NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg

The MANIFESTO is now complete! see below.

NS political parties main thread: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8861158#post8861158)


the UDCP micronation, The People's Democratic Republic of Novus Aequalitas, can be found at www.udcp.org (http://www.udcp.org)


please, no right-wingers gatecrashing, flamebaiting or generally causing trouble:)

check out the UDCP dedicated discussion forum here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/index.php)
our NSWiki page can be found here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Democratic_Communist_Party)

come join our Region (http://www.nationstates.net/85429/page=display_region/region=democratic_communist_states)if you're interested in the party

THE UNITED DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY - founding speech

Evidently, many people on this forum have strong communist beliefs, of various varieties. Now, all communists can come together in a common party, debate amongst ourselves and draw up a common manifesto of our beliefs and ideals. If you would like a strong, unified, genuinely social party able to speak up for the beliefs you hold dear, then this party is for you. Come and have your say, and help shape the UDCP’s manifesto!


Comrades:

Ariddia (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/new%20folder/nlmeboat3mm%202.jpg) - MP
PM (http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/HuwChe/huwche.jpg)
Kanabia (http://img45.echo.cx/img45/7504/commie8gw.jpg)
Rus024
Ramur
Jello Biafra
Macatia
Sonho Real
Glitziness - babe
Jello Biafra
Warta Endor
Cafetopia
New Burmesia - MP
Revionia
Constantinopolis
Potaria
Eurocountry
(Druidvale)
Pyromanstahn
Tograna
Hallad
Bloodthirsty squirrels
Londonburg
Diamond Realms/Tiger Diamond
Pyro Kittens
Branin
Zrrylarg
Human Divinity
Lamorkand
Thekalu
Michaelic France
Tremerica
China3

(if i've left you off the list don't hesitate to TG me)

Party supporters/friends:
Kirol
Cool Dynasty 42

just post if you want to join and feel free to discuss the issues and our proposals

-------------------------------

UDCP MANIFESTO

The United Democratic Communist Party, affirming that capitalism is degrading to humankind, contrary to the most basic rights of individual, and is not conducive to a coherent society in which the well-being of all would be upheld and ensured, presents the following to all NS General voters as its manifesto.


THE ECONOMY:
* The economy would be fully nationalised.
* Money would be abolished, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All members of society would produce, and in return take what they need for free. Various types of contribution to society would be accepted.
* Needs would be met via an assessment of what people require, so that production of any given item may be diminished or increased in due relation.
* A transitional system would accompany the abolishment of money, during which guidelines would be issued to help people assess what they should take, and enable them not to worry about taking too much or too little.
* A central distribution network would be established, supplying information to all as to available products. Distribution centres will eventually become largely automated. This network would enable the people to have direct control over the means of production and distribution, as they could discuss production of various goods and decide on the necessity to produce greater or lesser quantities of any given good. There would be several layers to this network, from international to almost local, with local products being outside the network.
* During the transitional period, taxes on wealth being hoarded and gradual elimination of money will be instituted along with gradually publicised services, gradual government control over distribution of goods and encouraged communal sharing.
* Ensuring that all basic needs such as housing, warmth, water and food are met for all would be a priority.
* All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means.
* For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted, functioning on a local level so that everyone is involved. This rota system would work on a short-term basis, with citizens being required only to do a particular job for a couple of days out of every fortnight, dependent on local government decision and requirement. Groups of people in demand would be exempt - i.e., if there is a shortage in doctors, they would be exempt from the rota system. Any person unwilling to assist would have their rights limited, and persistent offenders would have their citizenship revoked. People would be encouraged to participate willingly, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the community. The rota would serve to fill gaps, as people would be encouraged to voluntarily contribute to the workload. Those who have rights limited or citizenship revoked will never be denied basic rights to life, such as food, water, shelter.
* For use in trading internationally through governments, a “barter” system would be implemented aimed at exchanging imports for exports, value depending on quantity and demand; all efforts would nonetheless be made towards self-reliance. Intergovernmental international trade would focus on importing raw materials rather than finished goods. Trade with any trading partners who are reluctant to barter would be based on the money already in the country, as well as efforts to ensure that the quantity and value of exports constantly supersede those of imports. (Note: in ideological communism this would not be necessary as communism would be international but assuming this is not the case, this system would come into effect.)


HEALTH CARE
* Free healthcare would be provided to all.
* Increased effort would be invested into information and research regarding cancer and Aids.
* Family planning programmes, and contraception techniques, would be taught and encouraged.
* Contraception would be made widely available to all.


EDUCATION
* Education, including university education, would be made free for all.
* Education would be compulsory for all, from the age of four to university level (with flexible years).
* Education would be a high priority.
* Lessons in philosophy and critical thinking would be compulsory.
* Training and apprenticeship schemes would be introduced and encouraged on top of existing learning methods with vocational courses.
* Individuals would be nurtured and encouraged, their varied skills and abilities being taken into account.
* Sex education would be highly prioritised along with general health and safety.


GOVERNANCE:
* See our graphical flowchart of government. (http://www.hlj.me.uk/government%203.jpg)
* There would be a written constitution.
* All residents in the country would have the right to vote.
* There would be a strict separation between the state, police and judiciary systems.
* The voting age would be set at 16.
* Direct democracy would be implemented through the means of a tech system with various levels of forums to discuss issues. There would be trained personnel to organise and run this system, writing proposals, putting the laws into effect and organising local meetings at least on an annual basis. Voting would eventually be done through a tech system once a developed, reliable system is formed.
* Voting would be done in special buildings with an electronic system rather than at home for security reasons.
* Decisions on some issues would be local or regional decisions (i.e. decentralization).
* The education (and health) system(s) in particular would be granted more autonomy at local level, with greater involvement of parents to be encouraged, with respect to Governance (decentralisation).
* Direct democracy would mean there would be no parliament, as decisions would be made by the people, leading to a form of anarchy.


THE ENVIRONMENT:
* A more extensive public transport would be gradually set up, and a limit placed upon the use of private cars (or, at least, they would be discouraged).
* Efforts would be made to strongly cut back on the wastage of over-production.
* Fossil fuels would be abandoned in favour of clean, renewable forms of energy: wind, solar, tidal…
* Efforts would be put into discovering ways to make nuclear power safer, as a supplement.
* Recycling and sustainable production methods would be encouraged.
* The Kyoto agreement would be adhered to.


FREEDOM:
* All forms of discrimination would be strongly opposed, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.
* Freedom of speech and religion would be upheld. (Note: inciting riots and threats are crimes and not protected under freedom of speech)
* Euthanasia would be permitted (and legalised through Living Wills).
* The right to life would be upheld, and there would thus be no capital punishment.
* Abortion would be allowed within 19 weeks of pregnancy, if the pregnancy is a result of rape, would endanger the mothers life, would cause serious mental harm or if the mother is in full-time education with at least one compulsory counselling session, a five week wait to prevent rash decisions, and would be coupled with improved childcare and adoption services. (Note: whether abortion would be allowed in a wider range of situations is still under debate)


SCIENCE:
* Human cloning would be prohibited.
* Embryonic stem-cell research would be permitted.
* Cosmetic animal testing would be abolished, and research into alternatives for scientific animal testing instigated.


ANIMAL CRUELTY:
* Measures would be implemented to ensure the prevention of cruelty to animals.


CRIME:
* Rehabilitation would be favoured over punishment.


MILITARY:
* Voting would become a minor part in military decisions, with strong guidance from trained military personnel in order to ensure consistency within a given campaign.
* There would be no participation in war except in extreme cases.
* A small military unit only would be retained, based exclusively on self-defence.

DRUGS:
* Cannabis would be legalised, with regulation and high safety standards; also education on the risks of drugs would be implemented to enable people to make an informed choice.
* The legal age for cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis would be set at 16.


TRAFFIC CONTROL:
* Tighter traffic controls would be implemented, including lower speed limits, especially in the vicinity of schools, residential districts and inner-city areas; these laws would be flexible so that exceeding the limit by just a few miles would not be punished, or would incur a smaller punishment or fine.


OTHER ISSUES:
* The age of consent would be flexible and examined on a case by case basis, a rough age being 15 years and age differences being taken into account.
* Arts and culture would be encouraged.
* Identity cards would be introduced.
* Marriage would be redefined as a free union with separate religious additions if wanted.
* All genuine asylum seekers and skilled/qualified immigrants would be welcomed.

-------------------------------

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/hammersickle.gif workers of the world unite! http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/hammersickle.gif
http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP%202.jpg

PM, you've submitted this thread thrice. Please delete the extras or I'll get a mod to delete them for you.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

hope you don't mind, Ariddia, i thought i'd get the ball rolling:)


No problem. I was about to do so myself, but the main thing is for it to be done. Now, we need ideas, policies, ideals for a manifesto.

I suggest the following should be part of our manifesto, but of course each of these points is open to debate for each member of the party:

* the affirmation of the belief that capitalism is degrading to humankind, contrary to the most basic rights of individual, and is not conducive to a coherent society in which the well-being of all would be upheld and ensured
* free universal healthcare
* ensuring housing for all
* ensuring jobs for all
* free education for all, including university education
* full nationalisation of the economy
* ensuring the protection of the environment
* opposing all forms of discrimination, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.

What do you think? I know there's a lot more we can put in too...

Are you guys going to be for equal distribution of post counts?

Are you guys going to be for equal distribution of post counts?

Hmm... I don't think so. Unless that idea gets massive support within the party. ;)

*Spies*

PM, you've submitted this thread thrice. Please delete the extras or I'll get a mod to delete them for you.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
didn't mean to - jolt screwed up when i submitted. then i went n had lunch... back now.


edit:

No problem. I was about to do so myself, but the main thing is for it to be done. Now, we need ideas, policies, ideals for a manifesto.

I suggest the following should be part of our manifesto, but of course each of these points is open to debate for each member of the party:

* the affirmation of the belief that capitalism is degrading to humankind, contrary to the most basic rights of individual, and is not conducive to a coherent society in which the well-being of all would be upheld and ensured
* free universal healthcare
* ensuring housing for all
* ensuring jobs for all
* free education for all, including university education
* full nationalisation of the economy
* ensuring the protection of the environment
* opposing all forms of discrimination, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.

What do you think? I know there's a lot more we can put in too...


all seconded.
i'll be thinking up additions. i have some pretty crazy/far-fetched ideas that may meet a fair bit of opposition. hopefully i can count on kanabia for support...

di

i'll be thinking up additions. i have some pretty crazy/far-fetched ideas that may meet a fair bit of opposition. hopefully i can count on kanabia for support...

