Plan for a world food program

[Socialist States of the World]

Thank you for the advice guys, I am going to reformat the bill into the standard way. On differences on ideas in the bill, then I will be able to debate that. I am going to try to repeal the Food Welfare Act, and replace it with a mandatory system. I am going to link a new version.

[Jebslund]

Thank you for the advice guys, I am going to reformat the bill into the standard way. On differences on ideas in the bill, then I will be able to debate that. I am going to try to repeal the Food Welfare Act, and replace it with a mandatory system. I am going to link a new version.

When you do, remember to put all drafts in the original post, with the most current version visible and the previous ones under drafts.

[Socialist States of the World]

[

quote="Socialist States of the World";p="34190022"]

Ok, here is a new version of the bill.
Plan for a world food program.
Section 1: Outline
Section 1.1: Purpose
This law is to run a World Food Program. All members of the WA must supply funds and accept food from this program.
Section 1.2: Funding
This program is funded by a four way program: Nations supplying to money (to pay for food, transportation of the food, and other necessary costs), farms, shops, and other food distribution areas will be required to donate excess food to local food program dispensaries, private funders supplying funds, and fundraising for the program through grassroot means.
Section 1.3: Localities:
Each town or district (for sparsely populated areas) will have a dispensary for people to make food donations or for people to pick up food. This is mandated. These localities can be in office buildings or in set-up canvases.
Section 2: Legalities
Section 2.1 Local laws
This document applies to all nations that are apart of the WA. In order to take part in this program, a nation must join the WA in order to receive funds. Section 1.2 applies to new members.
Section 3: Starting of the program.
Section 3:1 Starting the program
All private food charities must become part of this program (based in nations in the WA) but they can retain their name but must be a satellite to the program.

New Version of the bill:
Plan for a world food program.
Section 1: Outline
Section 1.1: Purpose
This law is to run a World Food Program. All members of the WA must supply funds and accept food from this program. This Program replaces the IFWO. The WFP supplies food to all WA nations and requires WA nations to pay into this program.
Section 1.2: Funding
This program is funded by a four way program: Nations supplying to money (to pay for food, transportation of the food, and other necessary costs), farms, shops, and other food distribution areas will be required to donate excess food to local food program dispensaries, private funders supplying funds, and fundraising for the program through grassroot means.
Section 1.3: Localities:
Each town or district (for sparsely populated areas) will have a dispensary for people to make food donations or for people to pick up food. This is mandated. These localities can be in office buildings or in set-up canvases.
Section 2: Legalities
Section 2.1 Local laws
This document applies to all nations that are a part of the WA. In order to take part in this program, a nation must join the WA in order to receive funds. Section 1.2 applies to new members.
Section 2.2 Outlaws.
Outlaws governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people.
Section 3: Starting of the program.
Section 3:1 Starting the program
All private food charities must become part of this program (based in nations in the WA) but they can retain their name but must be a satellite to the program.
Section 4: Upholds
Section 4.1 Upholding the World Assembly Emergency Crop Program
The World Food Program upholds the WAECP, the WAECP is a partner of the World Food Program.
Section 4.2 Upholding the World Assembly Seedbank
The World Food Program upholds the WAS, the WAS is a partner of the World Food Program.
Section 5 Further Enforcements
The World Food Program encourages all nations of the world, not just the WA, to invest in more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques, as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control[/quote]

Repeal of the Food Welfare Act.
MEASURE to prevent starvation by the repeal of the Food Welfare Act and Creation of the World Food Program.
RECOGNIZING that the Food Welfare Act only recommended food charity, and did not require nations to support a World Food Program.
OUTLAWS government hoarding of food to purposely starve or to drive out it’s citizens.
NOTICING that nations and private organizations should be required to donate food to the hungry. This will be done by 1. WA Countries giving monetary funds to the World Food Program. 2. Farmers giving excess crops to the World Food Program. 3. Groceries or food distribution centers giving local World Food Program distribution centers extra food. 4. Private funders donating money to the organization (this will decrease the amount WA countries would need to pay yearly.) and 5. People donating extra food to the World Food Program.
1. Each town, city, or rural area must have a distribution center for the World Food Program. If no people are hungry in one area, then that distribution center may turn focus to creating food packages to send to poor areas, war torn areas, or areas hit by natural disaster.
2. This document applies to WA nations, and countries that would like to take part in this program must join the WA.
3. Repeals the IFWO and replaces it with the World Food Program.
4. The WAECP is now part of the World Food Program.
5. The World Food Program will incentivise nations to increase there yearly crop output by cutting their yearly payment for each nation by . If a nation can increase their national crop output, and then donate the excess food that isn't put back into the economy, then they will have to pay 10% less the next year.
6. The more food donations the World Food Program receives the less nations will have to pay, and visa versa. If the World Food Program can receive all its needed funds from private donations, then nations will not have to pay all. In the case that the World Food Program receives partial of the yearly amount to keep it running, then it will act as a blanket: meaning that nations will equalily pay less, instead of going up the ladder or down the ladder (the poor nations don’t have to pay before the rich nations, and visa versa)

