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: Agricultural policy devolution
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
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: November 2080
Description[?]:
| State governments will be permitted freedom of action with regard to land reform policy. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning farm size.
Old value:: Farm size is not regulated.
Current: Farms that grow too large are broken up and the land redistributed.
Proposed: Farm size regulations are determined by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:17:56, June 30, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Why would the CCF greens feel the need to regulate the size of a farm? Who deserves the "freedom of action", the state governments, or the people that those governments are supposed to represent. We cannot see why anyone should have any right to "regulate" the size of any one else's farm. |
| Date | 15:06:02, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Let the market determine Farm size. How is it any business of the government? We oppose this very strongly. |
| Date | 18:41:12, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | We completely agree that farm size is no business of the federal government. The intent of this bill is to allow local governments to craft agricultural policy. This is the law of Lodamun already: local governments set agriculture policy. Refusing to allow them to pass laws on land use is an unjustifiable infringement on local freedoms. |
| Date | 18:50:37, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Allowing them to set a farm size policy is an unjustifiable on personal freedoms. World<Nation<State<Individual Citizens |
| Date | 19:00:20, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | *unjustifiable infringement on personal freedoms |
| Date | 20:18:31, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Government is a many headed beast. Local government is just as much government as central government. While we are willing to negotiate local control in many areas, that of land ownership is so basic and fundamental to personal freedom, that we have great difficulty in seeing the justification of permitting local governments control this ownership. That agricultural policy, in terms of subsidies and investment etc. is in local government hands is sufficient to reflect the regional differences in our nation. Allowing the government to define if a person may or may not own above a certain quantity of land is too much interference in the affairs of the citizens. We oppose this bill for these reasons. |
| Date | 18:01:35, July 03, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Property has nothing to do with personal freedom. Economic freedom, perhaps, but not personal freedom. |
| Date | 23:25:23, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Oh, so it is OK to be free to not own things. But not free to own them. Don't be dense. Economic and personal freedom are inseperable. It is impossible to have one without the other. |
| Date | 06:15:39, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | We wojuld welcome the view sof other paretie on whether the central government should interfere with locla governments' jurisdiction over agriculture. |
| Date | 06:58:44, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | The Council opposes, as was (hopefully) expected. |
| Date | 16:38:03, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | This is not about jurisdiction on agriculture. It is about ownership of land. The two are different things. Local government may subsidise or not certain types of agricultural activities. It may support specific crops etc. What it does not have the right to do is to limit private ownership of land, nor does it have the right to define what a land owner will do with his or her land. It may influence these decisions by providing better conditions for one activity than another, but it does not, and should not, have the power to define them. |
| Date | 20:29:04, July 13, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | ((Stating a fact here for RP purposes, but i think it's consistent with how Kregon has operated in the past and with the new income inequality graphs on the region pages)) A message from Maya Dutro, Governor of Kregon Kregon is covered in enormous estates, while the majority of rural people are landless, forced to toil on the estates of the rich and powerful. Kregon's income inequality shames us. The state administration wishes to engage in a land reform process. We have already taken advantage of laws allowing us to set agricultural policy, by offering tax incentives for farms wishing to operate as cooperatives and providing rural micro-credit to small farmers, especially women. It is time for the next step. I am introducting into the state legislative assembly a proposal for land reform. The intent is to pass control of the land to the peopel who farm it and live on it, reducing the power of large estate-owners. In stage one, land rents (now averaging 50%) will be capped at 33%. In stage two, set for 2081, all farmers will be given the opportunity to buy their land from the estate. This will of course be easier for agricultural cooperatives able to pool their capital. The state government will also make available small loans for farmers wishing to buy their own plots. Landowners will be required to sell at the market value which they now report for tax purposes. Federal law currently prevents Kregon from implementing stage three, planned for implementation beginning in 2082, which will enforce the sale (assuming buyers can be found) of all estates over 100 hectares. We wish to limit any individual owner to farms of 100 ha in size, to prevent the entrenchment of an established wealthy landowner group and return land to the tiller. It will also prevent the grwoth of a new group of rich farmers by preventing the growth of larger farms. Obviously there will be full compensation to the landowners. Agricultural cooperatives will be permitted to exceed the 100-ha limit. On behalf of the state of Kregon, i am requesting a change in federal law to allow us to proceed with this long overdue land reform. |
| Date | 21:06:58, July 13, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | I will vote "no" for reasons thoroughly explained above. |
| Date | 23:30:25, July 13, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | We confess ourselves to be more than slightly confused by this statement from the Kregon council ((OOC please change the name as Dutra was a corrupt politician here, so I will not be able to take seriously anything announced by Dutro!)) As Ttey have already changed the law their to favour the smaller land holder economically. Then they should simply wait until the economic forces take effect. There impatience does not constitute a valid reason for forcible land confiscation. We are confused though as to why women take preference over families, but that is their decision. With regard to land rent, these are quoted in percentages. We would like to know what these percentages refer to. The value of the land, the value of the crop, the price of a new tractor? We do not agree to allow eminent domain to be used for private purposes, so sorry Kregon, but in our opinion you will have to find some other way of eliminating the economies of scale from your agricultural output. We would remind Kregon of their commitment to a free democratic society, one in which a man may hold their property to belong to them. We are concerned that the policy agricultural policy makers in Kregon are disregarding their populations express preference for a capitalist rather than regulated market. Land trading is done in this market. We also do not see any greatly uneven distribution of income in the State. There is no economic reason for this move. The overall profile of the Kregonite is that of a traditionalist with an eye to the environment. This movement would damge both the traditional structure of the society ther and make environmental initiatives much harder to undertake. We oppose both on our own principles and on the basis that our two Kregonite party members inform us that this proposal does not have grass roots support in the state. R Feynman (Agriculture Spokesman - ASP) |
