NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate]

[Welsh Cowboy]

Well onto the agriculture bill. I must say i am impressed with the quality. I have a problem though with government appropriation of land in times of crisis. While i will gladly give my vineyards (which grow grapes, a food, qualifying it as a farm. Forgetting the extra farm definitions included which cover my massive estate completly) to the government in a time of trouble, im worried a future government may use this to try to exploit the farmers of the country in the name of collectivization.

While I agree that some future government might abuse their powers, they are just as likely to make up their abusive laws as misuse our own; betting on the government collapsing isn't a good way to legislate. What this act clearly does is affirm the right to own land, something essential to both the agricultural world, and the capitalist viewpoint. This bill balances the needs of the worker with the rights of property, something I think should be encouraged and passed.

However, I must state my opposition to the subsidies, especially since they are not laid out specifically in the bill. Subsidies have been proven time and time again to be ineffective and detrimental to food production, since farmers often make more by subsidies than they would by selling the crops.

Plus, the inheritance thing is a mess. Why does the government need to tell everyone that they must give their inheritance first to the firstborn son. (Is this also not sexist?)

All in all, I feel that this bill tries to give special treatment to rural citizens. While I fully support equal rights, I do not particularly enjoy encouraging or promoting certain industries and ways of life.

[Byzantium Imperial]

While I agree that some future government might abuse their powers, they are just as likely to make up their abusive laws as misuse our own; betting on the government collapsing isn't a good way to legislate. What this act clearly does is affirm the right to own land, something essential to both the agricultural world, and the capitalist viewpoint. This bill balances the needs of the worker with the rights of property, something I think should be encouraged and passed.

However, I must state my opposition to the subsidies, especially since they are not laid out specifically in the bill. Subsidies have been proven time and time again to be ineffective and detrimental to food production, since farmers often make more by subsidies than they would by selling the crops.

Plus, the inheritance thing is a mess. Why does the government need to tell everyone that they must give their inheritance first to the firstborn son. (Is this also not sexist?)

All in all, I feel that this bill tries to give special treatment to rural citizens. While I fully support equal rights, I do not particularly enjoy encouraging or promoting certain industries and ways of life.

Just talking about inheritance, the bill doesnt override a will.

And the subsidies/rural support armt really all that much. Its a minimum insuring the rural communities stick around and a tax break for farmers. Fine by me (the owner of the massive palatial vineyard said)

[Finium]

The key to making this bill work is a frugal government that distributes these subsidies wisely.

The inheritance issue is a safeguard against corruption; if ever a man dies before his will is written, his family can rest at ease without fear of the government misusing its power in favor of corporations.

Ultimately this bill does give special consideration to agriculture, but only the consideration that it needs in a very urban world, nothing more.

[Welsh Cowboy]

:hug:

However, I must state my opposition to the subsidies, especially since they are not laid out specifically in the bill. Subsidies have been proven time and time again to be ineffective and detrimental to food production, since farmers often make more by subsidies than they would by selling the crops.

Plus, the inheritance thing is a mess. Why does the government need to tell everyone that they must give their inheritance first to the firstborn son. (Is this also not sexist?)

All in all, I feel that this bill tries to give special treatment to rural citizens. While I fully support equal rights, I do not particularly enjoy encouraging or promoting certain industries and ways of life.

Just talking about inheritance, the bill doesnt override a will.

And the subsidies/rural support armt really all that much. Its a minimum insuring the rural communities stick around and a tax break for farmers. Fine by me (the owner of the massive palatial vineyard said)

I must admit, I was wrong on the inheritance. My apologies.

Senator, look at subsidies in the United States. They are a mess, and they lead to warehouses full of corn and other agricultural products that will be thrown away. What's next? Tax breaks for masons, because we want a brick-making community? Tax breaks for college sociology professors because their numbers are dwindling? If a community or industry cannot sustain itself, it is a disservice to our constituents to prop it up.

Plus, I've found another problem upon closer examination: 10b: Tenant Farmers have the right to buy their leased land at any time for a price equal to the value of the land.

