NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the arguement

No Farms-for-Homes Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Description: RECOGNIZING Farming is major import and export for most nations (which also included the dairy industry, from cows)

NOTING Homes do not produce any crop, they just use them

REALIZING That farmers sell millions of acres of land per year to greedy house builders. Nothing is stopping these farmers for selling their land for large sums of money.

PERIL Before long we may *lose all of our farming industry.* Farming is a major import/export for most nations, and is getting narrower by the year. This will cause a major economic downfall, and most likely an economic deppresion (due to scarce crops)

1)Farming land may not be sold for housing (house builders can find other resources)

2)Farmers may sell their land to industries lacking in the specified nation (which will be a wide list, for the convience of the farmers).

3)Monitor the selling of farm land.

4)Any farmer breaking these laws (though very hard) will have the land confiscated.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jun 25 2005

The Democratic States of Demoskratos has not approved this proposal. [Approve]

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24879/page=UN_proposal/proposal=92

If you agree with my proposal, you can approve it by clicking the above link. Think about it, we need farming, and building houses on farms does not provoke a trading industry.

If you approve, right now the proposal is on page 19. Please vote for the proposal that affects free trade, I made the other by accident (affecting environment) so if a admin or moderator sees this they can delete the one that affects environment.

Here is the arguement

No Farms-for-Homes Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Description: RECOGNIZING Farming is major import and export for most nations (which also included the dairy industry, from cows)

NOTING Homes do not produce any crop, they just use them

REALIZING That farmers sell millions of acres of land per year to greedy house builders. Nothing is stopping these farmers for selling their land for large sums of money.

PERIL Before long we may *lose all of our farming industry.* Farming is a major import/export for most nations, and is getting narrower by the year. This will cause a major economic downfall, and most likely an economic deppresion (due to scarce crops)

1)Farming land may not be sold for housing (house builders can find other resources)

2)Farmers may sell their land to industries lacking in the specified nation (which will be a wide list, for the convience of the farmers).

3)Monitor the selling of farm land.

4)Any farmer breaking these laws (though very hard) will have the land confiscated.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jun 25 2005

The Democratic States of Demoskratos has not approved this proposal. [Approve]

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24879/page=UN_proposal/proposal=92

If you agree with my proposal, you can approve it by clicking the above link. Think about it, we need farming, and building houses on farms does not provoke a trading industry.

If you approve, right now the proposal is on page 19. Please vote for the proposal that affects free trade, I made the other by accident (affecting environment) so if a admin or moderator sees this they can delete the one that affects environment.

A decent idea, but this seems to very much a domestic issue that would be better resolved by national governments in areas where the loss of arable land is actually a problem.

We solved our loss of arable land by importing some goods from other countries and by using growing techniques that do not require natural soil, but use synthesized materials instead.

This proposal is another "Environment good, greedy capitalists bad" proposal. Where do you suggest keeping people in my nation if we can't build new houses? Are they supposed to live on the street, or how about an apartment that doesn't allow the children to run around in their own backyard. Or how are the contractions workers suppose to work when the amount of construction has depleted due to this resolution.

This is absolutely unacceptable and if this resolution actually made quorum I would actively campaign against it.

In with you Holyboy. While it might be "nice" to keep farm land the way it is (a.k.a. conservative), we as a governmental body do not have the right to impose these types of restrictions upon farmers and their families. It will not only tie families to failing farms forever, but will block any sort of progress if we wanted to make said area a wildlife reserve or a 7-11.

PERIL Before long we may *lose all of our farming industry.* Farming is a major import/export for most nations, and is getting narrower by the year. This will cause a major economic downfall, and most likely an economic deppresion (due to scarce crops)


I find that a most interesting line, by virtue of the "PERIL" tag on its front. Hmm...

PERIL - Funky Smells will be endangered if we remove the natural habitat of chicken and pig farms. :D

I'm somewhat concerned that this would simply have the effect of creating a market for land speculators. After all, what's to stop someone from buying up large amounts of farmland, allegedly for industrial use, and then selling it to developers at exaggerated prices? All this would do is create a shortage of affordable housing and make a number of individuals very rich.

If our farmers feel they can't make a profit from producing and feel the need to sell then they can sell to whoever they like. We won't agree with any unfair restrictions on this that only apply to one industry.

Perhaps a better idea would be supporting farmers so they don't have to sell their land at all, and making it easier and more profitable for them to sell locally and export their goods. If they are getting a good return for what they they put into producing the food then it follows they would be a lot more willing to stay on the land and less likely to sell.

Where are all the people gonna live if theirs no homes? The farming imports/exports can suffer for the people. Industries bring more to the state than farms do anyway.

Indeed, this sounds like another regional/national issue to me. Darkumbria cannot agree with this. If this is an issue for your country, please deal with it locally/regionally.


OOC: Nicely written, sorry I can't agree with it. Goes against my beliefs that this should be an international/universal body, rather than a regional one.

Allemande opposes this.

Look, if farmers can't make a living, it's unfair to ask them to persist in trying rather than pursuing some other calling. In a similar vein, it a nation has too many farmers, it's pointless to subsidize unnecessary farming.

As far as the possibility that we'll wake up someday without any arable land and all starve to death, it can't happen. Long before it might, the price of agricultural products will rise and idle farmland (the land that gets sold to developers) will be profitable to work again, eliminating the problem.