Have you read my manifesto?

Have you read my manifesto?
ok... your ideas are sliiiightly more far-fetched than mine:p


btw, i propose legalisation of cannabis to be included in the manifesto, as well as an encouragement of arts and culture

ok... your ideas are sliiiightly more far-fetched than mine:p


btw, i propose legalisation of cannabis to be included in the manifesto, as well as an encouragement of arts and culture

It'll work. i've already got 2 members!

What about money? I suppose it will probably be necessary in some form or another, but what should it's place be/how should it be used?

btw, i propose legalisation of cannabis to be included in the manifesto, as well as an encouragement of arts and culture

I second that.

What about money? I suppose it will probably be necessary in some form or another, but what should it's place be/how should it be used?

Good question. There are two possibilities really. Either we abolish money, and come up with a fair system based on the notion of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Or we keep money, and introduce a fair system of taxation based on income to fund social policies and make sure no-one lives in poverty, misery and destitution.

...
* free universal healthcare
* ensuring housing for all
* ensuring jobs for all
* free education for all, including university education
* full nationalisation of the economy
* ensuring the protection of the environment
* opposing all forms of discrimination, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.
...


Identy crisis! :eek: I almost agree with everything on that list, except the full nationalisation of the economy. What am I? A Scandinavian?

Identy crisis! I almost agree with everything on that list, except the full nationalisation of the economy. What am I? :eek:

You're a Democratic Communist, that's what. Come and join us, comrade! :D

Good question. There are two possibilities really. Either we abolish money, and come up with a fair system based on the notion of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Or we keep money, and introduce a fair system of taxation based on income to fund social policies and make sure no-one lives in poverty, misery and destitution.
i'm for the abolition of money.

think about it from an altruistic perspective. if everone submits their life's worth of labour to the system - to society - then they are entitled to free consumption of the fruits of everyone else's labour. there is no need for money - as long as you are producing something for society you are allowed what you want/need for free

edit: this will be regulated/distributed by modern technology. just like a worldwide ebay. if you need something, look it up on your local/regional "ebay style" distribution net. if its not there, look on the world net.

through the same system we can have direct democracy once again (first time since Athens) and the people can directly control the 3 key economic problems: what to produce, how to produce, and for whom to produce.
this idea needs further work of course, but thats the basics of it

think about it from an altruistic perspective. if everone submits their life's worth of labour to the system - to society - then they are entitled to free consumption of the fruits of everyone else's labour. there is no need for money - as long as you are producing something for society you are allowed what you want/need for free

*nods* Yes, that's the way I see it too. The only problem being, it requires trust in people not to abuse the system.

Another thing I think we should include is the right to life (i.e., no death penalty).

*nods* Yes, that's the way I see it too. The only problem being, it requires trust in people not to abuse the system.

Another thing I think we should include is the right to life (i.e., no death penalty).
yeah thats a problem. it'll only be a problem in the short term though as people shift from the greed inherent in the current system... once they accept the new system an attitude of altruism will start to emerge

and right to life seconded

yeah thats a problem. it'll only be a problem in the short term though as people shift from the greed inherent in the current system... once they accept the new system an attitude of altruism will start to emerge


True. Even if, for some, at first, it will be more because of the pressure of their fellow citizens than anything else, in time greed would indeed fade away. All right, we'll go with abolishing money then, though we can leave the issue open for debate by any new members to the party.

I would like, in clear language, it to be explained what a "right" is, what a "priviledge" is, and perhaps a third classification that's somewhere between them. Of course, that might be for the United Democratic Communist Constitution as opposed to its Manifesto.

i'm for the abolition of money.

think about it from an altruistic perspective. if everone submits their life's worth of labour to the system - to society - then they are entitled to free consumption of the fruits of everyone else's labour. there is no need for money - as long as you are producing something for society you are allowed what you want/need for free

edit: this will be regulated/distributed by modern technology. just like a worldwide ebay. if you need something, look it up on your local/regional "ebay style" distribution net. if its not there, look on the world net.

through the same system we can have direct democracy once again (first time since Athens) and the people can directly control the 3 key economic problems: what to produce, how to produce, and for whom to produce.
this idea needs further work of course, but thats the basics of it

So how would we share out the resources that everyone has worked for, once everyone has got the basics? Bearing in mind of course that people won't all want the same things, so the old "one for you, one for you, one for you..." method of sharing won't work. I like your idea, Pure Metal, but not everyone will be able to have everything they want. How can we limit people's greed and stop them from taking loads of stuff? The obvious answer is a token system of sorts, but this could easily just develop into another form of money if not regulated carefully. Also it could lead to people "loaning" tokens to each other, propagating debt, greed and disharmony. Is there a way around this?

EDIT: Gah, people keep posting while I'm typing. So, at the moment, our ideal goal is the abolition of money, if we can come up with a decent system without it? This may change if new members come in, certainly, but I for one would like to see the abolition of money if possible.

I would like, in clear language, it to be explained what a "right" is, what a "priviledge" is, and perhaps a third classification that's somewhere between them. Of course, that might be for the United Democratic Communist Constitution as opposed to its Manifesto.

Yes, that wouldn't really be something for the manifesto, but a "right" is affirmed as something which everyone is entitled to and should not be deprived of, while a "privilege" would be something artificial and conveyed only upon a select few (for whatever reason). At least, in the way I view these terms.

Whee! I'm technically a communist, I guess.

In the words of Homer, "I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter".

Sign me up dude. Abolish money, end social exploitation! =X

So how would we share out the resources that everyone has worked for, once everyone has got the basics? Bearing in mind of course that people won't all want the same things, so the old "one for you, one for you, one for you..." method of sharing won't work. I like your idea, Pure Metal, but not everyone will be able to have everything they want. How can we limit people's greed and stop them from taking loads of stuff? The obvious answer is a token system of sorts, but this could easily just develop into another form of money if not regulated carefully. Also it could lead to people "loaning" tokens to each other, propagating debt, greed and disharmony. Is there a way around this?My idea would be to generate a random list of all of the people in the commune/region/country/ or whatever. Then, at the general meeting, the chair would say something like "okay, we have item X, who wants item X?" If there isn't enough of item X for everyone, then you would go down the list and the people who want item X would get it, and then be moved to the bottom of the list. Then the next item would come up, and the process repeated.

You dirty commies will never take NS.

Welcome, Kanabia, Rus024, Ramur! Feel free to take part in the discussions to establish the party's policies. The manifesto is something for us all to decide on together.

Sonho Real, we may need a transitional period during which a token system is used, and/or official guidelines as to what and how much people may take. This would serve to help people work through the transition, and get used to a system without money, so that they don't find themselves worrying about taking too much or too little. After that, with habit (and, if necessary, pressure from fellow citizens that would prevent people from abusing the system), it should go smoothly.

My idea would be to generate a random list of all of the people in the commune/region/country/ or whatever. Then, at the general meeting, the chair would say something like "okay, we have item X, who wants item X?" If there isn't enough of item X for everyone, then you would go down the list and the people who want item X would get it, and then be moved to the bottom of the list. Then the next item would come up, and the process repeated.

Good point. Also, this would be useful in insuring that, by the next time, more of item X had been produced if it's found there hadn't been enough for everyone. And if there had been more of item Y than everyone needed, then less of item Y would be produced. So production would be balanced in order to ensure that everyone has what they need.

Perhaps the amount taken "out" of the system should be proportional to what the citizen puts "in". (I.e. Labour, finished goods?)

Perhaps the amount taken "out" of the system should be proportional to what the citizen puts "in". (I.e. Labour, finished goods?)

You mean, people should not take more than they produce? Well, the system would imply everyone contributing to the best of their abilities in the first place. A balance would quickly be worked out as people find how much they actually need to work in order to ensure everyone's needs, and that would give them plenty of time for rest and recreation too.

Ariddia and Jello Biafra, I like your ideas both about distributing items and having a "temporary" token system. We could probably use technology to apply Jello Biafra's ideas in a more efficient manner, and maybe refine them somewhat (since someone might want a small, easy to produce item that there's not a big shortage of, it would be unfair to move that person right to the bottom of the list along with a load of people who just got more special, labour and/or resource intensive items.)

I propose wireless networking for the whole country. :D

Perhaps the amount taken "out" of the system should be proportional to what the citizen puts "in". (I.e. Labour, finished goods?)

Hummm... but then what about people who are less able to contribute? Is it right that they should have less, even though they may be working just as hard?

Where do I sign up please?

Aslong as communism thrives so will mankind.

Where do I sign up please?


You just have. :) Feel free to contribute any ideas for the manifesto, and to take part in the discussions.

Sonho Real, I agree that some measure of nationwide coordination would be needed for some items, and technology could be useful then. On the other hand, for items that can be produced locally, everything can be coordinated on a local level.

And, of course, people who are less able to produce despite their best efforts (most notably handicapped people, but not only) would not be in any way penalised, and would have the same access to products (and services) as anyone else.

I'm seriously considering joining. but first answer m3e these;
does the party believe in socialism/communism by revolution or evolution? (my view: by evolution)
by the 'abolishment of money' do you mean the establishment of a barter system? (something I would totally back)

Perhaps the amount taken "out" of the system should be proportional to what the citizen puts "in". (I.e. Labour, finished goods?)
to me, this goes against the principle of equality for all.

i propose we simplify the whole issue. if you work and contribute to socitey, you are a citizen. if you do not work, or contribute in some way (such as learning or pursuing artistic & creative endeavours which could be described, technically, as not working), then you are not a citizen.

citizens get what they want or need by access to the central distribution network (my 'ebay style' idea). as a producer of a good, you give the products of your labour to, say, a regional/local distribution center, which then puts the product on the information network. if you, as a "consumer" want a particular good you look it up on the network, just as you might on ebay, find what you want and request it. it will then be dispached to you or you pick it up. the distribution centers should be as automated as possible to avoid the possibility of corruption.

any shortages and the citizens in a locality/region discuss the issue on the information network (through a forum or similar) and agree that more people need to be making good x.
hence the people have direct control over the means of production and distribution

Ariddia, maybe handcapped or people unable to work the required amount* should be taken into special homes. There they can work how ever much they can and get care.

*If the minimum wage is good (if we are having money) then people should be required to work a certain number of hours a week, say 30, unless given permission not to work by a doctor. Then everyone would put in the same amount and no one would work harder, without having to, than anyone else. Thus making it even more fair than evil Capitalism!!