So essentially, the first part promises right to land ownership, but then in certain instances, property owners don't have that right.

[Byzantium Imperial]

:hug:
Just talking about inheritance, the bill doesnt override a will.

And the subsidies/rural support armt really all that much. Its a minimum insuring the rural communities stick around and a tax break for farmers. Fine by me (the owner of the massive palatial vineyard said)

I must admit, I was wrong on the inheritance. My apologies.

Senator, look at subsidies in the United States. They are a mess, and they lead to warehouses full of corn and other agricultural products that will be thrown away. What's next? Tax breaks for masons, because we want a brick-making community? Tax breaks for college sociology professors because their numbers are dwindling? If a community or industry cannot sustain itself, it is a disservice to our constituents to prop it up.

Plus, I've found another problem upon closer examination: 10b: Tenant Farmers have the right to buy their leased land at any time for a price equal to the value of the land.

So essentially, the first part promises right to land ownership, but then in certain instances, property owners don't have that right.

The owner doesnt have to sell the land. The tenant has a right to make an offer though

[Finium]

I must admit, it was difficult for me accept this as well, but consider what tenant farmers are. In essence these are people who were forced to sell their land, but are allowed to continue working there (this is the only logical origin of tenant farming in the commonwealth as we have no mass emancipation as in the US), therefore all this bill does is underwrite a loan if you will, with the land held as collateral by a 2nd party until the 1st party (the farmer) can repay in full. This clause is designed to combat the vicious cycle of debt that tenant farmers often suffer because their landlords are unwilling to sell them back their land at a fair price.

EDIT: it's essentially a price control on a previously unregulated loan

[Free South Califas]

I must admit, I was wrong on the inheritance. My apologies.

In what sense? Does it not privilege a son? (OOC: It's too late and I'm too tired this week. My legislative energy is going toward CP stuff right now.)

[Welsh Cowboy]

I must admit, I was wrong on the inheritance. My apologies.

Senator, look at subsidies in the United States. They are a mess, and they lead to warehouses full of corn and other agricultural products that will be thrown away. What's next? Tax breaks for masons, because we want a brick-making community? Tax breaks for college sociology professors because their numbers are dwindling? If a community or industry cannot sustain itself, it is a disservice to our constituents to prop it up.

Plus, I've found another problem upon closer examination: 10b: Tenant Farmers have the right to buy their leased land at any time for a price equal to the value of the land.

So essentially, the first part promises right to land ownership, but then in certain instances, property owners don't have that right.

The owner doesnt have to sell the land. The tenant has a right to make an offer though

That is not what a "right" means to me, Senator.

If someone has a "right" to do something, they are entitled to do so with the protection and backing of the government.

If nothing else, though, Senator, this is prohibiting the landowner from setting their price on their land, which seems central to the idea of land ownership.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I must admit, I was wrong on the inheritance. My apologies.

In what sense? Does it not privilege a son? (OOC: It's too late and I'm too tired this week. My legislative energy is going toward CP stuff right now.)

A later clause dictates that a will would override that clause.

[Finium]

I must admit, I was wrong on the inheritance. My apologies.

In what sense? Does it not privilege a son? (OOC: It's too late and I'm too tired this week. My legislative energy is going toward CP stuff right now.)

It pretty much just reaffirms the rights of the next-of-kin on a who-will-work-the-land basis. It keeps the family from selling out if someone is willing to carry on the family trade.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I must admit, it was difficult for me accept this as well, but consider what tenant farmers are. In essence these are people who were forced to sell their land, but are allowed to continue working there (this is the only logical origin of tenant farming in the commonwealth as we have no mass emancipation as in the US), therefore all this bill does is underwrite a loan if you will, with the land held as collateral by a 2nd party until the 1st party (the farmer) can repay in full. This clause is designed to combat the vicious cycle of debt that tenant farmers often suffer because their landlords are unwilling to sell them back their land at a fair price.