| Date | 03:28:08, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | ((Seriously? you want me to change the name when we have William Gladstone and Adam Smith in the cabinet?)) The advice of the ASP speaker is irrelevant. Market forces tend to concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy. As long as big business and agribusiness exist, the invisible hand in which they place so much faith is irrelevant. Nor do we accept that land ownership is a "right." But the main issue is that the federal government is interfering with states' rights to set our own agricultural policy. We are convinced that the people desire land reform: this bill has been in debate for some years and Kregon voted for our party knowing that this was our policy. - Governor's office |
| Date | 06:36:29, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | I meant to vote "no" sorry for any inconvenience *turns red and shuffles away* |
| Date | 07:14:35, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | CCF caused more confusion than you did DSP... |
| Date | 15:11:10, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | ((Not seriously no, just a comment on my reaction to the name - sometimes things can be significant without others realising it, particularly in international contexts)) Unrestricted market forces do tend to create efficient solutions, which you describe faslely as concentrating power in the hands of the rich. However the local government has already imposed considerable leverage on the market in Kregon, as you yourself have described. This leverage is distortion sufficient to cause the loss of efficiency that large farms bring to food production and environmental safeguarding and result in a return to virtual subsistence farming. The nation has gone, thanks to this interference in the market from being a nett food exporter to having to import small amounts of coffee and other high altitude crops. The policies in Kregon are already having effect. There is no need to create the precedent of using eminent domain to benefit specific individuals. We oppose. A Smith - ASP |
| Date | 18:08:55, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Eminent domain is irrelevant. No one is suggesting that land be seized. Large estate owners will be required to sell their land beyond 100 ha at fair market prices -- the value of the land they themselves report for tax purposes. The sale will only take place if buyers can be found. It is a source of tremendous regret to us that the federal government is planning to invalidate a state law. it appears that some ministers do not believe their own words about decentralization of power. Governor's office, Kregon ((DSP -- curious as to your reasons, if you feel like giving them)) |
| Date | 18:28:02, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Eminent domain ids the forcible sale of land, not its confiscation. It is the legal principle behind a cumpolsory purchase order. As such it very clearly applies here. As soon as you refer to someone being 'required' to sell you are talking about eminent domain. We have no intention of invalidating the freedom of the state to use their financial resources to direct agriculture as they wish. However agricultural policy is not property law, it is about what crops are wanted, what stock should be bred, what local subsidies and emcouragement is given to farmenrs. It is not about who owns what land. That is far more fundamental than just agriculture and as such we can not approve trhat some states change the whole principles of justice in our nation just to satisfy an economically disasterous policy. |
| Date | 18:35:58, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | You feel it is economically disastrous. We feel it will benefit the greatest number of people, both socially and economically, in the long term. |
| Date | 19:20:58, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | Food shortages do not benefit anyone. Going from being self sufficient in food to having to import food does not benefit anyone. The increased cost of production due to the loss of economies of scale which pushes up food prices does not benefit anyone. The few people who will benefit from this are those who the local governmnet will favour, in a discriminatory manner when it comes to redistribute land. Kregon has nearl 6 peploe per square kilometer. This means there is not enough farming land in the state to give everyone a viable plot. Thus some will recieve and others not. On what basis? Political favours and nepotism seem the most likely. Sorry, the ideal is wrong and its implementation is impossible. Theer is no social or economic benefit to be gained by the people from this. ((OOC I live in Brazil whewre this debate is going on for real. It can be conclusively shown that there is no economic or social benefit in breaking up large productive farms. Where land is owned and not being used, then this is another matter, and it is one that can be handled by imposing penalties on holding land unproductive rather than forcing the sale through other means.)) |
| Date | 23:36:24, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | ((ooc, the plan is based on land reforms as applied in much of East Asia, which many economists have argued is the key to the economic successes of these countries relative to much of Latin America. I'm not suggesting this is the be-all and end-all of economic development, which depends on the local context, but you can certainly make a case in either direction. Regardless, this isn't going to pass and i've only advanced it for RP purposes.)) |
| Date | 23:50:15, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | The simple reason that I don't believe the government has the right to limit the size of a farmer's land. I could elaborate but I think everything has already been said. |
| Date | 01:21:27, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Agricultural policy devolution |
| Message | ((ooc The economists who argue that about south east asia are plain wrong. It is widely known that the reason for the comparative success of the south east asian economies is the tight interlinking of government with business through families etc. This has resulted in preferential taxation systems and government subsidised industry, at the cost of agricultural development. South America and Russia manage to keep the world fed by using large scale farms. If you want to kill an agricultural base force it back to subsistence, which is exactly what has happened in the successful South East Asian economies. )) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 149 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 299 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Spamming", or the indiscriminate posting of unsolicited messages, is not allowed. |
| Random quote: "When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'" - Martin Luther King Jr. |