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: Land reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
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: April 2075
Description[?]:
In an attempt to create a compromise which permits individuals to run their farms but still prevent the exploitation of the workers at the hands of large companies we propose the following. |
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 allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Proposed: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 00:00:52, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | we agree with article 1 and 2. |
Date | 00:27:23, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | sorry 2 is so-so for us, some farms may wish to become conglomerated to save money. |
Date | 01:10:42, June 30, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | We certainly agree with article 2, but we're not about to hand the land back to the capitalists. |
Date | 01:58:12, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | The idea of course is that this would prevent the land from being in the hands of the big businesses. The farms can still form collectives however the land ownership is limited by size. It seems like it can achieve the aims of the LibCom party in a manner which we could agree to. |
Date | 03:40:19, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | Dude, if the people (IE - FARMERS!) want collectivisation, they can get it now. |
Date | 08:56:50, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | Obviously we cannot support the first clause, but we would support clause two. This bill should be split into to seperate bills. |
Date | 14:07:44, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | "Dude, if the people (IE - FARMERS!) want collectivisation, they can get it now." dude, they're forced to get it, they have no choice in the matter. |
Date | 14:08:24, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | but definitely separate into two bills, we can't risk losing part 1 becuase some parties disagree with point 2. |
Date | 14:52:45, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | Comments on local verses low income subsidies. we prefer local, as they are the closest to the issue at hand and thus can formulate the best policy for their region. |
Date | 14:53:29, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | Removed article 2 since their seems to be no interest in working toward a united policy. |
Date | 15:18:59, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | we can work on 2 in another debate, we have no problem compromising on that issue, so long as it is clear why there would be a break up of large farms and for whose benefit etc. we support. go to vote. |
Date | 21:46:50, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Party | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | Is there more to this bill? It appears that the only change will be 1) Local governments manage agricultural operations while the Federal government maintains ownership and 2) Local governments can determine subsidies to an industry owned by the Fed. Why would the federal government need subsidies determined by local governments? If we have misinterpreted this proposal, please clarify. |
Date | 00:05:31, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Land reform |
Message | Under our current system the government does not actually own the land rather it is owned collectively by those who work it after it was seized from the previous landowners by the government a few years back. The use of this land is dictated by local boards and the production is distributed equally among all the local workers. It is a collective farm system with private ownership. Confusing to get that from the current wording and we invite LibCom to correct any issues we got wrong. This bill will instead remove that requirement of collective farms and permit local governments to develop their own policies. Thus the landowners can sell their land to agrbuisness, collectivize or convert their land to golf courses as long as the local regulations permit it. Any further effects for the farms remaining are determined by local governments in regards to subsidies. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 52 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 43 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 5 |
Random fact: When your party holds the foreign affairs department, you can create new treaties. However, before writing anything new, it is a good idea to search for existing treaties which already accomplish what you desire. |
Random quote: "How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it." - Marcus Aurelius |