[Imperium Anglorum]

I recommend putting your drafts into the OP and repeal drafts into a separate thread. Also, use new lines between your paragraphs. Right now, you have an unreadable wall of text.

But having read it, you need to read the repeal rules.

[Jebslund]

Repeal of the Food Welfare Act.
MEASURE to prevent starvation by the repeal of the Food Welfare Act and Creation of the World Food Program.
RECOGNIZING that the Food Welfare Act only recommended food charity, and did not require nations to support a World Food Program.
OUTLAWS government hoarding of food to purposely starve or to drive out it’s citizens.
NOTICING that nations and private organizations should be required to donate food to the hungry. This will be done by 1. WA Countries giving monetary funds to the World Food Program. 2. Farmers giving excess crops to the World Food Program. 3. Groceries or food distribution centers giving local World Food Program distribution centers extra food. 4. Private funders donating money to the organization (this will decrease the amount WA countries would need to pay yearly.) and 5. People donating extra food to the World Food Program.
1. Each town, city, or rural area must have a distribution center for the World Food Program. If no people are hungry in one area, then that distribution center may turn focus to creating food packages to send to poor areas, war torn areas, or areas hit by natural disaster.
2. This document applies to WA nations, and countries that would like to take part in this program must join the WA.
3. Repeals the IFWO and replaces it with the World Food Program.
4. The WAECP is now part of the World Food Program.
5. The World Food Program will incentivise nations to increase there yearly crop output by cutting their yearly payment for each nation by . If a nation can increase their national crop output, and then donate the excess food that isn't put back into the economy, then they will have to pay 10% less the next year.
6. The more food donations the World Food Program receives the less nations will have to pay, and visa versa. If the World Food Program can receive all its needed funds from private donations, then nations will not have to pay all. In the case that the World Food Program receives partial of the yearly amount to keep it running, then it will act as a blanket: meaning that nations will equalily pay less, instead of going up the ladder or down the ladder (the poor nations don’t have to pay before the rich nations, and visa versa)

You can't. Repeals can ONLY repeal. They cannot add or modify legislation. Also, the word you are looking for is "incentivise".

(emphasis mine)

[Socialist States of the World]

Repeal of the Food Welfare Act.
MEASURE to prevent starvation by the repeal of the Food Welfare Act and Creation of the World Food Program.
RECOGNIZING that the Food Welfare Act only recommended food charity, and did not require nations to support a World Food Program.
OUTLAWS government hoarding of food to purposely starve or to drive out it’s citizens.
NOTICING that nations and private organizations should be required to donate food to the hungry. This will be done by 1. WA Countries giving monetary funds to the World Food Program. 2. Farmers giving excess crops to the World Food Program. 3. Groceries or food distribution centers giving local World Food Program distribution centers extra food. 4. Private funders donating money to the organization (this will decrease the amount WA countries would need to pay yearly.) and 5. People donating extra food to the World Food Program.
1. Each town, city, or rural area must have a distribution center for the World Food Program. If no people are hungry in one area, then that distribution center may turn focus to creating food packages to send to poor areas, war torn areas, or areas hit by natural disaster.
2. This document applies to WA nations, and countries that would like to take part in this program must join the WA.
3. Repeals the IFWO and replaces it with the World Food Program.
4. The WAECP is now part of the World Food Program.
5. The World Food Program will incentivise nations to increase there yearly crop output by cutting their yearly payment for each nation by . If a nation can increase their national crop output, and then donate the excess food that isn't put back into the economy, then they will have to pay 10% less the next year.
6. The more food donations the World Food Program receives the less nations will have to pay, and visa versa. If the World Food Program can receive all its needed funds from private donations, then nations will not have to pay all. In the case that the World Food Program receives partial of the yearly amount to keep it running, then it will act as a blanket: meaning that nations will equalily pay less, instead of going up the ladder or down the ladder (the poor nations don’t have to pay before the rich nations, and visa versa)

You can't. Repeals can ONLY repeal. They cannot add or modify legislation. Also, the word you are looking for is "incentivise".