EDIT: it's essentially a price control on a previously unregulated loan

Even if your situation is true ,(which is probably not true for all tenant farmers) this clause undermines the right of land owners to charge what they wish for their land.

But nowhere in the bill do I see a mention of a loan, so I am confused as to where you get that from, Senator.

[Free South Califas]

In what sense? Does it not privilege a son? (OOC: It's too late and I'm too tired this week. My legislative energy is going toward CP stuff right now.)

A later clause dictates that a will would override that clause.

So it is a sexist clause. I don't see how this is made acceptable by an exemption. Why should the law privilege men? That seems like a return to a prior century. (Directed at the authors)

In what sense? Does it not privilege a son? (OOC: It's too late and I'm too tired this week. My legislative energy is going toward CP stuff right now.)

It pretty much just reaffirms the rights of the next-of-kin on a who-will-work-the-land basis. It keeps the family from selling out if someone is willing to carry on the family trade.

It doesn't "just" do that, it sounds like it also establishes or strengthens institutionalized sexism.

[Finium]

I must admit, it was difficult for me accept this as well, but consider what tenant farmers are. In essence these are people who were forced to sell their land, but are allowed to continue working there (this is the only logical origin of tenant farming in the commonwealth as we have no mass emancipation as in the US), therefore all this bill does is underwrite a loan if you will, with the land held as collateral by a 2nd party until the 1st party (the farmer) can repay in full. This clause is designed to combat the vicious cycle of debt that tenant farmers often suffer because their landlords are unwilling to sell them back their land at a fair price.

EDIT: it's essentially a price control on a previously unregulated loan

Even if your situation is true ,(which is probably not true for all tenant farmers) this clause undermines the right of land owners to charge what they wish for their land.

But nowhere in the bill do I see a mention of a loan, so I am confused as to where you get that from, Senator.

You're right that is true of all tenant farmers, but there are precious few tenant farmers in modern society at all if we considered the facts.

Now as to where my "loan" theory comes from, it is largely drawn from the reconstruction era in the US, during which thousands of African Americans were trapped in debts because of tenant farming. Now, in that case, all freed slaves were promised land and a mule, but they all had to sell their land back to the original land owners because they couldn't afford to start farming without principal investment. We in Aurentina, having no reconstruction period, can look to indebtedness as the primary, if not sole reason for tenancy, people don't often indenture themselves to a piece of land unless forced to do so by extreme circumstances. My "loan" concept is simply that these land owners should not be allowed to act as loan sharks and keep tenants in debt and under their control when their original purpose in the tenancy agreement would have been to save the farmers from debt.

[Finium]

A later clause dictates that a will would override that clause.

So it is a sexist clause. I don't see how this is made acceptable by an exemption. Why should the law privilege men? That seems like a return to a prior century. (Directed at the authors)

It pretty much just reaffirms the rights of the next-of-kin on a who-will-work-the-land basis. It keeps the family from selling out if someone is willing to carry on the family trade.

It doesn't "just" do that, it sounds like it also establishes or strengthens institutionalized sexism.

There is no mention of gender in the bill, it goes in order of birth.

[Great Nepal]

I am not seeing the need to have special bill for agricultural sector, should we have special bill for manufacturing sector and for services sector as well? Surely, it would be better if we had single bill guaranteeing right to own land, property and sorting out inheritance.

[Finium]

I am not seeing the need to have special bill for agricultural sector, should we have special bill for manufacturing sector and for services sector as well? Surely, it would be better if we had single bill guaranteeing right to own land, property and sorting out inheritance.

Well we could have one big bill for all industry, but that would show us to be pretty poor legislators that we couldn't recognize the embarrassingly obvious differences between the various fields of work. I think we need one for each, one that addresses problems under the current system and affirms the rights of individuals in every industry, but an industrial worker has little fear that his crop will fail, meaning that he is unlikely to need the help of the government in that same way an agricultural worker is. Likewise, the farmer is often the owner of his own business, meaning that he doesn't need someone to "give" him the right to a safe working environment, which is something a factory worker needs. If we want to avoid becoming a bureaucratic crap-fest, then we need more specific regulations, not more generals laws.

