[DRAFT] Welfare in Seed Trade

[Imperium Anglorum]

Welfare in Seed Trade
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild

---

Convinced that transgenic crops increase yield per acre and assist in solving issues related to world hunger and food scarcity,

Believing that infertile crops can help prevent accidental cross-contamination of native ecosystems with transgenic crops without the prohibitively expensive costs associated with stringent environmental regulations,

Concerned about how infertile crops could lead to corporate exploitation of farmers, but

Confident that simple economic regulations will prevent economic exploitation whilst preserving the utility of transgenic crops for preventing accidental cross-contamination,

This august World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines genetic use restriction technology (GURT) as a technology used to modify a crop genome such to render it infertile or unexpressive of desired traits without the application of specialty chemicals and

2. Requires that when GURT-breeds are sold,

1. a breed which does not use such technologies is available and
   
   
2. such GURT-breeds are priced at the same price as the non-GURT breed, excluding those development costs necessary for the implementation of GURT traits.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is not an Environmental proposal. This is a Free Trade proposal with a weak environmental clause tucked in. If you're going to tackle, even tangentially, the use of genetically engineered agricultural products and their effect on the environment, you need a lot more aggressive a proposal than this. Either do so, or stand clear for somebody else and ditch clause 3."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"This is not an Environmental proposal. This is a Free Trade proposal with a weak environmental clause tucked in. If you're going to tackle, even tangentially, the use of genetically engineered agricultural products and their effect on the environment, you need a lot more aggressive a proposal than this. Either do so, or stand clear for somebody else and ditch clause 3."

Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry

Increasing those economic regulations, as does clause 2 would mean this is mild social justice then. Should probably add a clause recommending government subsidies to put GMO crops which have GURT into the hands of the small independent farmer.

[Europe and Oceania]

I support this.

[Basiliania]

Interesting proposal.
Would it affect agriculture? I think that it would promote agriculture keeping seed prices low: seed producers would be damaged, but farmers would be advantaged. In my opinion, this would be a win-win situation for farmers and environment.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is not an Environmental proposal. This is a Free Trade proposal with a weak environmental clause tucked in. If you're going to tackle, even tangentially, the use of genetically engineered agricultural products and their effect on the environment, you need a lot more aggressive a proposal than this. Either do so, or stand clear for somebody else and ditch clause 3."

Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry

Increasing those economic regulations, as does clause 2 would mean this is mild social justice then. Should probably add a clause recommending government subsidies to put GMO crops which have GURT into the hands of the small independent farmer.

"Increasing regulation to ensure free trade has been an acceptable use of Free Trade. Unregulated economies do not support free trade at all. You are proposing regulation to ensure economic freedom is preserved. And either way, this sure as shit isn't Environmental."

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

"Increasing regulation to ensure free trade has been an acceptable use of Free Trade. Unregulated economies do not support free trade at all. You are proposing regulation to ensure economic freedom is preserved. And either way, this sure as shit isn't Environmental."

I think you'll have a hard time selling the idea that price controls to protect... someone are a protection of free trade, not social justice.
Free trade proposals seek "to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." While a price floor(or ceiling) is an example of such a barrier. So what greater barrier does this proposal seek to remove?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Increasing regulation to ensure free trade has been an acceptable use of Free Trade. Unregulated economies do not support free trade at all. You are proposing regulation to ensure economic freedom is preserved. And either way, this sure as shit isn't Environmental."

I think you'll have a hard time selling the idea that price controls to protect... someone are a protection of economic freedom, not social justice. Remember that free trade proposals seek "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." While a price floor(or ceiling) is an example of such a barrier. So what greater barrier does this proposal seek to remove?

"Clause 2: price gouging. My interpretation is not an original one. Regardless of whatever category it is supposed to be in, it isn't Environmental when the only mandatory clause deals with trade and the weak, subsidiary clause that follows is a meek suggestion to do something vaguely good for the environment. At worst it's illegal and at best it actively impedes those who want to reduce the danger of cross-contamination with domestic, native species."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think you'll have a hard time selling the idea that price controls to protect... someone are a protection of economic freedom, not social justice. Remember that free trade proposals seek "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." While a price floor(or ceiling) is an example of such a barrier. So what greater barrier does this proposal seek to remove?

"Clause 2: price gouging. My interpretation is not an original one.