(emphasis mine)

Ok, so how can I keep the sections of parts of the bill I like, but at the same time repealing the parts of the bill I do not like? Will I have to repeal the bill 100% and then propose the sections I like (like the outlawing of governments hording of food) as separate bills?
Once again my goal is to make the charity mandatory (I know, nice oxymoron), but to keep some of the bill. I like the ideas of the world seed vault and the crop program. I want those to stay.

[Kenmoria]

(emphasis mine)

Ok, so how can I keep the sections of parts of the bill I like, but at the same time repealing the parts of the bill I do not like? Will I have to repeal the bill 100% and then propose the sections I like (like the outlawing of governments hording of food) as separate bills?
Once again my goal is to make the charity mandatory (I know, nice oxymoron), but to keep some of the bill. I like the ideas of the world seed vault and the crop program. I want those to stay.

(OOC: Yes, you will have to repeal the resolution first, then propose a new one with your wanted changes or additions. The two proposals cannot mix, in that it is illegal to do any form of lawmaking in the repeal.)

[Jebslund]

(emphasis mine)

Ok, so how can I keep the sections of parts of the bill I like, but at the same time repealing the parts of the bill I do not like? Will I have to repeal the bill 100% and then propose the sections I like (like the outlawing of governments hording of food) as separate bills?
Once again my goal is to make the charity mandatory (I know, nice oxymoron), but to keep some of the bill. I like the ideas of the world seed vault and the crop program. I want those to stay.

(OOC: Precisely. Repeal FWA first, then propose the replacement. It will need two separate proposals, in that order, and the first has to pass before the second can be submitted.)

[Socialist States of the World]

Ok, so how can I keep the sections of parts of the bill I like, but at the same time repealing the parts of the bill I do not like? Will I have to repeal the bill 100% and then propose the sections I like (like the outlawing of governments hording of food) as separate bills?
Once again my goal is to make the charity mandatory (I know, nice oxymoron), but to keep some of the bill. I like the ideas of the world seed vault and the crop program. I want those to stay.

(OOC: Precisely. Repeal FWA first, then propose the replacement. It will need two separate proposals, in that order, and the first has to pass before the second can be submitted.)

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!! I am going to start on the repeal proposal, and then the second replacement.

[Socialist States of the World]

I've just noticed that the bill I proposed, the newest version, has no references to parts of the Food Welfare Act. Except for the point in the bill about repealing the IFWO and replacing it with the WFP. I am going to link a new bill including the parts of the bill that will be put into a bill (that will in no way reference the WFP)

[Grays Harbor]

So far I have seen nothing in this which would convince me a repeal is a good idea, nor give me any confidence that this as a replacement would be a worthwhile pursuit. The whole point of repeal and replace is it improve on the original. This is not that improvement.

[The Sheika]

I do not support a repeal of the Food Welfare Act, but that does not mean that my stance is set in stone. For the time being, I am not convinced that a repeal followed by a replacement is necessary but I will hear out what you have in mind. That said, should the Food Welfare Act be repealed, aside from making charity mandatory (this is where I am getting a lot of friction by the way) what would your proposal do that the Food Welfare Act does not already do?

OOC: Keep in mind, a repeal can only repeal. It cannot change an existing resolution to do something else, and it cannot eliminate parts that you do not like. A repeal is a complete removal of the resolution, nothing more. In order to be successful, you will have to take what is provided in the existing resolution and explain why it does not work.

[Socialist States of the World]

I do not support a repeal of the Food Welfare Act, but that does not mean that my stance is set in stone. For the time being, I am not convinced that a repeal followed by a replacement is necessary but I will hear out what you have in mind. That said, should the Food Welfare Act be repealed, aside from making charity mandatory (this is where I am getting a lot of friction by the way) what would your proposal do that the Food Welfare Act does not already do?