*If the minimum wage is good (if we are having money) then people should be required to work a certain number of hours a week, say 30, unless given permission not to work by a doctor. Then everyone would put in the same amount and no one would work harder, without having to, than anyone else. Thus making it even more fair than evil Capitalism!!I think that could also be done without money.

I'm seriously considering joining. but first answer m3e these;
does the party believe in socialism/communism by revolution or evolution? (my view: by evolution)


That would depend on your definition. We're campaigning for people to vote for us; would that be evolution or revolution to you? You could see it as both. As said earlier, the new system will be installed through a transition phase to help people adapt, and get used, to it.


by the 'abolishment of money' do you mean the establishment of a barter system? (something I would totally back)

We mean that everyone would produce to satisfy the needs of all, and that everyone would receive from the others what he/she needs, freely. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Ariddia, maybe handcapped or people unable to work the required amount* should be taken into special homes. There they can work how ever much they can and get care.

No, you can't force people into "special homes"; they should be able to live and work wherever they people. They would simply contribute to society to the best of their abilities, if they are able to work at all.


*If the minimum wage is good (if we are having money) then people should be required to work a certain number of hours a week, say 30, unless given permission not to work by a doctor. Then everyone would put in the same amount and no one would work harder, without having to, than anyone else. Thus making it even more fair than evil Capitalism!!

As Jello Biafra said, this could be done without money. And the amount of time to spend at work would be determined by the amount of time needed in order to provide for the needs of one's fellow citizens, so it can't really be fixed in advance.

citizens get what they want or need by access to the central distribution network (my 'ebay style' idea). as a producer of a good, you give the products of your labour to, say, a regional/local distribution center, which then puts the product on the information network. if you, as a "consumer" want a particular good you look it up on the network, just as you might on ebay, find what you want and request it. it will then be dispached to you or you pick it up. the distribution centers should be as automated as possible to avoid the possibility of corruption.

any shortages and the citizens in a locality/region discuss the issue on the information network (through a forum or similar) and agree that more people need to be making good x.
hence the people have direct control over the means of production and distribution

I agree for the most part. But not everything would need to be entered into a large network. Some goods can be produced on a small local level, and distributed on that local level. It would be simpler, not to mention conducive to more social and "human" community life.

I disagree with putting people into "special homes" unless they require care that they can't get living with their family/spouse/friends and in their local community. I agree that handicapped people should contribute as much as they are able, but they should never have to work more hours than everyone else if their disability causes them to work more slowly.

I think everyone should have some leisure time, at least one day a week off. Aside from this being important in many religions, most people burn out if they never get days off and work less productively.

That would depend on your definition. We're campaigning for people to vote for us; would that be evolution or revolution to you? You could see it as both. As said earlier, the new system will be installed through a transition phase to help people adapt, and get used, to it.



We mean that everyone would produce to satisfy the needs of all, and that everyone would receive from the others what he/she needs, freely. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
sounds good. you have my backing.
i'll suggest that a barter system could be an effective means of transition from capitalism to economic communism.

I'm just reading over (and need to go look at other parties manifestos too) before I decide but from what I've read so far I agree with the majority and would be able to compromise on the rest ;)

sounds good. you have my backing.
i'll suggest that a barter system could be an effective means of transition from capitalism to economic communism.

Well, what I suggested earlier was this:


Sonho Real, we may need a transitional period during which a token system is used, and/or official guidelines as to what and how much people may take. This would serve to help people work through the transition, and get used to a system without money, so that they don't find themselves worrying about taking too much or too little. After that, with habit (and, if necessary, pressure from fellow citizens that would prevent people from abusing the system), it should go smoothly.


What do you think?

I'm just reading over (and need to go look at other parties manifestos too) before I decide but from what I've read so far I agree with the majority and would be able to compromise on the rest ;)

I'm glad you approve! :)

If you have any ideas to contribute, feel free.

Sonho Real, we may need a transitional period during which a token system is used, and/or official guidelines as to what and how much people may take. This would serve to help people work through the transition, and get used to a system without money, so that they don't find themselves worrying about taking too much or too little. After that, with habit (and, if necessary, pressure from fellow citizens that would prevent people from abusing the system), it should go smoothly.




What do you think?
__________________

oh, right. must have misread that when i was scanning the thread to start with. definitely seems like the way to go.

I disagree with putting people into "special homes" unless they require care that they can't get living with their family/spouse/friends and in their local community. I agree that handicapped people should contribute as much as they are able, but they should never have to work more hours than everyone else if their disability causes them to work more slowly.

I think everyone should have some leisure time, at least one day a week off. Aside from this being important in many religions, most people burn out if they never get days off and work less productively.

Agreed, on both accounts. Again, though, the amount of leisure time available could be worked out once people know how much time they effectively need to work in order to produce all that is necessary to themselves and to their fellow citizens. All the rest of their time, they could devote to leisure.

I agree for the most part. But not everything would need to be entered into a large network. Some goods can be produced on a small local level, and distributed on that local level. It would be simpler, not to mention conducive to more social and "human" community life.
agreed. food and such necessities should be distributed on a local scale. some food items, of course, may want to be entered onto the larger network.

note that i think there should be many tiers of this network, from community to local, to regional, to 'national', to international region, to world.
we need to finalise our collective position on this (pretty major) issue, as well as solidifying our views on the other isses before we can put them in the manifesto


another proposal: free public transport for all citizens

another proposal: free public transport for all citizensI agree. I would also severely limit, if not eradicate private cars. This would not include taxis.

note that i think there should be many tiers of this network, from community to local, to regional, to 'national', to international region, to world.
we need to finalise our collective position on this (pretty major) issue, as well as solidifying our views on the other isses before we can put them in the manifesto

*nods*

We've got time to solidify it all. There's no need to rush into writing the manifesto, especially since we've got all these new party members joining us, and they should have the opportunity to have their say. But I agree that the scale of the network would depend on the type of goods.


another proposal: free public transport for all citizens

If we were using a system with money, I'd probably have toned that down to "cheap public transport for all", but since we're abolishing money, free public transport comes as a logical consequence. ;)

I agree. I would also severely limit, if not eradicate private cars. This would not include taxis.

In a moneyless system, we could gradually develop a more extensive public transport network, though only after the system has been worked out well enough for all more essential needs to be provided for. But yes, once we can do that, it would be possible to limit the use of private cars.

agreed. food and such necessities should be distributed on a local scale. some food items, of course, may want to be entered onto the larger network.

note that i think there should be many tiers of this network, from community to local, to regional, to 'national', to international region, to world.
we need to finalise our collective position on this (pretty major) issue, as well as solidifying our views on the other isses before we can put them in the manifesto


another proposal: free public transport for all citizens

Yes, it is better for things to be obtained locally where possible. But a bigger network would also be required for things which are only produced in specific areas due to the suitibility of the land or there only being a few workshops/factories producing them. A national network would also allow us to balence out situations where one area has a surpless and another has a need for something, although this situation should be avoided by necessary.

Free transport and communications for all citizens would be nice.

I also think we should make preserving the environment a big issue. After all, everyone lives in it, it should be for everyone to enjoy, and we have a responsibility to preserve it for future generations. Therefore, we should live in a way which is environmentally sustainable and make every effort to minimise any negative impact we have on the environment and manage it well. Perhaps living in eco-friendly dwellings, not relying on fossil fuels etc. should be considered. Any ideas?

We should try to figure out a framework of headings under which issues can go, to keep ourselves organised. So far, we've got:

Work and leisure issues
Distribution of goods
Public services (transport, healthcare etc.)
Laws (eg. laws against discrimination and other practical laws against stuff like murder, theft)
Environmental concerns

Most of the stuff discussed so far could fit under one of those headings. Anyone care to start an outline of issues we'd need to look at?

I'm not suggesting we start making decisions on all these things right away, I just think it'd be nice to know what sort of things we'll need to look at. Also, it'd be helpful for newcomers to be able to glance over the issues at hand.

agreed. food and such necessities should be distributed on a local scale. some food items, of course, may want to be entered onto the larger network.

note that i think there should be many tiers of this network, from community to local, to regional, to 'national', to international region, to world.
we need to finalise our collective position on this (pretty major) issue, as well as solidifying our views on the other isses before we can put them in the manifesto


another proposal: free public transport for all citizens
the multi-tiered network sounds to me like the most reasonable and most easily workable solution.

public transprt; i agree and think that rail transport is the way forward, particularly regionally.

I agree. I would also severely limit, if not eradicate private cars. This would not include taxis.

Wow, you guys really are serious about this whole public service stuff.

Unfortunately, I don't think that would be a good pitch to the general public.

I agree. I would also severely limit, if not eradicate private cars. This would not include taxis.
if private cars are irradicated we could recycle them into private bycycles.

*nods*

We've got time to solidify it all. There's no need to rush into writing the manifesto, especially since we've got all these new party members joining us, and they should have the opportunity to have their say. But I agree that the scale of the network would depend on the type of goods.
yeah. i only say we should solidify things because i'm getting very confused with the myriad of arguements over points in here. perhaps we should just solidify our position so-far? this would also provide a good sounding-off point for new members to jump in from.



If we were using a system with money, I'd probably have toned that down to "cheap public transport for all", but since we're abolishing money, free public transport comes as a logical consequence. ;)
lol good point. in that case MORE public transport. i'm not sure about the idea of banning private cars, but we should certainly make them less appealing to use (for environmental reasons). if there were a free (for want of a better word;)), good quality, and importantly, integrated public transport system, people simply would have no need to use private tansport. if they really wanted to then fine, but it should made to be, frankly, an illogical thing to do.

Yes, it is better for things to be obtained locally where possible. But a bigger network would also be required for things which are only produced in specific areas due to the suitibility of the land or there only being a few workshops/factories producing them. A national network would also allow us to balence out situations where one area has a surpless and another has a need for something, although this situation should be avoided by necessary.

All right; I think we all agree on those points.


I also think we should make preserving the environment a big issue. After all, everyone lives in it, it should be for everyone to enjoy, and we have a responsibility to preserve it for future generations. Therefore, we should live in a way which is environmentally sustainable and make every effort to minimise any negative impact we have on the environment and manage it well. Perhaps living in eco-friendly dwellings, not relying on fossil fuels etc. should be considered. Any ideas?


Agreed; the environment should be one of our priorities. For one thing, we can cut down on the waste due to overproduction, since people would no longer be over-producing for a profit: they would only be producing to meet everyone's needs, and would be enjoying leisure time when they're not producing. That will be helpful to the environment for a start. We've also discussed limiting the use of private cars and developing a more extensive network of public transports.