I've put it into social justice, which seeks to create barriers to free trade and commerce, which that clause, by creating a trade barrier, certainly is.

at best it actively impedes those who want to reduce the danger of cross-contamination with domestic, native species."

With this in mind, the clause has been removed.

[Bears Armed]

I think you'll have a hard time selling the idea that price controls to protect... someone are a protection of free trade, not social justice.
Free trade proposals seek "to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." While a price floor(or ceiling) is an example of such a barrier. So what greater barrier does this proposal seek to remove?

The barrier that high seed prices present to small-scale agriculture?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think you'll have a hard time selling the idea that price controls to protect... someone are a protection of free trade, not social justice.
Free trade proposals seek "to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." While a price floor(or ceiling) is an example of such a barrier. So what greater barrier does this proposal seek to remove?

The barrier that high seed prices present to small-scale agriculture?

The proposal creates a barrier by requiring a certain pricing policy. It's a social justice resolution, not a free trade resolution.

[Wallenburg]

"This is a terribly weak proposal. 'Mild' is an overstatement. We currently oppose this for micromanagement. Is there anything else that you might consider beyond a price ceiling on a very specific product?"

[Tinfect]

"We fail to see the reasoning for such controls. While the Imperium would be unaffected by this legislation, we see no reason why a state must prop up obsolete and failing industries because they refuse to adapt to progress. If there is a market for unmodified crops, then they will continue to be available, if not, then they will be replaced."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"This is a terribly weak proposal. 'Mild' is an overstatement. We currently oppose this for micromanagement. Is there anything else that you might consider beyond a price ceiling on a very specific product?"

There is no price ceiling. It requires that GURT seeds be sold at the same price as non-GURT seeds. This corrects for the farmer exploitation which Sciongrad and Christian Democrats speaks about in the thread of my repeal for 249 GA. From an economic point of view, this very simple regulation deals with every single issue on the topic whilst allowing for the benefits of GURT crops to be widely available.

Just because the solution is extremely simple does not mean that we should not do it. Simplicity is not an argument that means we should default to a general prohibition or total non-regulation. If there exist the kinds of governments which Sciongrad speaks about here and here — which all of us must concede is true — considering that the World Assembly has already established, in precedent, an obligation that it ought protect small independent farmers, it must do so. Given that government has an obligation to regulate in a manner which is least destructive, that obligation requires that this sort of regulation be used.

Note, however, that for socialist nations which have no conception of monies, the regulations prescribed here are not very relevant. The regulations prescribed only take effect at sale, which, in socialist nations, would probably not happen due to their ban on private markets.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We fail to see the reasoning for such controls. While the Imperium would be unaffected by this legislation, we see no reason why a state must prop up obsolete and failing industries because they refuse to adapt to progress. If there is a market for unmodified crops, then they will continue to be available, if not, then they will be replaced."

Please elucidate for me the reasoning which connects a regulation which establishes a very mild form of price controls in a manner here established and the state being obliged to subsidise failing industries.

[Wallenburg]

"This is a terribly weak proposal. 'Mild' is an overstatement. We currently oppose this for micromanagement. Is there anything else that you might consider beyond a price ceiling on a very specific product?"

There is no price ceiling. It requires that GURT seeds be sold at the same price as non-GURT seeds. This corrects for the farmer exploitation which Sciongrad and Christian Democrats speaks about in the thread of my repeal for 249 GA. From an economic point of view, this very simple regulation deals with every single issue on the topic whilst allowing for the benefits of GURT crops to be widely available.

"Umm...you do realize that seed prices vary, right? I don't see how this is enforceable based on that requirement."

Just because the solution is extremely simple does not mean that we should not do it. Simplicity is not an argument that means we should default to a general prohibition or total non-regulation. If there exist the kinds of governments which Sciongrad speaks about here and here — which all of us must concede is true — considering that the World Assembly has already established, in precedent, an obligation that it ought protect small independent farmers, it must do so. Given that government has an obligation to regulate in a manner which is least destructive, that obligation requires that this sort of regulation be used.

"I do not object to the simplicity of this proposal. I object to its total irrelevance to almost everyone, due to its extreme level of micromanagement."

[Imperium Anglorum]

There is no price ceiling. It requires that GURT seeds be sold at the same price as non-GURT seeds. This corrects for the farmer exploitation which Sciongrad and Christian Democrats speaks about in the thread of my repeal for 249 GA. From an economic point of view, this very simple regulation deals with every single issue on the topic whilst allowing for the benefits of GURT crops to be widely available.