OOC: Keep in mind, a repeal can only repeal. It cannot change an existing resolution to do something else, and it cannot eliminate parts that you do not like. A repeal is a complete removal of the resolution, nothing more. In order to be successful, you will have to take what is provided in the existing resolution and explain why it does not work.

I believe the voluntary charity is not enough. Plenty of people are starving around the world. If we can do this, people may be able to not starve. This can also be used to help in times of war, or major natural disaster. If we can improve on the Food Welfare Act via a repeal and replace we can decrease the number of hungry people.

[The Sheika]

I do not support a repeal of the Food Welfare Act, but that does not mean that my stance is set in stone. For the time being, I am not convinced that a repeal followed by a replacement is necessary but I will hear out what you have in mind. That said, should the Food Welfare Act be repealed, aside from making charity mandatory (this is where I am getting a lot of friction by the way) what would your proposal do that the Food Welfare Act does not already do?

OOC: Keep in mind, a repeal can only repeal. It cannot change an existing resolution to do something else, and it cannot eliminate parts that you do not like. A repeal is a complete removal of the resolution, nothing more. In order to be successful, you will have to take what is provided in the existing resolution and explain why it does not work.

I believe the voluntary charity is not enough. Plenty of people are starving around the world. If we can do this, people may be able to not starve. This can also be used to help in times of war, or major natural disaster. If we can improve on the Food Welfare Act via a repeal and replace we can decrease the number of hungry people.

Okay, but aside from mandatory charity, what does this do that the Food Welfare Act does not do. I have my doubts that making the charity mandatory is going to solve anything, so I'll need more than just that to be convinced.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I have no idea what's going here.

It's essential that you title your thread appropriately. Look at the other threads for both repeals and proposals. You start with [DRAFT], and then you either have your proposal title or "Repeal XXXX". This is important. Please do this.

It's also essential that you have your current draft in the OP. Please edit your OP to put your current draft into it.

Then make sure that you have a separate thread for your replacement.

[Grays Harbor]

I do not support a repeal of the Food Welfare Act, but that does not mean that my stance is set in stone. For the time being, I am not convinced that a repeal followed by a replacement is necessary but I will hear out what you have in mind. That said, should the Food Welfare Act be repealed, aside from making charity mandatory (this is where I am getting a lot of friction by the way) what would your proposal do that the Food Welfare Act does not already do?

OOC: Keep in mind, a repeal can only repeal. It cannot change an existing resolution to do something else, and it cannot eliminate parts that you do not like. A repeal is a complete removal of the resolution, nothing more. In order to be successful, you will have to take what is provided in the existing resolution and explain why it does not work.

I believe the voluntary charity is not enough. Plenty of people are starving around the world. If we can do this, people may be able to not starve. This can also be used to help in times of war, or major natural disaster. If we can improve on the Food Welfare Act via a repeal and replace we can decrease the number of hungry people.

I believe that the default answer is not always Let the government do it!. I have seen nothing here that convinces me that government mandated food programs will do any better than charities. And just to be clear, when something is mandated and government run it is no longer a charity, it is a government program.

You are going to need a stronger argument than because, GOVERNMENT!.

[Socialist States of the World]

I believe the voluntary charity is not enough. Plenty of people are starving around the world. If we can do this, people may be able to not starve. This can also be used to help in times of war, or major natural disaster. If we can improve on the Food Welfare Act via a repeal and replace we can decrease the number of hungry people.

I believe that the default answer is not always Let the government do it!. I have seen nothing here that convinces me that government mandated food programs will do any better than charities. And just to be clear, when something is mandated and government run it is no longer a charity, it is a government program.

You are going to need a stronger argument than because, GOVERNMENT!.

This program will feed thousands of hungry people and cause economic developments. Also, governments will encourage private fundraising for the program. Lastly, private charities will still be able to exist, people can choose what program to donate to. A government back, internationally funded program with distribution centers across the world, or, a private charity that depends on the market, private funds, and economic viability. People of ideology.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bankrupting developing nation farmers is not a good idea.

[Socialist States of the World]

Bankrupting developing nation farmers is not a good idea.

This plan would not do that, this would give meals in times of economic downfall, mass starvation, and weather events. Also, the program will pay farmers for extra crops.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So you mean to say bankrupt local farmers by driving them out of business. Moreover, you don't seem to understand the main cause of famine. It isn't weather events. It's contingent action to starve people. Stopping that resolves practically all famines that have occurred since the dawn of large-scale international trade.