The production of energy is something we probably need to consider. If we cut down on fossil fuels, what do we replace them with? Wind and solar power? Are nuclear power stations something we want to avoid, or something necessary?

The Laritian people disagree with a communist government but since we our a Socialism, and ruled by a Comrade(a socialist ruler) we remain allied to communist nations.

The Comrade of Laritia
Ambassador of the Soviet Republics

Where would the party stand on issues such as abortion, guns, divorce, war, homosexuality (including marriage and adoption), prostitution, affirmative action, rehabilitation, ages for sex, drinking, marriage etc? I.e social issues. Or would these kind of things (that aren't fundamentals) be dicussed later on?

The production of energy is something we probably need to consider. If we cut down on fossil fuels, what do we replace them with? Wind and solar power? Are nuclear power stations something we want to avoid, or something necessary?

I think an increase in wind, solar, tidal etc power where possible and suitable would be good and perhaps more research into nuclear and making it safer.

Can we not talk about abortion yet? I'd like to see use get more cohesive before we start ripping each others veiws to shreds on that one.

On most of the other issues, I think, if it doesn't hurt anyone, it should be allowed.

Maybe we should focus on getting a big outline in place for the moment before we start quibbling about the smaller social issues.

I think an increase in wind, solar, tidal etc power where possible and suitable would be good and perhaps more research into nuclear and making it safer.

Yes, and depending on the climate and type of housing, solar panels on roofs might be a good way of getting a large proportion of our electricity.

A lot of these things depend very much of the climate and geography of the land though. Geothermal resources would be a huge, huge bonus. We can figure out a lot of that stuff later. Are most people in favour of using environmentally less damaging energy sources for the moment, though?

Maybe we should focus on getting a big outline in place for the moment before we start quibbling about the smaller social issues.

Fine by me. Probably the best idea.

The Laritian people disagree with a communist government but since we our a Socialism, and ruled by a Comrade(a socialist ruler) we remain allied to communist nations.

The Comrade of Laritia
Ambassador of the Soviet Republics
perhaps the time has come for the foundation of a socialist party?

Yes, and depending on the climate and type of housing, solar panels on roofs might be a good way of getting a large proportion of our electricity.

A lot of these things depend very much of the climate and geography of the land though. Geothermal resources would be a huge, huge bonus.

Definitly. Which is why I think we can't totally rely on them but use them where possible.

Where would the party stand on issues such as abortion, guns, divorce, war, homosexuality (including marriage and adoption), prostitution, affirmative action, rehabilitation, ages for sex, drinking, marriage etc? I.e social issues. Or would these kind of things (that aren't fundamentals) be dicussed later on?
i'm with Sonho Real on this. these sorts of issues greatly divide people & we should get our groundwork sorted before we delve into these issues.

that said, i'm prepared to argue for a fairly libertarian standpoint on most of these social issues (but thats all i'll say for now... unless the arguement springs up of course)


I think an increase in wind, solar, tidal etc power where possible and suitable would be good and perhaps more research into nuclear and making it safer.
agreed. we need 100% of our energy coming from renewable energy sources. by the year 2050, say.

edit: plus a worldwide shared power grid, where geographically possible

edit2: wheeee! hows this for a banner? http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg

Yes, and depending on the climate and type of housing, solar panels on roofs might be a good way of getting a large proportion of our electricity.

A lot of these things depend very much of the climate and geography of the land though. Geothermal resources would be a huge, huge bonus. We can figure out a lot of that stuff later. Are most people in favour of using environmentally less damaging energy sources for the moment, though?
defo. clean, renewable energy all the way.

i'm with Sonho Real on this. these sorts of issues greatly divide people & we should get our groundwork sorted before we delve into these issues.

that said, i'm prepared to argue for a fairly libertarian standpoint on most of these social issues (but thats all i'll say for now... unless the arguement springs up of course)

Sure. And I'm fairly liberal on nearly all social issues just so everyone knows.

agreed. we need 100% of our energy coming from renewable energy sources. by the year 2050, say.

I think that we should have as much renewable energy as possible but I don't think that in all areas it is suitable and it isn't always reliable enough for 100% of our energy. But I'd definitly support an increase.

edit: great banner :)

i'm with Sonho Real on this. these sorts of issues greatly divide people & we should get our groundwork sorted before we delve into these issues.

that said, i'm prepared to argue for a fairly libertarian standpoint on most of these social issues (but thats all i'll say for now... unless the arguement springs up of course)



agreed. we need 100% of our energy coming from renewable energy sources. by the year 2050, say.

edit: plus a worldwide shared power grid, where geographically possible

edit2: wheeee! hows this for a banner? http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg
an integrated grid would have to be sub-divided so that blackouts would be localised.

nice one with the banner!

We can figure out a lot of that stuff later. Are most people in favour of using environmentally less damaging energy sources for the moment, though?

Definitely. I agree with using mostly wind, solar, tidal, etc... power, and perhaps looking into ways of making nuclear power safer, to supplement it.

And yes, while the issues raised by Glitziness are important, we should consolidate what we've got before embarking on those.

What sort of criminal justice system, if any, would we employ. How about punishments/deterrents for crimes?

I'll come back after I've cooked and eaten my dinner and see what everyone comes up with.

edit2: wheeee! hows this for a banner? http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg

Nice. But what's the yellow for? ;)

How would it look in green and red do you think?

What sort of criminal justice system, if any, would we employ. How about punishments/deterrents for crimes?

I'll come back after I've cooked and eaten my dinner and see what everyone comes up with.
I'd push for rehabilitation over punishment. I think it's more important to educate people to not be criminals than to 'scare them into line'.

similarly what would constitute a crime? no harm no foul? moral standpoints?
pontentially confusing.

I'd push for rehabilitation over punishment. I think it's more important to educate people to not be criminals than to 'scare them into line'.

similarly what would constitute a crime? no harm no foul? moral standpoints?
pontentially confusing.

Wait... Perhaps we should stop with new policies for a moment. Just give me a few minutes, and I'll try to list what we've already got.

an integrated grid would have to be sub-divided so that blackouts would be localised.

nice one with the banner!
thanks and agreed. and i'll compromise on 100%... say 80% renewable, sustainable power sources?

Nice. But what's the yellow for? ;)

How would it look in green and red do you think?
green? eewwww....

*checks*

it looks kinda gross, but if you wanna see it i'll upload it...


What sort of criminal justice system, if any, would we employ. How about punishments/deterrents for crimes?

I'll come back after I've cooked and eaten my dinner and see what everyone comes up with.

the criminal justice system should be a progressive one, geared towards rehabilitation rather than punishment.

for serious or violent offenders, jail sentences should be mandatory, but for most crimes rehabilitation through projects in the community or in special rehabilitation centres should be the key.

drug offences should not be treated as criminal offences, and again these people should be rehabilitated - this time forceably off their habit.

i'll see if i can dig up my old thread about my thoughts on drugs laws, it was fairly comprehensive...


edit:
Wait... Perhaps we should stop with new policies for a moment. Just give me a few minutes, and I'll try to list what we've already got.
oops sorry...

Just to say I agree with the progressive, rehabilitation etc take on crime.

Tell me if I've forgotten anything:


UDCP policies so far:

* the affirmation of the belief that capitalism is degrading to humankind, contrary to the most basic rights of individual, and is not conducive to a coherent society in which the well-being of all would be upheld and ensured

SOCIAL ISSUES:
* free universal healthcare
* ensuring housing for all
* ensuring jobs for all
* free education for all, including university education

OTHER FREEDOM ISSUES:
* opposing all forms of discrimination, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.
* legalisation of cannabis
* encouragement of arts and culture

THE ECONOMY:
* full nationalisation of the economy
* the abolishing of money, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All would produce, and in return take what they need for free.
ð A thought by Jello Biafra:
My idea would be to generate a random list of all of the people in the commune/region/country/ or whatever. Then, at the general meeting, the chair would say something like "okay, we have item X, who wants item X?" If there isn't enough of item X for everyone, then you would go down the list and the people who want item X would get it, and then be moved to the bottom of the list. Then the next item would come up, and the process repeated.
ð And by Ariddia:
we may need a transitional period during which a token system is used, and/or official guidelines as to what and how much people may take. This would serve to help people work through the transition, and get used to a system without money, so that they don't find themselves worrying about taking too much or too little. After that, with habit (and, if necessary, pressure from fellow citizens that would prevent people from abusing the system), it should go smoothly.
ð By Pure Metal:
citizens get what they want or need by access to the central distribution network (my 'ebay style' idea). as a producer of a good, you give the products of your labour to, say, a regional/local distribution center, which then puts the product on the information network. if you, as a "consumer" want a particular good you look it up on the network, just as you might on ebay, find what you want and request it. it will then be dispached to you or you pick it up. the distribution centers should be as automated as possible to avoid the possibility of corruption.
any shortages and the citizens in a locality/region discuss the issue on the information network (through a forum or similar) and agree that more people need to be making good x.
hence the people have direct control over the means of production and distribution
Note: There would be several layers to this network, from international to almost local, with local products being outside the network.

THE ENVIRONMENT:
* A more extensive public transport, and a limit on the use of private cars (or, at least, they would be discouraged).
* Cutting back on the wastage of over-production
* Abandoning fossil fuels in favour of clean, renewable forms of energy: wind, solar, tidal…
* Looking into ways of making nuclear power safer, as a supplement?

I am unsure as to whether or not I belong in this United Democratic Communist Party. I am a Technocrat as described in great detail here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement

Tell me what you think...

*applauds*
very well done.


edit; talking about the listed policies, not the technocrat.

I'm not sure about the legalisation of cannabis. I'm not saying no, I'm saying we should look at the medical and social issues in context with other potentially harmful substances (eg. cigarettes, speed). We need to be careful not to be hypocitical, and to take a good look at the medical evidence, and how far the "it's my body, i can do what i want" should go.

Tell me if I've forgotten anything:


UDCP policies so far:
-snip-

nice one:) i can't think of anything specific missing, and agreed on all points so far.

*gives everyone a cookie*

I am unsure as to whether or not I belong in this United Democratic Communist Party. I am a Technocrat as described in great detail here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement

Tell me what you think...
If you consider political parties to be a relic, then perhaps the blank party would be your best bet. although the aims, if not the means, of the technocratic movement does seem to mesh well with this party's beliefs. it's your choice.

I would be a "Friend of the Party", if you like?

I'm not sure about the legalisation of cannabis. I'm not saying no, I'm saying we should look at the medical and social issues in context with other potentially harmful substances (eg. cigarettes, speed). We need to be careful not to be hypocitical, and to take a good look at the medical evidence, and how far the "it's my body, i can do what i want" should go.