[The Nihilistic view]

A later clause dictates that a will would override that clause.

So it is a sexist clause. I don't see how this is made acceptable by an exemption. Why should the law privilege men? That seems like a return to a prior century. (Directed at the authors)

It pretty much just reaffirms the rights of the next-of-kin on a who-will-work-the-land basis. It keeps the family from selling out if someone is willing to carry on the family trade.

It doesn't "just" do that, it sounds like it also establishes or strengthens institutionalized sexism.

Its not sexist, the clause says first born child. It does not specify a sex. Why have you been spending so long discussing a clause that is not even in the bill? Talk about time wasters, this seems to be simple attempt at a filibuster.

2d: The first-born child of a farmer has the first right of inheritance, and the line of inheritance follows the children of a farmer. If a farmer dies with no children capable or willing to inherit the farm, it will follow in the family line accordingly: siblings of the farmer are to first be granted the opportunity of inheritance then their children, and so on.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Even if your situation is true ,(which is probably not true for all tenant farmers) this clause undermines the right of land owners to charge what they wish for their land.

But nowhere in the bill do I see a mention of a loan, so I am confused as to where you get that from, Senator.

You're right that is true of all tenant farmers, but there are precious few tenant farmers in modern society at all if we considered the facts.

Now as to where my "loan" theory comes from, it is largely drawn from the reconstruction era in the US, during which thousands of African Americans were trapped in debts because of tenant farming. Now, in that case, all freed slaves were promised land and a mule, but they all had to sell their land back to the original land owners because they couldn't afford to start farming without principal investment. We in Aurentina, having no reconstruction period, can look to indebtedness as the primary, if not sole reason for tenancy, people don't often indenture themselves to a piece of land unless forced to do so by extreme circumstances. My "loan" concept is simply that these land owners should not be allowed to act as loan sharks and keep tenants in debt and under their control when their original purpose in the tenancy agreement would have been to save the farmers from debt.

If this is what the clause means to say, then it should say that. It should not declare that tenant farmers somehow have a "right" to purchase land owned by another person at a predetermined price in all cases. What if they voluntarily leased their services to the landlord?

Dictating in certain situations what a landlord can and can't do is restricting the very right of land ownership established earlier.

[Free South Califas]

So it is a sexist clause. I don't see how this is made acceptable by an exemption. Why should the law privilege men? That seems like a return to a prior century. (Directed at the authors)


It doesn't "just" do that, it sounds like it also establishes or strengthens institutionalized sexism.

Its not sexist, the clause says first born child. It does not specify a sex. Why have you been spending so long discussing a clause that is not even in the bill? Talk about time wasters, this seems to be simple attempt at a filibuster.

OOC: I explained that it was late, I was tired and my legislative energy was going to things which would help my party or its goals (help the working class or oppressed people specifically), to which this bill does not seem to qualify. That being said, I appreciate your clarification and am glad I will not have to be obnoxious for that particular reason

[Finium]

You're right that is true of all tenant farmers, but there are precious few tenant farmers in modern society at all if we considered the facts.

Now as to where my "loan" theory comes from, it is largely drawn from the reconstruction era in the US, during which thousands of African Americans were trapped in debts because of tenant farming. Now, in that case, all freed slaves were promised land and a mule, but they all had to sell their land back to the original land owners because they couldn't afford to start farming without principal investment. We in Aurentina, having no reconstruction period, can look to indebtedness as the primary, if not sole reason for tenancy, people don't often indenture themselves to a piece of land unless forced to do so by extreme circumstances. My "loan" concept is simply that these land owners should not be allowed to act as loan sharks and keep tenants in debt and under their control when their original purpose in the tenancy agreement would have been to save the farmers from debt.

If this is what the clause means to say, then it should say that. It should not declare that tenant farmers somehow have a "right" to purchase land owned by another person at a predetermined price in all cases. What if they voluntarily leased their services to the landlord?