[United Massachusetts]

So you mean to say bankrupt local farmers by driving them out of business. Moreover, you don't seem to understand the main cause of famine. It isn't weather events. It's contingent action to starve people. Stopping that resolves practically all famines that have occurred since the dawn of large-scale international trade.

"Shh...the communists don't like to hear such things. You'll anger them."

[Araraukar]

So you mean to say bankrupt local farmers by driving them out of business. Moreover, you don't seem to understand the main cause of famine. It isn't weather events. It's contingent action to starve people. Stopping that resolves practically all famines that have occurred since the dawn of large-scale international trade.

"Shh...the communists don't like to hear such things. You'll anger them."

OOC: Or, you know, farmers being ripped off by a capitalism-favoured big corporation that sells then resistant seeds but does it only if they don't keep any seeds past harvest but must buy new ones, or which sells them seeds that won't produce viable seeds of the same strain? Because, you know, that's never happened...

Not a communist but socialist and yes there's a damn big difference.

[Socialist States of the World]

"Shh...the communists don't like to hear such things. You'll anger them."

OOC: Or, you know, farmers being ripped off by a capitalism-favoured big corporation that sells then resistant seeds but does it only if they don't keep any seeds past harvest but must buy new ones, or which sells them seeds that won't produce viable seeds of the same strain? Because, you know, that's never happened...

Not a communist but socialist and yes there's a damn big difference.

Farmers in 3rd worlds nations will be paid for selling extra crops people will be encouraged to buy food hell I can even include wealth requirements in the bill. If you think about this, the meals will be basic and only meant to feed people. We can require people to have 2 meals a day. Also, if we do this,poorer people will be spending money not on food, but allowing them to put money into technology, small business, infrastructure, this will help more than it will harm. If you want I can make that the WFP needs to establish wealth requirements to take place in the program.

[Araraukar]

only meant to feed people.

OOC: So what exactly are you doing that Minimum Standards of Living Act isn't already doing? That requires nations to arrange basic necessities for their inhabitants, and that includes food. The only hook there is that people need to be willing to contribute in some way (or not, but nations can require it) to society. If you're trying to mandate free meals, that's either contradiction of MSoLA or you're going to bankrupt someone sooner or later.

EDIT: Also, can you PLEASE post your current draft in the first post of this thread?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Or, you know, farmers being ripped off by a capitalism-favoured big corporation that sells then resistant seeds but does it only if they don't keep any seeds past harvest but must buy new ones, or which sells them seeds that won't produce viable seeds of the same strain? Because, you know, that's never happened...

Yea, you should read chapter 8 of the book Seeing like a state.

What you're saying is simply untrue in the field of modern industrialised agriculture. The mass use of hybrids for the automation of harvesting, requiring uniformity of ripeness, shape, etc. precludes the use of seed-saving. In most cases, the hybrids are sterile and saving seeds is pointless because there aren't any. In the other cases where the seeds exist, planting them is pointless: they will break the automated harvesters, meaning you have even greater efficiency and revenue losses.

Scott writes on page 267:

In the case of corn, hybridisation – the progeny of two inbred lines – produces a field of the genetically identical individuals that are ideal for mechanisation. Varieties developed with machinery in mind were available as early as 1920, when Henry Wallace joined forces with a manufacture o harvesting equipment to cultivate his new, stiff-stalked variety with a strong shank connecting the ear to the stalk. An entire filled of plant breeding, termed "phytoengineering", was thus born in order to adapt the natural world to machine processing . . . The "machine-friendly" crop was bred to incorporate a series of characteristics that made it easier to harvest it mechanically. Among the most important of these characteristics were resilience, a concentrated fruit set, uniformity of plant size and architecture, uniformity of fruit shape and size, dwarfing (in the case of tree crops especially), and fruits that easily break way from the plant. (Manually transcribed, there may be errors, my apologies.)

The natural reproductive systems of practically all plants, through sexual reproduction (in the biological sense), destroys the uniformity of these characteristics and destroys the productivity of crops under the till in mechanised agriculture, thereby precluding the use of the products of that reproduction. Natural corn does not look like the corn you find growing in an Iowa cornfield. And I'm not exaggerating that much when I say that the seeds that these plants produce, in most cases, are better suited for composting than they are for planting.