I'd probably agree with looking into it more before legalising it and also, if legalised, make sure people are aware of risks and have information to make an informed personal choice.

I'm not sure about the legalisation of cannabis. I'm not saying no, I'm saying we should look at the medical and social issues in context with other potentially harmful substances (eg. cigarettes, speed). We need to be careful not to be hypocitical, and to take a good look at the medical evidence, and how far the "it's my body, i can do what i want" should go.
cannabis is less harmful than most other narcotics, and 'just as harmful' as tobacco and alcohol. if we don't legalise this substance we've got to look at making tobacco and alcohol illegal, in the interests of not being hypocritical. i don't think many people would like that.

I would be a "Friend of the Party", if you like?
good compromise
*offers hand for the shaking*

nice one:) i can't think of anything specific missing, and agreed on all points so far.

*gives everyone a cookie*

Yay! Cookie :)

And nope, can't see anything missing and agree with it generally. Ta Arridia :)

I am unsure as to whether or not I belong in this United Democratic Communist Party. I am a Technocrat as described in great detail here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement

Tell me what you think...

I've just skimmed through it, but there are points in common with the UDCP. If you want to join, feel free. It depends on how you feel about our ideals, really.

Edit: Yes, you can be a Friend of the Party. Welcome! :)

Everyone: You're welcome. Whew... This could turn into a reasonably long manifesto!

Regarding cannabis, I agree that if we do legalise it we'll have to provide potential users with full information on potential health risks, so they can make an informed choice.

Pretty good points, only the abolishment of money is a bit...unpractical in my idea. And what about "safety issues" like defence etc.?

ps. I'm pretty interested...

Pretty good points, only the abolishment of money is a bit...unpractical in my idea. And what about "safety issues" like defence etc.?

ps. I'm pretty interested...
I'm a pacifist, personally.
I'm also anti-imperialist.

ok, regarding cannabis, perhaps it should be decriminalised rather than legalised - a la what has happened in the Netherlands and Amsterdam. the positive aspects of allowing retail sale of the drug is distancing 'soft-drug' cannabis users from the dangerous criminal element of dealers. when forced to buy a harmless drug on the illegal black market, one comes into contact with other drugs and pushers. decriminalisation and allowing sale/distribution (we've abolished money remember) by licenced stores protects the cannabis user from unnecessary further harm and risk.



anyway, i want to bring the issue of criminal justice up again now we're agreed on the main points so far


the criminal justice system should be a progressive one, geared towards rehabilitation rather than punishment.

for serious or violent offenders, jail sentences should be mandatory, but for most crimes rehabilitation through projects in the community or in special rehabilitation centres should be the key.

drug offences should not be treated as criminal offences, and again these people should be rehabilitated - this time forceably off their habit.

i'll see if i can dig up my old thread about my thoughts on drugs laws, it was fairly comprehensive...



Pretty good points, only the abolishment of money is a bit...unpractical in my idea. And what about "safety issues" like defence etc.?

ps. I'm pretty interested...
good, you're of course welcome to join.

defense wise, i say war is an unnecessary evil and should be avoided (pacifist here). military spending should be limited only to what is required for adequate self defense.
police spending is another matter...

front page updated btw

You have me as a supporter (since I'm not communist but democratic socialist), but I would not ban money, I would change it to electronic so people could not borrow it from each other, now how much money you get depends on your: job - well not all jobs are paid the same, but we set a limit say the highest salary is 5x highet than the lowest (techonology can help us a lot in this age), next thing considered, how many children do you have (also increasing natality) and then bonuses for special "contributions, if you say help to build a very imoportant bridge in faster time than predicted, find a cure for cancer, goo 90% more crops than needed,...)

I propose that becouse I think people shuld be able to buy what they need and want and money is the way for it

good, you're of course welcome to join.

defense wise, i say war is an unnecessary evil and should be avoided (pacifist here). military spending should be limited only to what is required for adequate self defense.
police spending is another matter...

Sounds good, I think I'll join...

Yes, I'll join!

You have me as a supporter (since I'm not communist but democratic socialist), but I would not ban money, I would change it to electronic so people could not borrow it from each other, now how much money you get depends on your: job - well not all jobs are paid the same, but we set a limit say the highest salary is 5x highet than the lowest (techonology can help us a lot in this age), next thing considered, how many children do you have (also increasing natality) and then bonuses for special "contributions, if you say help to build a very imoportant bridge in faster time than predicted, find a cure for cancer, goo 90% more crops than needed,...)

I propose that becouse I think people shuld be able to buy what they need and want and money is the way for it
you're the second person to not join because of being socialist. if you would care to join me, I'll start a socialist party. thread will be up soon and i won't bother the udcp with stuff like this anymore.

you're the second person to not join because of being socialist. if you would care to join me, I'll start a socialist party. thread will be up soon and i won't bother the udcp with stuff like this anymore.
it would be a shame to loose a comrade:(

but you can belong to more than one party at a time;)
i'm a member of tink's party (of course)

Ill join.

On the subject of alternate fuel sources, how does everyone feel about ethanol?

You have me as a supporter (since I'm not communist but democratic socialist), but I would not ban money, I would change it to electronic so people could not borrow it from each other, now how much money you get depends on your: job - well not all jobs are paid the same, but we set a limit say the highest salary is 5x highet than the lowest (techonology can help us a lot in this age), next thing considered, how many children do you have (also increasing natality) and then bonuses for special "contributions, if you say help to build a very imoportant bridge in faster time than predicted, find a cure for cancer, goo 90% more crops than needed,...)

I propose that becouse I think people shuld be able to buy what they need and want and money is the way for it

Well, our policy does allow everyone full access to what they need, without the inequality and injustices that you have in a money-based society.

Regarding defence, we will obviously still need to have an army, but for purely defensive purposes, and it would not be very extensive.

it would be a shame to loose a comrade:(

but you can belong to more than one party at a time;)
i'm a member of tink's party (of course)
oh, i'm not leaving, im just going to stop talkiing about a democratic socialist party here. i have started the other party and this is the last ill say about it.

Ill join.

On the subject of alternate fuel sources, how does everyone feel about ethanol?

Nope, I want hydrogen, solar, wind and nuclear fusion... high tech, that's the way I see it :)

oh, i'm not leaving, im just going to stop talkiing about a democratic socialist party here. i have started the other party and this is the last ill say about it.
cool, i'll take a look... maybe i'll join another party :p

but the UDCP will always be my #1 of course (sorry tink:()


i got to do some revision for a bit. be back later

If you consider political parties to be a relic, then perhaps the blank party would be your best bet.

The Blank Party doesn't exist yet. It needs at least one person to join it.

ok, regarding cannabis, perhaps it should be decriminalised rather than legalised - a la what has happened in the Netherlands and Amsterdam. the positive aspects of allowing retail sale of the drug is distancing 'soft-drug' cannabis users from the dangerous criminal element of dealers. when forced to buy a harmless drug on the illegal black market, one comes into contact with other drugs and pushers. decriminalisation and allowing sale/distribution (we've abolished money remember) by licenced stores protects the cannabis user from unnecessary further harm and risk.

I'd agree with that on the earlier mentioned condition of decent education so people can make an informed choice.

defense wise, i say war is an unnecessary evil and should be avoided (pacifist here). military spending should be limited only to what is required for adequate self defense.
police spending is another matter...


I'd agree with war being avoided unless absolutely necessary (such as a country coming and attacking you....) and just having spending on adequate resources for self defence.

What are your views on police spending? ...

Well, our policy does allow everyone full access to what they need, without the inequality and injustices that you have in a money-based society.

Yes it simple to provide what they need, but not what they WANT, that's the problem I have, people have differen interests and desires, and without money it's hard to distribute goods that people want, am I makeing myself clear?

I see my proposal as a compromise, money is not as free flowing as it is in capitalism but is still present.

Nope, I want hydrogen, solar, wind and nuclear fusion... high tech, that's the way I see it :)

ill support hydrogen when you find a hydrogen mine, or a way to make it that doesn't use as much energy as you get

A Self Defence force is all that we need, but a small peacekeeping force could be usefull. Sadly enough, sometimes you must use soldiers...

I'd agree with that on the earlier mentioned condition of decent education so people can make an informed choice.



I'd agree with war being avoided unless absolutely necessary (such as a country coming and attacking you....) and just having spending on adequate resources for self defence.

What are your views on police spending? ...
great, we're agreed.

as for police spending i don't know... i don't have any views yet:p
i'm open to suggestion. but i gotta go revise! :mad: i'll be back later

Ill join.

On the subject of alternate fuel sources, how does everyone feel about ethanol?
ethanol is good. and Brazil are proving that it's a viable option.

Yes it simple to provide what they need, but not what they WANT, that's the problem I have, people have differen interests and desires, and without money it's hard to distribute goods that people want, am I makeing myself clear?

I see my proposal as a compromise, money is not as free flowing as it is in capitalism but is still present.
it depends what you think people want. i happen to think people only WANT most things because of the rampant consumerism present in the current capitalist system. remove that and people will realise that the things they want are far removed from the things they need, or indeed the things that make them happy.

read these and you'll see my view, at least. http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/problems/capitalism/
http://www.altruists.org/ideas/society/consumerism/

just look at Cuba as an example - the people there are happy but don't have all the materialistic trappings and trends of a consumeristic culture.

basically its a redefinition of what people 'want' in their best interests.

ethanol is good. and Brazil are proving that it's a viable option.

Agreed, but I prefere hydrogen, research into this area is important so if we use it techonolgy for it will develop faster... And also form a personal point of wiev it's a waste to burn alcohol :D -joke-

Yes it simple to provide what they need, but not what they WANT, that's the problem I have, people have differen interests and desires, and without money it's hard to distribute goods that people want, am I makeing myself clear?


Well in a money-based society there are a lot of things people neither want nor need until they're created specifically for a profit and creating new, artificial wants. But for other wants, they could still be met in our system. If there's something that a lot of people want, then people will produce it, and in sufficient quantities for everyone. Simply, people will no longer be driven by artificial greed. Wants will lead to production, and not the other way around.

it depends what you think people want. i happen to think people only WANT most things because of the rampant consumerism present in the current capitalist system. remove that and people will realise that the things they want are far removed from the things they need, or indeed the things that make them happy.

read these and you'll see my view, at least. http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/problems/capitalism/
http://www.altruists.org/ideas/society/consumerism/

just look at Cuba as an example - the people there are happy but don't have all the materialistic trappings and trends of a consumeristic culture.

basically its a redefinition of what people 'want' in their best interests.