Dictating in certain situations what a landlord can and can't do is restricting the very right of land ownership established earlier.

I've never actually heard of a person who willingly gives up there property, but if they did so willingly then it isn't an issue because the tenant desired the situation to occur as such.

I'd like to see what you might view as a compromise on this issue, if you would write up a better clause that would be great. But remember the intent of the clause; to protect the people who invest themselves in land, not people who just own it.

[Ainin]

If this is what the clause means to say, then it should say that. It should not declare that tenant farmers somehow have a "right" to purchase land owned by another person at a predetermined price in all cases. What if they voluntarily leased their services to the landlord?

Dictating in certain situations what a landlord can and can't do is restricting the very right of land ownership established earlier.

I've never actually heard of a person who willingly gives up there property

Does postmortem count?

[Free South Califas]

I move to add "Amend Transportation Ministry Provision Act 2013" to the queue, noting that it now has 5 six sponsors.

Amend Transportation Ministry Provision Act 2013
Urgency: Very High | Drafted by: Saul Califas (C) | Co-sponsors: Ryan Pierce (ind), Byzantium (NIF), Jozef van Oostvoorne (C), Ainin (TR), Mytannion (RG)

The Aurentine Senate,

Regretting an understandable typographical mistake in an otherwise sound Act,

Also noting the original Author's stated intention to avoid the mistake in question,

Ensuring that all issues regarding navigable waterways are addressed by the correct agency,

Relieving the Transportation Ministry of the undue portion of its burden in this area,

Amends 'Transportation MInistry Provision Act 2013' as such:

In Article 5d, at the end of the sentence, after "agency", adding ", as regards transportation".

[Welsh Cowboy]

If this is what the clause means to say, then it should say that. It should not declare that tenant farmers somehow have a "right" to purchase land owned by another person at a predetermined price in all cases. What if they voluntarily leased their services to the landlord?

Dictating in certain situations what a landlord can and can't do is restricting the very right of land ownership established earlier.

I've never actually heard of a person who willingly gives up there property, but if they did so willingly then it isn't an issue because the tenant desired the situation to occur as such.

I'd like to see what you might view as a compromise on this issue, if you would write up a better clause that would be great. But remember the intent of the clause; to protect the people who invest themselves in land, not people who just own it.

Senator, I'd remove the clause altogether. If you desire to write a law prohibiting excessive interest rates or other unsavory business practices, then don't you think that this would be more appropriate for a bill covering all industries than just one protecting certain industry members?

[Free South Califas]

See Amend NCBEA below. This post refers to Amend NCBEA in the queue.

ETA: New sponsor added to Amend TMPA.

I move to add "Amend Transportation Ministry Provision Act 2013" to the queue, noting that it now has 5 six sponsors.

Amend Transportation Ministry Provision Act 2013
Urgency: Very High | Drafted by: Saul Califas (C) | Co-sponsors: Ryan Pierce (ind), Byzantium (NIF), Jozef van Oostvoorne (C), Ainin (TR), Mytannion (RG), Wulukuno Maklohi Porunalakai (LD)

The Aurentine Senate,

Regretting an understandable typographical mistake in an otherwise sound Act,

Also noting the original Author's stated intention to avoid the mistake in question,

Ensuring that all issues regarding navigable waterways are addressed by the correct agency,

Relieving the Transportation Ministry of the undue portion of its burden in this area,

Amends 'Transportation MInistry Provision Act 2013' as such:

In Article 5d, at the end of the sentence, after "agency", adding ", as regards transportation".

