Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: May 5461
Next month in: 00:27:51
Server time: 11:32:08, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Temitayo | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date00:00:52, June 30, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Land reform
Messagewe agree with article 1 and 2.

Date00:27:23, June 30, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Land reform
Messagesorry 2 is so-so for us, some farms may wish to become conglomerated to save money.

Date01:10:42, June 30, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Land reform
MessageWe certainly agree with article 2, but we're not about to hand the land back to the capitalists.

Date01:58:12, June 30, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Land reform
MessageThe 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.

Date03:40:19, June 30, 2005 CET
FromSocial Republican Party
ToDebating the Land reform
MessageDude, if the people (IE - FARMERS!) want collectivisation, they can get it now.

Date08:56:50, June 30, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Land reform
MessageObviously we cannot support the first clause, but we would support clause two. This bill should be split into to seperate bills.

Date14:07:44, June 30, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating 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.

Date14:08:24, June 30, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Land reform
Messagebut definitely separate into two bills, we can't risk losing part 1 becuase some parties disagree with point 2.

Date14:52:45, June 30, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Land reform
MessageComments 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.

Date14:53:29, June 30, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Land reform
MessageRemoved article 2 since their seems to be no interest in working toward a united policy.

Date15:18:59, June 30, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Land reform
Messagewe 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.

Date21:46:50, July 02, 2005 CET
FromVast Right Wing Conspiracy Party
ToDebating the Land reform
MessageIs 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.

Date00:05:31, July 03, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Land reform
MessageUnder 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

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 79