Yes I'm aware of that, but lets say, I want to play bass guitar (hell if this is forbiden than I'm out of here) and I don't really need it, but I still want, the consumerism will decrease sine everybody is provided with what they need, so the money you get is for the luxory but still everybody is very limited here, so you will get something you really want... when I come to think of it, I don't really want a society where poeple only want what they need, although know the theory behind althurism

Yes I'm aware of that, but lets say, I want to play bass guitar (hell if this is forbiden than I'm out of here) and I don't really need it, but I still want, the consumerism will decrease sine everybody is provided with what they need, so the money you get is for the luxory but still everybody is very limited here, so you will get something you really want... when I come to think of it, I don't really want a society where poeple only want what they need, although know the theory behind althurism
if your contribution to society is music (which is important) and you need a bass guitar to make that contribution,... you can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Yes I'm aware of that, but lets say, I want to play bass guitar (hell if this is forbiden than I'm out of here) and I don't really need it, but I still want, the consumerism will decrease sine everybody is provided with what they need, so the money you get is for the luxory but still everybody is very limited here, so you will get something you really want... when I come to think of it, I don't really want a society where poeple only want what they need, although know the theory behind althurism
i don't quite follow. but say you wanted a bass guitar (don't blame ya they're cool... i play electric.... anyway....) you'd go on the information/distribution network, see who had a bass guitar they have made, or already have and want to get rid of ('selling' it second hand), you request it and get it for free. that is, as long as you are still contributing to society by providing your labour - as long as you are a citizen.
if such a thing as a bass guitar doesn't exist, you could suggest it be made on another part of the vast network. if someone takes a liking to the idea, someone who makes guitars, say, then they'll produce it and give one to you.

hence the people have direct control over what is produced, and how. if there are enough people wanting said bass guitar (if it doesn't exist) then they can collectively request and effectively force it to be made.

or am i missing your point?

I suggest removing advertising in as many forms as possible. It only serves to make us want things that we wouldn't otherwise, things that might not be much good anyway. Word of mouth is a more reliable way to learn about how useful or good things are anyway.

I see how you want to do it, and I agree it could work, yet, I find it a little bit impractical, don't you? Still ok, I'm not really a comerade so I'm going to drop this topic, you are in majority... Democracy prevails

I suggest removing advertising in as many forms as possible. It only serves to make us want things that we wouldn't otherwise, things that might not be much good anyway. Word of mouth is a more reliable way to learn about how useful or good things are anyway.

In a society not geered towards profit, advertising would probably disappear on its own anyway. I agree with you, though.

I see how you want to do it, and I agree it could work, yet, I find it a little bit impractical, don't you? Still ok, I'm not really a comerade so I'm going to drop this topic, you are in majority... Democracy prevails
its no less impractical than corporations spending loads of money trying to figure out what people want and then going through the whole trial-and-error rigmarole of supply and demand market forces to end up with the goods we see on the shelves. just because its the way its done already doesn't mean its the best way of doing things.

at least this crazy commie way the people have direct control over what is produced, by whom, to what standards, how much, and who gets it.

and don't forget this same system could be used for Direct Democracy... something we left out of our policy proposals so far :eek:

Direct democracy would be a great thing, IMO, but we need to figure out how to control and maintain it. Also, how do proposals for change get submitted and put forward to be voted on?

Perhaps a group people could be elected by the people to train and learn how proposals should be worded. Then they could help people submitting proposals to word them clearly, as well as preventing the same proposal from being submitted multiple times by different people. If there was a constitution, they could also reject proposals on the grounds of them being unconstitutional, and tell the original writers how they could be changed, if possible. This method would leave writing, submitting and voting on proposals to direct democracy but provide a modicum of clarity and control. However, how would people decide when a proposal had enough support to be voted on by the population. And does anyone have any other ideas of how direct democracy could be achieved?

Direct democracy would be a great thing, IMO, but we need to figure out how to control and maintain it. Also, how do proposals for change get submitted and put forward to be voted on?

Perhaps a group people could be elected by the people to train and learn how proposals should be worded. Then they could help people submitting proposals to word them clearly, as well as preventing the same proposal from being submitted multiple times by different people. If there was a constitution, they could also reject proposals on the grounds of them being unconstitutional, and tell the original writers how they could be changed, if possible. This method would leave writing, submitting and voting on proposals to direct democracy but provide a modicum of clarity and control. However, how would people decide when a proposal had enough support to be voted on by the population. And does anyone have any other ideas of how direct democracy could be achieved?

This sounds fairly good in principle. We could also begin by instituting direct democracy on a local level. People in villages, towns and districts within cities could manage the affairs of their community via direct democracy, perhaps through meetings which all could attend to debate and vote on issues?

Again, I agree with the direct democracy and the ideas about it so far.

And now off to revision, yay :rolleyes: (good luck with your tests PM :))

Have you made a manifesto yet?

Have you made a manifesto yet?

It's edited into the first page. Well, a summary of all the points agreed on so far.

Count me in!

While we're on democracy: would we support a one or multi party state? People would surely still form parties, even in a direct democracy. Also: would we elect leaders such as a Premier/President and an elected 'politburo' to see to the day-to-day running of the country?

Hmm, pretty heavy stuff :rolleyes: , i'd better get back to my french revision, since they want me to do an oral test at 8 in the morning...

Count me in!

While we're on democracy: would we support a one or multi party state? People would surely still form parties, even in a direct democracy. Also: would we elect leaders such as a Premier/President and an elected 'politburo' to see to the day-to-day running of the country?


Welcome!

It would remain a multi-party state. As for the ruling of the country, I'm not sure we really need to tackle that, since the elections will be (if anything) for the forming of a parliament.

I wholeheartedly support the idea of direct democracy. Also, if it is necessary to decide on issues which affect a vast area where it is neither geographically nor technologically possible for people to meet and vote, then the appointing of delegates would be acceptable. Delegates, of course, being different than representatives.

Direct democracy would be a great thing, IMO, but we need to figure out how to control and maintain it. Also, how do proposals for change get submitted and put forward to be voted on?

Perhaps a group people could be elected by the people to train and learn how proposals should be worded. Then they could help people submitting proposals to word them clearly, as well as preventing the same proposal from being submitted multiple times by different people. If there was a constitution, they could also reject proposals on the grounds of them being unconstitutional, and tell the original writers how they could be changed, if possible. This method would leave writing, submitting and voting on proposals to direct democracy but provide a modicum of clarity and control. However, how would people decide when a proposal had enough support to be voted on by the population. And does anyone have any other ideas of how direct democracy could be achieved?
hmmm some good ideas there, but....

lets be honest. not everyone is actually interested in politics, yet alone gets involved in it. plus few have the intelligence required for what would under our current system be referred to as political office.

hence, i propose using the tech network to allow everyone a vote on issues that can be submitted in a giant forum (or smaller regional forums). only the people who are interested in politics would be active members in reality, but everyone gets to vote on issues submitted by these people (once they gain a sufficient level of popular interest to be considered for a referendum) so the law is prevented from being shaped soley by those with vested interests and extreme opinions.
the small government would be made up of those with the intelligence and training, as you suggest, to govern; and their responsibility would be to put the summons of the popular vote into law, and deal with the legality and such stuff.
these people may also be given the power to stall an amendment (i like your constitution idea) and appeal to the people through mediated discussion. for example if a bill is utterly ridiculous and clearly based on a popular trend or temporary emotional response to something (the problem with mob rule as told by Plato) then stalling and appealing to common sense will perhaps get around this problem.

Welcome!

It would remain a multi-party state. As for the ruling of the country, I'm not sure we really need to tackle that, since the elections will be (if anything) for the forming of a parliament.
i disagree. with direct democracy, when all decisions and motions are put to popular vote, the people are the parliament. there need be no parties. in effect its a form of anarchy :eek:

i'm expecting opposition on this point...:p

Also, if it is necessary to decide on issues which affect a vast area where it is neither geographically nor technologically possible for people to meet and vote....
people need not meet and vote if technology is properly utilised. people can vote on the net, in effect. of course safety issues will have to be taken into account, and all people MUST be given access to said net. free computers for all!

tell me if i'm pushing a crazy adgenda here...
remember that this can be the same network thats used as the backbone of the economic system


for a completely different point thats worth raising (i might forget if i leave it till later), what of the issue of gun control?
i say guns should be banned, but again i expect opposition

with direct democracy, when all decisions and motions are put to popular vote, the people are the parliament. there need be no parties. in effect its a form of anarchyAgreed.


people need not meet and vote if technology is properly utilised. people can vote on the net, in effect. of course safety issues will have to be taken into account, and all people MUST be given access to said net. free computers for all!

tell me if i'm pushing a crazy adgenda here...
remember that this can be the same network thats used as the backbone of the economic systemIf that's a viable alternative, then good.


for a completely different point thats worth raising (i might forget if i leave it till later), what of the issue of gun control?
i say guns should be banned, but again i expect oppositionI don't have a problem with guns, especially in the time period before an active army and police force is formed.

i disagree. with direct democracy, when all decisions and motions are put to popular vote, the people are the parliament. there need be no parties. in effect its a form of anarchy :eek:

i'm expecting opposition on this point...:p

Actually, no; I personally feel that anarchy would be the ideal form of society, if and when people become responsible enough for it (i.e., are no longer motivated primarily by self-interest).

If we're going to have the people be the Parliament, then we would indeed need a form of electronic voting for all votes beyond the local level. For local issues, people can gather, discuss and decide while physically face to face.

Having said that, there's nothing to prevent people of similar views to still organise into parties.


for a completely different point thats worth raising (i might forget if i leave it till later), what of the issue of gun control?
i say guns should be banned, but again i expect opposition

No, I agree with you here.

I don't have a problem with guns, especially in the time period before an active army and police force is formed.

The army and police would simply not be disbanded. With guns, you have the problem of people taking the law into their own hands. If there are no guns in the first place, then there's no need to legalise guns for people to protect themselves against people with illegal guns. ;)

hmmm some good ideas there, but....

lets be honest. not everyone is actually interested in politics, yet alone gets involved in it. plus few have the intelligence required for what would under our current system be referred to as political office.

hence, i propose using the tech network to allow everyone a vote on issues that can be submitted in a giant forum (or smaller regional forums). only the people who are interested in politics would be active members in reality, but everyone gets to vote on issues submitted by these people (once they gain a sufficient level of popular interest to be considered for a referendum) so the law is prevented from being shaped soley by those with vested interests and extreme opinions.
the small government would be made up of those with the intelligence and training, as you suggest, to govern; and their responsibility would be to put the summons of the popular vote into law, and deal with the legality and such stuff.
these people may also be given the power to stall an amendment (i like your constitution idea) and appeal to the people through mediated discussion. for example if a bill is utterly ridiculous and clearly based on a popular trend or temporary emotional response to something (the problem with mob rule as told by Plato) then stalling and appealing to common sense will perhaps get around this problem.

