Farming Freedom Act (Failed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:03:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Farming Freedom Act (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Farming Freedom Act (Failed)  (Read 1986 times)
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 18, 2014, 12:00:54 PM »
« edited: December 01, 2014, 04:13:09 PM by President LumineVonReuental »

Slot: 5 (General, PPT Administered)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senator Deus, as sponsor you have 24 hours to advocate for this act.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2014, 01:16:51 PM »

The initial point I'd like to make is as of 2017 there will be no subsidies for agriculture from us, due to this law: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Let%E2%80%99s_Really_Eliminate_Farm_Subsidies_Act
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2014, 08:49:27 PM »

Bump! Sponsor?
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2014, 10:39:53 PM »

Thank you, Mr. PPT.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is to repeal statutes, regulations, and programs which distort agricultural markets and benefit incumbent cartels at the expense of their competitors and Atlasian consumers.

As part of the horrendous "New Deal" reforms of the 1930's, the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act established a system of Federal "marketing orders" whereby the Federal government is able to determine the supply of agricultural commodities, as well as set prices. These orders need only be approved by a 2/3 majority of the producers they are being applied to, so majoritarian cartels are able to prohibit entrepreneurial competitors from offering produce to Atlasian consumers (especially those who struggle with food security) at lower prices. Moreover, the price of a commodity can be inflated at whim, making food more expensive and protecting incumbent producers from competition. This is cartel behavior, plain and simple.

Also part of the New Deal, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 created price-support programs for a number of agricultural commodities, meaning that the Federal government pays growers of certain commodities a minimum price for their produce. This keeps prices at a minimum price level even if consumer demand would result in a lower equilibrium price. In other words, these programs make food more expensive and incentivize the production of certain commodities regardless of whether or not there is actually consumer demand for them. In addition, these payments artificially increase land values, hurting tenant farmers and making it more difficult to purchase land, which hurts small farmers and benefits large corporate operations. The DoA is still authorized to distribute these subsidies under the AAA, so even it's unclear whether the previous bill would have dealt with this.

Finally, this bill repeals Federal growing regulations to allow farmers to make their own decisions about what they produce on their own land and sell to consumers. Dairy farmers, for example, are currently prohibited from selling raw milk, which is a needless restriction on their right of free exchange. This bill still allows for labeling requirements, so consumers will still know what they're getting; it'll simply be up to them whether they consider it desirable to consume (as it should be).
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2014, 09:05:17 AM »
« Edited: October 22, 2014, 11:20:37 AM by Senator bore »

Section 2 subsection 2 is crazy.

If taken literally it would mean that the government couldn't enforce a regulation ensuring that food was actually safe to eat.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2014, 02:25:04 PM »

There's no way I'm voting for a bill that will basically strip all safeguards and regulations on food. As someone who frequently eats, probably more than the rest of you, I don't feel that I should have to worry whether or not what I'm consuming will kill me at the dinner table. I intend to let the food I eat kill me naturally at 50 of a heart attack.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2014, 05:49:31 PM »

I believe the Atlasian Senate has a wider responsibility for public safety outside of declaring war.

No way I'm supporting this as it stands.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2014, 11:47:43 PM »

So amendments then?
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seems like the only starting point if anything is to come of this.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2014, 01:18:46 AM »

Friendly.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2014, 06:50:02 AM »

So amendments then?
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seems like the only starting point if anything is to come of this.

Nobody else see the problems of this sentence? No restrictions on the transportation of these products?
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2014, 04:07:14 PM »

Well wait, no restrictions or prohibitions on transport? What if there's a bad batch of something that gets into a shipment? Does that mean there would be no legal recourse now to stop the shipment from heading to its destination?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2014, 10:26:21 PM »

This is an insane bill.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2014, 10:42:01 PM »

Well wait, no restrictions or prohibitions on transport? What if there's a bad batch of something that gets into a shipment? Does that mean there would be no legal recourse now to stop the shipment from heading to its destination?

Thank you.

Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2014, 10:47:32 PM »


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, so with this version, the DoA could issue a directive preventing a specific batch of bad products, but not general restrictions on transport and sale (ie, no dairy products from outside area x may be sold in area x).
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2014, 10:50:01 PM »

Explain.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2014, 10:56:00 PM »

Food and mouth outbreak - where there might need to be national action?
Logged
GAworth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2014, 11:51:36 PM »

I don't see my role as butting in to debates, but I don't believe that Section 2 Sub. 2 is a good idea. It would shake confidence in American grown products and could lead to possible outbreaks of disease.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2014, 01:36:29 AM »

I don't see my role as butting in to debates, but I don't believe that Section 2 Sub. 2 is a good idea. It would shake confidence in American grown products and could lead to possible outbreaks of disease.

Exactly - regulations, guaranteeing safety and quality control are a big part of international trading.

Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2014, 03:26:18 PM »


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, so with this version, the DoA could issue a directive preventing a specific batch of bad products, but not general restrictions on transport and sale (ie, no dairy products from outside area x may be sold in area x).

But that isn't helpful at all. There could be national problems that would prevent a specific batch being isolated by the DoA doing anything. There have to be protections in place more than what this bill provides for.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2014, 03:42:28 PM »

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2014, 05:06:38 PM »

I don't see my role as butting in to debates, but I don't believe that Section 2 Sub. 2 is a good idea. It would shake confidence in American grown products and could lead to possible outbreaks of disease.

Exactly - regulations, guaranteeing safety and quality control are a big part of international trading.
Except that has already been removed from the bill. Please at least put in the effort to read a one-page thread.

Alright, here's a new amendment assuming the current one passes:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This should address concerns expressed by Senators, clarify/streamline the terms use din the legislation, and eliminate language rendered superfluous by previous amendments.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2014, 07:53:18 PM »

I'm just curious what actual problem this Bill is designed to fix?

Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2014, 11:52:23 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2014, 11:54:03 PM by Deus Naturae »

I'm just curious what actual problem this Bill is designed to fix?

Thank you, Mr. PPT.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is to repeal statutes, regulations, and programs which distort agricultural markets and benefit incumbent cartels at the expense of their competitors and Atlasian consumers.

As part of the horrendous "New Deal" reforms of the 1930's, the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act established a system of Federal "marketing orders" whereby the Federal government is able to determine the supply of agricultural commodities, as well as set prices. These orders need only be approved by a 2/3 majority of the producers they are being applied to, so majoritarian cartels are able to prohibit entrepreneurial competitors from offering produce to Atlasian consumers (especially those who struggle with food security) at lower prices. Moreover, the price of a commodity can be inflated at whim, making food more expensive and protecting incumbent producers from competition. This is cartel behavior, plain and simple.

Also part of the New Deal, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 created price-support programs for a number of agricultural commodities, meaning that the Federal government pays growers of certain commodities a minimum price for their produce. This keeps prices at a minimum price level even if consumer demand would result in a lower equilibrium price. In other words, these programs make food more expensive and incentivize the production of certain commodities regardless of whether or not there is actually consumer demand for them. In addition, these payments artificially increase land values, hurting tenant farmers and making it more difficult to purchase land, which hurts small farmers and benefits large corporate operations. The DoA is still authorized to distribute these subsidies under the AAA, so even it's unclear whether the previous bill would have dealt with this.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2014, 01:37:14 AM »

I just realized that I had kept my own list of amendments up to date as of about a week ago, but now that I have internet back I have fallen out of keeping it updated. Crap. Sad
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2014, 08:18:18 PM »

The first amendment has been approved, Senators have 24 hours to object to Deus's new amendment.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 13 queries.