GA proposal: Land Reform

[Zapatian Workers State]

"Fix the horrendous wall of text and spacing, ambassador. This does not spark joy at all."

"Also, like the rest have said, you have just made socialism sound worse than it actually is, even though this delegation team is in full support of its principles."

I said I was going to fix the spacing when I put it up.

[Zapatian Workers State]

I will not abandon this idea because I think it's vital that it should be passed.

OOC: Why?

I cannot alleviate the concerns of the above posters because their sole concern is environment, while mine is the autonomy of the workers. I believe that whatever environmental damage is justifiable by a utilitarian calculation that expanding an independent base of free agricultural laborers ultimately helps humanity more in a realistic, palpable way.

Mine weren't. And also, fucking up the environment is not good for humanity. If you want agricultural laborers to have more freedoms, write a resolution about that instead!

As for reimbursement of the owners of the estates for seized property in land, I covered that already.

10% of the going price =/= reimbursement.

As is, it contradicts various resolutions, remain a fucking stupid idea, appears to be committee-only given that you make committees do all the stuff (including things that nations are supposed to be doing), and you haven't given any indication of what category you're trying to wrangle this into.

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.

[Grays Harbor]

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.

Your premise is laughable fantasy. And your plan to “help” will take prosperous and hi-yield farmland capable of feeding millions, stolen from the rightful owners, and turn it into small subsistence farms barely capable of feeding a family. And to top it all off, this travesty being guided by government bureaucrats with little agricultural knowledge.
This is not “social justice”. This is laying the groundwork for widespread famine. Congrats.

[Imperium Anglorum]

To the OP, I'd highly recommending Seeing like a state, specifically chapter 7.

[Wallenburg]

Acreage is a rather poor measure of whether a farm is so large that it hurts other farming practices. Some land is more fertile or useful than others, some land is good for growing more profitable crops than others. You might consider a different standard to distinguish large and smaller farms.

[Araraukar]

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.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Why?


Mine weren't. And also, fucking up the environment is not good for humanity. If you want agricultural laborers to have more freedoms, write a resolution about that instead!


10% of the going price =/= reimbursement.

As is, it contradicts various resolutions, remain a fucking stupid idea, appears to be committee-only given that you make committees do all the stuff (including things that nations are supposed to be doing), and you haven't given any indication of what category you're trying to wrangle this into.

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: The land you are proposing to reclaim wasn’t going to waste; it was instead being used for farming. If you want to write a proposal that supports smaller farmers, do that. If you want to promote more efficient farming mechanisms, do that. If you want to encourage the development of the farming industry across the WA, do that.

You need to think about what the actual purpose of your proposal is, and try and achieve that aim in a way that is realistic and doesn’t involve essentially stealing land. I don’t see what the issue is that inevitably requires large scale breaking-up of farms.)