Good ideas.

i disagree. with direct democracy, when all decisions and motions are put to popular vote, the people are the parliament. there need be no parties. in effect its a form of anarchy :eek:

i'm expecting opposition on this point...:p

There should still be parties IMO for anyone who doesn't like the form of government/anarchism. I don't like the idea of "trapping" people.

And we still need people in charge to organise all this.

people need not meet and vote if technology is properly utilised. people can vote on the net, in effect. of course safety issues will have to be taken into account, and all people MUST be given access to said net. free computers for all!

tell me if i'm pushing a crazy adgenda here...
remember that this can be the same network thats used as the backbone of the economic system

Agreed.

for a completely different point thats worth raising (i might forget if i leave it till later), what of the issue of gun control?
i say guns should be banned, but again i expect opposition

I'd agree with guns being banned though I don't feel too strongly about it. If guns were to be allowed there should be very very strict control over them.

Actually, no; I personally feel that anarchy would be the ideal form of society, if and when people become responsible enough for it (i.e., are no longer motivated primarily by self-interest).

If we're going to have the people be the Parliament, then we would indeed need a form of electronic voting for all votes beyond the local level. For local issues, people can gather, discuss and decide while physically face to face.

Having said that, there's nothing to prevent people of similar views to still organise into parties.

perhaps, yes. but i don't know if the parties should be official political insitutions - perhaps unofficial gatherings of like-minded people?
parties can lead to an unrepresentative consolidation of power in the hands of one coersive group, militarism, and a fragmenting of the population - just look at the distain thats become apparent between the two parties in the US at the moment. in this technocratic system there is no need for parties, so they could simply cause more problems than they solve if they are included as an integral part of the political system.
if they're just on the fringe with no power or real purpose, then i say fine. unofficial parties, even better.




There should still be parties IMO for anyone who doesn't like the form of government/anarchism. I don't like the idea of "trapping" people.

And we still need people in charge to organise all this.
people wouldn't be trapped. they would be liberated to freely express thier true views through this system. they would no longer need to conform or compromise to a party's ideals just because otherwise they would have no chance of effecting change. if the people truly did not like the form of government/anarchism, as you say, then if the majority votes to change it, it is changed. i don't see how people can be 'trapped' by this system (unless they're part of the minority, but thats true in any democracy).

this is what the group of officials with intelligence i hinted at would be for - to run the system in terms of putting into law and effect the decisions taken by the public. there would be numbers of these officials at each tier of government. their power should be limited only to instigate into law that which the people have decided.
the technological system iteslf would be self-perpetuating and would simply need tech maintenance. i suppose there should be ministries for research and information gathering but they would have no direct political power, only influence.

the idea of having multiple regions and levels of government, from local to worldwide is certainly a good one. as is the idea of having the smallest/most local level being decided by actually meeting up in community halls etc.



I'd agree with guns being banned though I don't feel too strongly about it. If guns were to be allowed there should be very very strict control over them.
lets see what the consensus is within the party. perhaps we should hold a vote? i feel this will be a dividing issue:(

The army and police would simply not be disbanded.
What happens if the army and police disagree with the views of the party and threaten violence?

people wouldn't be trapped. they would be liberated to freely express thier true views through this system. they would no longer need to conform or compromise to a party's ideals just because otherwise they would have no chance of effecting change. if the people truly did not like the form of government/anarchism, as you say, then if the majority votes to change it, it is changed. i don't see how people can be 'trapped' by this system (unless they're part of the minority, but thats true in any democracy).

Okdoke. That sounds good to me....

this is what the group of officials with intelligence i hinted at would be for - to run the system in terms of putting into law and effect the decisions taken by the public. there would be numbers of these officials at each tier of government. their power should be limited only to instigate into law that which the people have decided.
the technological system iteslf would be self-perpetuating and would simply need tech maintenance. i suppose there should be ministries for research and information gathering but they would have no direct political power, only influence.

the idea of having multiple regions and levels of government, from local to worldwide is certainly a good one. as is the idea of having the smallest/most local level being decided by actually meeting up in community halls etc.

...as does all that :)

lets see what the consensus is within the party. perhaps we should hold a vote? i feel this will be a dividing issue:(

Should we wait until we've built up the foundations more before discussing things like this? Because they'd probably be better suited as that, discussions which we come to a conclusion with after a while rather than just deciding straight away. I'd personally prefer that because some issues I'm not sure on and would like to hear both sides before deciding.

If we were to vote now I'd probably be for a ban....

And now back to 'Black Magic Woman' yay :D

I would rather avoid having a parliament and tend towards direct democracy, facilitated by a group of elected officials who have been given the training to sensibly put the will of the people into action. I like the idea that they could stall bills when they felt the people were reacting unresonably or emotionally to a particular incident, preventing poorly written and thought out bills being rushed through on a wave of mob thinking and emotion.

I would very much like to avoid political parties. They lead to divisions which often are nothing to do with how people feel the country should be run. They encourage gang mentality whereas I think it would be wiser to encourage individual thought and critical analysis.

What do people think about having a constitution?

What do people think about having a constitution?I think a constitution is a necessary component of any type of government.

Should we wait until we've built up the foundations more before discussing things like this? Because they'd probably be better suited as that, discussions which we come to a conclusion with after a while rather than just deciding straight away. I'd personally prefer that because some issues I'm not sure on and would like to hear both sides before deciding.

If we were to vote now I'd probably be for a ban....

And now back to 'Black Magic Woman' yay :D

yeah agreed. sorry i've probably been rushing this party stuff... the reason is (and its a sad one) that i'm actually excited by all this party stuff:p
sad, yes; but true.

we should work on increasing membership first. this bump should help...

edit:
I would rather avoid having a parliament and tend towards direct democracy, facilitated by a group of elected officials who have been given the training to sensibly put the will of the people into action. I like the idea that they could stall bills when they felt the people were reacting unresonably or emotionally to a particular incident, preventing poorly written and thought out bills being rushed through on a wave of mob thinking and emotion.

I would very much like to avoid political parties. They lead to divisions which often are nothing to do with how people feel the country should be run. They encourage gang mentality whereas I think it would be wiser to encourage individual thought and critical analysis.

What do people think about having a constitution?
yay! :)

i'd like to hear the arguements for and against having a constitution before i make up my mind on this one. i'm just not sure

I stay in our socialism party :)

maybe you heard of my president of our party. He invented stickers with "Go ahead piss on me" and a caricature of Bush ;)

woops, the republicans were pissed off. :eek:

Count me in!

I'm a Council Communist personally, believing in literally what "Soviet Socialism" means; (workers' council Socialism).

Erh, now what?

The arguments for having a constitution:

It incorporates the things in the Manifesto, and would provide a written method for implementing them.
Having a written process helps to prevent a majority from enacting laws overturning clauses in the consitution. For instance, as we have a "no discrimination" policy, having it in the constitution prevents the majority for picking out an unpopular group and oppressing them. Since we seem to prefer direct democracy, this helps to prevent a dictatorship of the majority.

There are other reasons, but those are the two biggest ones (that I can think of right now.)

Count me in!

I'm a Council Communist personally, believing in literally what "Soviet Socialism" means; (workers' council Socialism).

Erh, now what?
now help us shape this party. debate, argue, stuff...

i'm not sure what we're gonna do with thse ns political parties yet, but i'm sure it'll involve plenty of arguement:p

but anyway i'm off to bed.... can debate the constitution tomorrow

Having a written process helps to prevent a majority from enacting laws overturning clauses in the consitution. For instance, as we have a "no discrimination" policy, having it in the constitution prevents the majority for picking out an unpopular group and oppressing them. Since we seem to prefer direct democracy, this helps to prevent a dictatorship of the majority.


I agree that this is a pretty strong reason in favour.

Where would the party stand on issues such as abortion, guns, divorce, war, homosexuality (including marriage and adoption), prostitution, affirmative action, rehabilitation, ages for sex, drinking, marriage etc? I.e social issues. Or would these kind of things (that aren't fundamentals) be dicussed later on?

We passed these issues up earlier, and it's probably time to come back to them. Perhaps we should see where we all stand, so we can find out which specific points we need to debate on, and which ones we all agree on.

For me, abortion, homosexual marriage and adoption, and prostitution would all be legal, the latter with strict procedures for protecting the health of prostitutes (and their clients). Guns would be banned. War would be in self-defence only, except in extreme cases such as WW2. Rehabilitation would be prioritised as the best why to combat crime, but there would also be the use of prison sentences (another thing to be discussed).

The legal age for sex is 15 over here, and that seems fine for me. I would put the legal age for marriage at 16. As for drinking, in private parents can give alcohol to their kids if they want, but you'd have to be 15 to purchase alcohol and/or consume alcohol in a public place.

The legal age for sex is 15 over here, and that seems fine for me. I would put the legal age for marriage at 16. As for drinking, in private parents can give alcohol to their kids if they want, but you'd have to be 15 to purchase alcohol and/or consume alcohol in a public place.

'Gree with that :p (idea: let's have weed at 15 too)


Here's my idea for a constitution, based on what different people have said here. It could be multi-party, one-party or no-party, so its pretty flexible. Its by no means finished or perfect - just a starting point for some serious debatey stuff.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dougal88@btinternet.com/detail?.dir=/6ab1&.dnm=5605.jpg&.src=ph

If the link doesn't work, wire me and ill try and fix it. It's a battle between me and Bt Yahoo photos...

Here's my idea for a constitution, based on what different people have said here. It could be multi-party, one-party or no-party, so its pretty flexible. Its by no means finished or perfect - just a starting point for some serious debatey stuff.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dougal88@btinternet.com/detail?.dir=/6ab1&.dnm=5605.jpg&.src=ph

If the link doesn't work, wire me and ill try and fix it. It's a battle between me and Bt Yahoo photos...

It works. :)

We may be able to use some of it, but there's been some debate as to whether we should even have a head of state, and I think most of us would feel your system relies a little too heavily on the delegation of powers. For example, I don't think there's any need for a local soviet to be elected: at local level, citizens can gather in person to discuss and decide matters.

