Zapatian Workers State wrote:I was going to put it under "Social Justice." And yes, 10% of the going price is reimbursement enough when you consider all the land that was going to waste in disuse under my premise, as well as that the purpose is to give independence to tenant farmers and sharecroppers, not to make owners of large estates feel happy about themselves.
OOC: Do you have ANY idea of how small profit margins RL farmers with large fields (note, I'm talking about farming outdoors, not greenhouses) actually have to cope with? They usually have lots of field area exactly because the profit margin is so small, so they need large volume to make a living.
Also, you seem to be talking of two entirely different things, land ownership and workers' rights as if they were one and same. They never have been, unless you count as a right the right to starve to death. If you want to improve agricultural workers' rights, you need to actually write a proposal that does that. What you've proposed here, does not do that.
It's like you were wanting to write a proposal on lowering speed limits to reduce deaths in the traffic, and instead your proposal banned seatbelts. It
might cause a reduction at the speeds that people drive at, but it certainly wouldn't reduce traffic deaths.