"Umm...you do realize that seed prices vary, right? I don't see how this is enforceable based on that requirement."

Provide for me the warrants which connect un-enforacability with varied seed prices. To access the argumentation you provided, prima facie, it would require that corporations are unable to determine the sale price of their own products. [EDIT: Inserted a comma where there wasn't one.]

Just because the solution is extremely simple does not mean that we should not do it. Simplicity is not an argument that means we should default to a general prohibition or total non-regulation. If there exist the kinds of governments which Sciongrad speaks about here and here — which all of us must concede is true — considering that the World Assembly has already established, in precedent, an obligation that it ought protect small independent farmers, it must do so. Given that government has an obligation to regulate in a manner which is least destructive, that obligation requires that this sort of regulation be used.

"I do not object to the simplicity of this proposal. I object to its total irrelevance to almost everyone, due to its extreme level of micromanagement."

Thus, you object to my statement that the World Assembly ought to pass legislation that would help independent farmers. Then you would have to also object to the argumentation presented by Sciongrad as well as Christian Democrats. However it is, micromanagement is not a fact claim that precludes World Assembly action. The only way for that to be true is that such micromanagement produces a concrete harm, which has not been shown. [EDIT: Eliminated superfluous quote tag.]

[Sciongrad]

"With the introduction of this potential replacement, Sciongrad is unsure how it plans to vote on the repeal. We will deliberate on the policy presented in this draft and its likelihood of passing before we make that determination."

OOC: And wow, a social justice resolution! We don't get enough of those these days.

[Wallenburg]

"Umm...you do realize that seed prices vary, right? I don't see how this is enforceable based on that requirement."

Provide for me the warrants which connect un-enforacability with varied seed prices. To access the argumentation you provided, prima facie, it would require that corporations are unable to determine the sale price of their own products. [EDIT: Inserted a comma where there wasn't one.]

Ogenbond raises his eyebrow. "Corporations? What corporations?"

"I do not object to the simplicity of this proposal. I object to its total irrelevance to almost everyone, due to its extreme level of micromanagement."

Thus, you object to my statement that the World Assembly ought to pass legislation that would help independent farmers. Then you would have to also object to the argumentation presented by Sciongrad as well as Christian Democrats. However it is, micromanagement is not a fact claim that precludes World Assembly action. The only way for that to be true is that such micromanagement produces a concrete harm, which has not been shown. [EDIT: Eliminated superfluous quote tag.]

"Sir, that does not follow from my previous statements."

[Tinfect]

Please elucidate for me the reasoning which connects a regulation which establishes a very mild form of price controls in a manner here established and the state being obliged to subsidise failing industries.

"This proposal would create state-support for an obsolete industry by limiting the viability of modified crops in markets through forced price alteration. In those states that allow private interests in such matters, it would serve only to impede progress and the advancement of modified crops, and to prop up an industry that has been made obsolete."

[Sciongrad]

Please elucidate for me the reasoning which connects a regulation which establishes a very mild form of price controls in a manner here established and the state being obliged to subsidise failing industries.

"This proposal would create state-support for an obsolete industry by limiting the viability of modified crops in markets through forced price alteration. In those states that allow private interests in such matters, it would serve only to impede progress and the advancement of modified crops, and to prop up an industry that has been made obsolete."

"Unless you ban GUR technology outright, economic regulation is to only way to allow small independent farmers to compete fairly with large farms. To argue for an unregulated seed market is to argue for corporate monopoly at the expense of independent farmers.

I'll also note that this doesn't require unmodified seeds to be sold at the same price as genetically modified seeds. It requires seeds that utilize GUR technology to be sold at the same price as seeds without out it. Seeds without GUR technology can still be genetically modified."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Provide for me the warrants which connect un-enforacability with varied seed prices. To access the argumentation you provided, prima facie, it would require that corporations are unable to determine the sale price of their own products. [EDIT: Inserted a comma where there wasn't one.]

Ogenbond raises his eyebrow. "Corporations? What corporations?"

The people who sell seed prices are generally corporations. Given that they are profit-making entities, they also do generally know the sale price of their own products. This is a response to your claim that "I don't see how this is enforceable based on that requirement". The only way for this to be unenforcable is if the information required to enforce does not exist or government cannot compel this to happen. The latter is patently false (and I will drown you in argumentation if you go that path). The former is false because the sellers generally know the sale price of their own products. Thus, the only two ways in which you can access this argument are cut off. [EDIT: Connected this back to why sellers knowing their sale prices utterly destroys an unenforcability claim.]