I also move to add "Amend National Census Bureau Establishment Act" to the queue, noting that it now has 5 sponsors:

Amend National Census Bureau Establishment Act
Urgency: High | Drafted by: Saul Califas (Com) | Co-sponsors: Jarrod Thuman (Obj), Jozef van Oostvoorne (Com), Dr. Zephiniah Nuckerberg (CMP), Mytannion (RG)

The Aurentine Senate,

Lauding the goals of National Census Bureau Establishment Act (henceforth NCBEA) in general,

Expressing its hope that the census will allow better provision of government services to the people who need it,

Regretting the potential unintended consequences of levying a punitive fine for simply failing to return a National Census Bureau (henceforth NCB) survey, including potential discrimination against people with cognitive and/or communication differences which make traditional surveys difficult to administer or set aside time for, against those with transitory or no home address, etc.,

Hereby enacts the following changes into law:

1. Revising NCBEA article III such that the prior text is struck out and rendered null and void except for the following parts in this order: "III. Citizens who knowingly submit false information in response to an NCB survey shall be fined no more than 5,000 NSC."
-a. Noting that this does not change the punishment for knowingly submitting false information, but does remove the punishment for simply failing to respond to an NCB survey;

2. Amending NCBEA so as to add the following text: "V. As considered necessary by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, the NCB may establish a Temporary Census Noncompliance Working Group which includes a reasonable number of equal voting members who are not otherwise paid employees of NCB, and empower it to study the potential causes and factors of noncompliance with NCB surveys and to issue appropriate suggestions which benefit society as a whole and take privacy concerns into consideration. This Working Group must be disbanded after issuing such suggestions, unless the Ministry insists that its continued work is necessary.

VI. With the specific or categorical approval of the Minister of Treasury and Finance, the NCB may in good faith implement such suggestions of the Working Group which do not each specifically incur significant added budgetary or privacy costs, and which would be useful alone or in combination with the others which are implemented.

VII. NCB are encouraged to promote the maximum possible accessibility to NCB surveys across all fields of disability, physical location, and other distinctions; including by deploying updated technology to include people with communication disorders."

[Byzantium Imperial]

I move to add "Amend Transportation Ministry Provision Act 2013" to the queue, noting that it now has 5 six sponsors.

I also move to add "Amend National Census Bureau Establishment Act" to the queue, noting that it now has 5 sponsors:

Amend National Census Bureau Establishment Act
Urgency: High | Drafted by: Saul Califas (Com) | Co-sponsors: Jarrod Thuman (Obj), Jozef van Oostvoorne (Com), Dr. Zephiniah Nuckerberg (CMP), Mytannion (RG)

The Aurentine Senate,

Lauding the goals of National Census Bureau Establishment Act (henceforth NCBEA) in general,

Expressing its hope that the census will allow better provision of government services to the people who need it,

Regretting the potential unintended consequences of levying a punitive fine for simply failing to return a National Census Bureau (henceforth NCB) survey, including potential discrimination against people with cognitive and/or communication differences which make traditional surveys difficult to administer or set aside time for, against those with transitory or no home address, etc.,

Hereby enacts the following changes into law:

1. Revising NCBEA article III such that the prior text is struck out and rendered null and void except for the following parts in this order: "III. Citizens who knowingly submit false information in response to an NCB survey shall be fined no more than 5,000 NSC."
-a. Noting that this does not change the punishment for knowingly submitting false information, but does remove the punishment for simply failing to respond to an NCB survey;

2. Amending NCBEA so as to add the following text: "V. As considered necessary by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, the NCB may establish a Temporary Census Noncompliance Working Group which includes a reasonable number of equal voting members who are not otherwise paid employees of NCB, and empower it to study the potential causes and factors of noncompliance with NCB surveys and to issue appropriate suggestions which benefit society as a whole and take privacy concerns into consideration. This Working Group must be disbanded after issuing such suggestions, unless the Ministry insists that its continued work is necessary.

VI. With the specific or categorical approval of the Minister of Treasury and Finance, the NCB may in good faith implement such suggestions of the Working Group which do not each specifically incur significant added budgetary or privacy costs, and which would be useful alone or in combination with the others which are implemented.

VII. NCB are encouraged to promote the maximum possible accessibility to NCB surveys across all fields of disability, physical location, and other distinctions; including by deploying updated technology to include people with communication disorders."

Queue is on the previous page, due to your activity levels it would probably be wise for you to start doing the queue as well as me.