The author assumes that free markets don't work. The author is wrong.

The sale of land allows land to be transferred between uses so that it may be employed productively; if we're turning farmland into residential property, it must be because we don't need farmland as much as residential property (duh!). That will continue until we have too many homes and not enough farms, at which point we fully expect to see Demoskartos or somebody like him author a "Homestead Preservation Act" (or "No Homes-For-Farms Act", as he puts it) to prevent the market from correcting back the other way.

Laissez nous faire.

Here is the arguement

No Farms-for-Homes Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Description: RECOGNIZING Farming is major import and export for most nations (which also included the dairy industry, from cows)

NOTING Homes do not produce any crop, they just use them

REALIZING That farmers sell millions of acres of land per year to greedy house builders. Nothing is stopping these farmers for selling their land for large sums of money.

PERIL Before long we may *lose all of our farming industry.* Farming is a major import/export for most nations, and is getting narrower by the year. This will cause a major economic downfall, and most likely an economic deppresion (due to scarce crops)

1)Farming land may not be sold for housing (house builders can find other resources)

2)Farmers may sell their land to industries lacking in the specified nation (which will be a wide list, for the convience of the farmers).

3)Monitor the selling of farm land.

4)Any farmer breaking these laws (though very hard) will have the land confiscated.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jun 25 2005

The Democratic States of Demoskratos has not approved this proposal. [Approve]

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24879/page=UN_proposal/proposal=92

If you agree with my proposal, you can approve it by clicking the above link. Think about it, we need farming, and building houses on farms does not provoke a trading industry.

If you approve, right now the proposal is on page 19. Please vote for the proposal that affects free trade, I made the other by accident (affecting environment) so if a admin or moderator sees this they can delete the one that affects environment.

Well, I'm basically going to rehash what's been said here. No doubt this is an interesting idea, and it isn't poorly written in the least bit. But this is something that should be handled by the individual state and not the UN body. Let's face it; the farming industry isn't going to die out any time soon. There are hundreds upon thousands of nations to trade with in Nationstates. And the concerns about population growth, though they've already been expressed, are very legitimate.

Take my nation for instance. At one point people were building houses on top of houses. There were four or five families to one apartment; a house would literally serve home to eight or nine families. Why? Well the Florida peninsula can only hold so many people, and unfortunately 600,000,000 people is just too much. We solved the problem through a combination of selling vast quantities of farm land to build more houses and through expansionist policies in the Caribbean. What if your proposal had been in place? Florida Oranges probably wouldn't of been able to bail itself out of its population difficulties and the government most likely would of been over run by angry Floridians. The moral to this story; don't try to control something that doesn't need control.

In certain nations it's been ruled that people don't need a place to live they need work to do... so that they make products that sale thus money comes into government. Since they use working structures they would not be effected by this effort to take their lands form them.. Only the poor fools like getting some rest every two to six hours a day in a place they call there own not some government barracks. The only way to provided housing under this is to Socialize Society in separate sex barracks and assign everyone to a barracks in any region were the lands are used for farming.. Next the mining industry will find rare elements or coal or oil under a house and thus by rights take down the house for that. There is no need for farms if there are no people to work them or need the products produced on them. Family homes means people... take them out... nothing... Wake up World... we can't survive like this... :headbang: :headbang:

Considering the 5-6 million per year growth of my nation, I feel that no matter how efficiently I redesign old areas of my nation, my cities are still required to expand.

Considering resolution #23 (which requires me to replant any trees torn down if I remove more than 5 acres), I cannot expand into forrests without removing land from somewhere else.

Considering resolution #89, Rights of Indiginous Peoples, I can't use their land for expansion or planting trees without their explicit consent.

Considering that all my other territory is either national parks or farming land, and recognizing that there is only so much space in national parks to plant trees, I do not believe it possible to expand my cities without disregarding this proposed resolution.

I have recommended to my delegate to not support it, but I have supplied him with a full copy of the text. To date, he has not supported any resolution that I recommended not be supported.

We of the Empire have our own laws on land usage as an island state we must preserve it and use it well to meet advances of our people. We limit each family unit of five to 100 acres of clear land for home and his own crops and herds. Then for a township we set the area at 12,000 acres functional area.. chruches, schools, hospitals, shops, no more that 30% that factory. For security we call for 1,288 acres military and police bases. Also if population of township is above six million they allowed a general lot of 2,800 acres for a city farm or herd area. Also this area may be mines or wood crop area.. where we replant trees cut.. As we only have nine islands in the chain we can't afford to waste our lands or ruin them and the little fresh water we do have on them. Thus feel any world control on land usage is null as each area requires different rules for usage based on what is there.. to use... Consider as mentioned many nations already manage their own lands well and don't want or need others coming in telling them how to do it. Maybe deligates should get out of there hot tubes and see what goes on in the real world they propose to control... because they know what best for all of it...

Perhaps We're missing something here, but We don't quite grasp the importance of this issue. Our government tends to take a hands-off approach to land ownership and use. The only concern We have is whether the land in question exhibits a manifestation of the Eternal Kawaii, usually in the form of some noteable natural beauty. Private ownership and use of such land is permitted, provided the owners show proper deference to the manifestation. Generally, they are required to build and maintain a shrine to the manifestation for the people to come to and commune with it.