is in the best interests of Likatonia, NOT what is in the best interest of my supporters and constituency. |
| Date | 00:59:18, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | This isn't land reform. It's more about land protection. It's also leaving it to the prfestures and not to the state. |
| Date | 01:57:20, June 30, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | OOC: No, it's land reform. I should know. I was one of the driving forces behind it being installed as a bill. I helped craft it, it reflects my idea of what it is and not yours. See the thread about it on the forum. |
| Date | 02:36:16, June 30, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | OOC: Sorry to sound elitist about that. I shouldn't have let it bother me. |
| Date | 05:58:50, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | While it may seemed to be based on it, I think in this case, it is more about land protection. Further, we ought to really leave it to local governments. A one-size fits all nastional policy in this case won't work, neither will lack of regulation. |
| Date | 11:26:50, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | LFP: personally I feel that I am becoming more centrist, rather than more radical. I don't think there should be regulation on this. we already subsidise family farms, so that should prevent too much corporatisation. |
| Date | 15:58:13, June 30, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | LPE: That rant was towards the Socialist Liberal Party and the People's Party, who are more and more dividing on strict partisan lines. And yes, you're more centrist than you were. SLP: I'll support this. |
| Date | 16:01:06, June 30, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | Wait, no. Argh, we'll just leave it unregulated. The moral issues are really thorny. Breaking up land: "This farms been in my family for years. It only got so big because I managed it well!" Collectivizing: "What do you mean I'm supposed to give up my farm? I don't care how much more money I'll get, I'm not doing it." |
| Date | 01:47:35, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | I acknowledge that it one, LFP, but perhaps you could consider the ecological benefits if we prevent the encroching of farm land into sensitive ecological areas. Especially since we have other acts to protect species. |
| Date | 00:27:55, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | SLP:This is nothing to do with ecology. It is to do with ownership. As long as we keep the farming subsidies, I support maintaining the current situation. If they get axed, then it is a different matter. |
| Date | 00:53:42, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | well actually LFP laws get misinterpreated all the time by Judges and the likes because they are written in a way that is potentially unclear. |
| Date | 05:08:15, July 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Farming Land Regulation Act of 2073 |
| Message | RWLP/SLP: I really don't care much. As the co-author of a law, I'm only going to support it on the grounds that I authored it to be. The practical effects of this will have nothing to do with ecology. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 44 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 129 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 27 |
| Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
| Random quote: "Civil disobedience. . . is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem." - Howard Zinn |