Thus, you object to my statement that the World Assembly ought to pass legislation that would help independent farmers. Then you would have to also object to the argumentation presented by Sciongrad as well as Christian Democrats. However it is, micromanagement is not a fact claim that precludes World Assembly action. The only way for that to be true is that such micromanagement produces a concrete harm, which has not been shown. [EDIT: Eliminated superfluous quote tag.]

"Sir, that does not follow from my previous statements."

Then, what are you claiming? If you are claiming that this should not be done, it would behove you to address the argumentation I provided on why it should be done. If you are claiming that this should not be done because of micromanagement, then you should provide argumentation to why micromanagement precludes action.

---

Please elucidate for me the reasoning which connects a regulation which establishes a very mild form of price controls in a manner here established and the state being obliged to subsidise failing industries.

"This proposal would create state-support for an obsolete industry by limiting the viability of modified crops in markets through forced price alteration. In those states that allow private interests in such matters, it would serve only to impede progress and the advancement of modified crops, and to prop up an industry that has been made obsolete."

Where is the state support? It states that a corporation must sell one good at the same price as another very similar good, excluding development costs. That is not state support.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"This proposal would create state-support for an obsolete industry by limiting the viability of modified crops in markets through forced price alteration. In those states that allow private interests in such matters, it would serve only to impede progress and the advancement of modified crops, and to prop up an industry that has been made obsolete."

"Unless you ban GUR technology outright, economic regulation is to only way to allow small independent farmers to compete fairly with large farms. To argue for an unregulated seed market is to argue for corporate monopoly at the expense of independent farmers.

I'll also note that this doesn't require unmodified seeds to be sold at the same price as genetically modified seeds. It requires seeds that utilize GUR technology to be sold at the same price as seeds without out it. Seeds without GUR technology can still be genetically modified."

I entirely agree. Economic regulation is the only way to allow small independent farmers to compete fairly with large farms in these cases. Since an unregulated transgenic seed market has (1) large barriers to entry, (2) internationally mandated patent laws that force monopolisation, and (3) significant price-setting by supplying firms, that monopoly would basically be guaranteed to exist.

I have no problems with monopolies. The problem with monopolies only arise when monopolies are misbehaving, which is very likely because large farms exert strong market pressure leading to a near-oligopsony that would lead to price discrimination against small farmers. The most allocatively efficient manner to deal with monopolies is to manipulate prices back to a fair level, which the policy here does.

[Araraukar]

Believing that economic regulation would more efficiently solve issues that arise with these seeds to both promote both farmer welfare and the need to prevent the spread of transgenic crops outside of agricultural areas, and

Considering your chosen category, perhaps you shouldn't open with this one. Instead you should emphasize the whole "let's make these seeds affordable to all" angle, which might just about shove it into the SJ category. Also, if you have no environmental angle to this and only argue that the seeds should be the same price, not that they should be restricted in any way otherwise, why do you even need this?

Confident that by allowing nations to use these genetic use restriction technologies, biodiversity can be ensured against the accidental spread of transgenic crops without expensive stringent regulations that price out many farmers from the benefits associated with transgenic crops,

You're repeating yourself here quite a bit. Drop the environmental angle beyond possibly mentioning why plants with non-viable seeds exist in the first place. The price aspect should be your first point of argument.

1. Defines genetic use restriction technology (GURT) as a technology used to modify a crop genome such to render it infertile or unexpressive of desired traits without the application of specialty chemicals and

(OOC: ...what?)

Is this GURT thing copied from the one you wish to repeal? Can't you just say "infertile plants"? Also, "unexpressive of desired traits", what the fuck?

2. Requires that when crop breeds which use such technologies are sold, they are available at the same price as a breed which does not use such technologies, excluding those development costs necessary for the implementation of GURT traits.

This makes it read as though you allowed the price of the development of the infertile genetic changes to be added to the price of the seeds/saplings. Was that the idea? And if not, then what's to keep all seed-sellers simply raising their prices to match the more expensive seeds? (OOC: Since the argument is that price-gouging happens without regulation, price-gouging would happen in this situation as well.)

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

There is no price ceiling. It requires that GURT seeds be sold at the same price as non-GURT seeds.

That is a price ceiling(and a floor).