It works. :)

We may be able to use some of it, but there's been some debate as to whether we should even have a head of state, and I think most of us would feel your system relies a little too heavily on the delegation of powers. For example, I don't think there's any need for a local soviet to be elected: at local level, citizens can gather in person to discuss and decide matters.

Good ideas, this is exactly what we need. Would we, therefore, elect people into the Supreme soviet, which chooses the 'Council of Ministers', with or without a head of state. Any suggestions on how direct democracy would work on a national level are welcome, and appreciated.

As for local governent, i don't really know how to work it, if we even need it at all. Us living in the UK have a local council, and it does seem to be fairly expensive, undemocratic and wasteful system. I'm sure centrally running the state would be more efficient and produce better results. We could quite easily collect rubbish nationally - which would aid recycling, for example.

Keep posting comrades, and ill try and knit them together into a system that works for everyone. Or better still, if anyone has a better system, post it here too.

Constitution (Incomplete) (http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dougal88@btinternet.com/detail?.dir=/6ab1&.dnm=5605.jpg&.src=ph)

Well, this was Pure Metal's idea:


hence, i propose using the tech network to allow everyone a vote on issues that can be submitted in a giant forum (or smaller regional forums). only the people who are interested in politics would be active members in reality, but everyone gets to vote on issues submitted by these people (once they gain a sufficient level of popular interest to be considered for a referendum) so the law is prevented from being shaped soley by those with vested interests and extreme opinions.
the small government would be made up of those with the intelligence and training, as you suggest, to govern; and their responsibility would be to put the summons of the popular vote into law, and deal with the legality and such stuff.
these people may also be given the power to stall an amendment (i like your constitution idea) and appeal to the people through mediated discussion. for example if a bill is utterly ridiculous and clearly based on a popular trend or temporary emotional response to something (the problem with mob rule as told by Plato) then stalling and appealing to common sense will perhaps get around this problem.

Social issues
* free universal healthcare
- investment in information about cancer, Aids (condoms should be allowed)


* ensuring housing for all

* ensuring jobs for all -> pension age?
* free education for all, including university education
- do not test to give students grades, but test and teach them how to make them better at it
- also free education for driving cars :)
- work as a trainee for a few years
- language lessons for people when they move to another country


OTHER FREEDOM ISSUES:
* opposing all forms of discrimination, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.
- everyone is equal
* legalisation of cannabis - softdrugs
* encouragement of arts and culture

-> every citizen has a right to vote. Even if they haven't the nationality of the country.
-> freedom of speech
-> freedom of religion


THE ECONOMY:
* full nationalisation of the economy

* the abolishing of money, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All would produce, and in return take what they need for free.


Note: There would be several layers to this network, from international to almost local, with local products being outside the network.

THE ENVIRONMENT:
* A more extensive public transport, and a limit on the use of private cars (or, at least, they would be discouraged).

- more trafficpolice -> people should drive more safely

- low speedlimits at schools, pools,...
* Cutting back on the wastage of over-production
* Abandoning fossil fuels in favour of clean, renewable forms of energy: wind, solar, tidal…
* Looking into ways of making nuclear power safer, as a supplement?
- nuclear power plants should be shut down :cool: (as soon as renewable energy can provide electricity for everyone)

- recycling at homes: :)
should be seperated:

- fruits, vegetables and gardengarbage
- glass
- paper and cardboard
- plastic
- sprays

- recycling in the industry

- only cultivation of natural products
- cloning is prohibited
- euthanasia should be possible

- try to succeed the Kyoto-aggreement

---------------------------------------------------------------------

- seperation of state, police and justice

have fun :D

Would it therefore be a good idea to have a bicameral parliament with a small but elected body of trained politicians as the upper house and the entire population as the lower house (that has the most power)

for example, the population would be like the UK house of commons or the U.S. house of reprasentitives. The 'upper house' would be the equivalant of the UK house of lords (but elected) and the US Senate.

(p.s. dont feel patronised if you alreaky know how the UK/US systems work, im trying to put council communism with a Parliamntary Democracy feel)

- investment in information about cancer, Aids (condoms should be allowed)


Agreed, of course.


* ensuring jobs for all -> pension age?


Good question. People should be entitled to retiring at a reasonable age, but if we put it too early we may have a problem with not enough people producing. Still, since our system cuts back on wasteful overproduction, that means there's less to produce overall, so people should be able to retire a little earlier.


- do not test to give students grades, but test and teach them how to make them better at it


Agreed, though tests will be needed to qualify for some things, obviously. Also, the emphasis should be laid on making learning interesting.


- also free education for driving cars :)


Well, everything's free, so yes. ;) But that wouldn't be a priority, since we're discouraging the use of cars. So ensuring that all can get driving education would not be an immediate priority, and would come *after* extending the network of public transport, I think.


- work as a trainee for a few years


I wouldn't make that mandatory; it would depend on what people want to do, after all.


- language lessons for people when they move to another country


I'm not sure that should be a major policy point, but why not. ;)


- everyone is equal
* legalisation of cannabis - softdrugs


*nods*


-> every citizen has a right to vote. Even if they haven't the nationality of the country.
-> freedom of speech
-> freedom of religion


The right to vote has already been included. By non-nationals, I suppose you mean non-national but resident?


- more trafficpolice -> people should drive more safely
- low speedlimits at schools, pools,...


Agreed.

- nuclear power plants should be shut down :cool: (as soon as renewable energy can provide electricity for everyone)


That's a point we're still debating: whether or not we could/should look to making it safer, as a supplement, rather than shutting it down.


- recycling at homes: :)
should be seperated
- recycling in the industry
- only cultivation of natural products
- cloning is prohibited
- euthanasia should be possible
- try to succeed the Kyoto-aggreement
- seperation of state, police and justice


*nods*

Thank you for your contributions!

I'd just like to add: measures to ensure the prevention of cruelty to animals.

So if money is abolished, why bother to make things free?

The arguments for having a constitution:

It incorporates the things in the Manifesto, and would provide a written method for implementing them.
Having a written process helps to prevent a majority from enacting laws overturning clauses in the consitution. For instance, as we have a "no discrimination" policy, having it in the constitution prevents the majority for picking out an unpopular group and oppressing them. Since we seem to prefer direct democracy, this helps to prevent a dictatorship of the majority.

There are other reasons, but those are the two biggest ones (that I can think of right now.)
constitution agreed.


'Gree with that :p (idea: let's have weed at 15 too)


Here's my idea for a constitution, based on what different people have said here. It could be multi-party, one-party or no-party, so its pretty flexible. Its by no means finished or perfect - just a starting point for some serious debatey stuff.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dougal88@btinternet.com/detail?.dir=/6ab1&.dnm=5605.jpg&.src=ph

If the link doesn't work, wire me and ill try and fix it. It's a battle between me and Bt Yahoo photos...
hmm ok...

using a tech network as a form of 'virtual' political system would negate the need for a local or supreme soviet. with differing tiers of government, we can basically have discussion forums deciding issues for the local government, and seperate larger forums for national/world decisions. just as on here, anyone can submit an issue for discussion. if enough people (say a certain percentage of the governmental area's population) vote to put the issue forward as an amendment, then the issue must be moved to another forum dedicated to general voting & discussion.

bah a graphical representation will be easier. clicky (http://www.hlj.me.uk/government%202.jpg)

thats the way i see it anyway. no need for corruption & beaurocracy-ridden councils/soviets. the people directly control the law, using a technological system as the means for discussion and voting, using multiple tiers of forums/voting, as well as government, to simplify things, and their decision is put into effect by a group of trained, unelected civil servants (who are watched over by another group).
note that there can be more layers of government (more than just regional and national)

as i say, this is the way i see it... i feel like i'm pushing against the tide on this issue so if you don't like it, please be frank

i think there's room in there for a set of elected representatives, and its something i'd like to include but i can't find a role for them (except for governance in times of crisis, such as if the tech network goes down)

edit:
Would it therefore be a good idea to have a bicameral parliament with a small but elected body of trained politicians as the upper house and the entire population as the lower house (that has the most power)

for example, the population would be like the UK house of commons or the U.S. house of reprasentitives. The 'upper house' would be the equivalant of the UK house of lords (but elected) and the US Senate.

(p.s. dont feel patronised if you alreaky know how the UK/US systems work, im trying to put council communism with a Parliamntary Democracy feel)

thats a good role for said elected chamber. nice one... can't be arsed to put it in the graphical representation just now though:p


edit: OP updated

hmm...What do you do with people who are too lazy to work and contribute to the 'system'?

Woohoo! P.M's idea rocks my ass. However, once it's complete (very soon!) we should have a poll to see if all Party members endorse it. :D :p

hmm...What do you do with people who are too lazy to work and contribute to the 'system'?
they are not citizens and do not get access to the distribution network. they get nothing.

and will probably starve to death.



its a harsh price to pay to make the system work


Woohoo! P.M's idea rocks my ass. However, once it's complete (very soon!) we should have a poll to see if all Party members endorse it. :D :p
agreed, we vote :)

they are not citizens and do not get access to the distribution network. they get nothing.

and will probably starve to death.

Well, we can't prevent people from giving them food if they want to. But people who refuse to work will obviously be under tremendous pressure from everyone else, who will look down on them.

By the way, it seems that, by mod decision, there will be no additional political parties. So it's just the twelve of us currently in existence. If two go defunct any time soon, it'll make it nice and easy to fit into a single poll. ;)

It is going to make it difficult to organise debates between the parties, though.

I agree, in essence, with the political structure proposed by PM and New Burmesia.

Well, we can't prevent people from giving them food if they want to. But people who refuse to work will obviously be under tremendous pressure from everyone else, who will look down on them.

ok its a bit harsh. perhaps those who do not work are not entitled to housing and either live on the street or can opt to live in modern, humane versions of victorian poor houses. they are given food, but not the same amount of choice as a citizen would have, are not allowed access to the distribution net (so they can't have the goods they desire), and perhaps should have some personal freedoms limited (such as not being allowed to leave the district)
sounds like a concentration camp (:eek:) but these could be pleasant and humane places, nice neighbourhoods and real houses for the non-working people in them - just with a big wall round the outside.

what of the idea of every non-citizen carrying, by law, ID cards? this way their access to the freedoms and wealth of the rest of society can easily be limited. of course, we don't want these people to suffer


By the way, it seems that, by mod decision, there will be no additional political parties. So it's just the twelve of us currently in existence. If two go defunct any time soon, it'll make it nice and easy to fit into a single poll. ;)

It is going to make it difficult to organise debates between the parties, though.
i know:(
people can still start their own party threads, just they can't be linked to your thread.... like TIN's party. shame - maybe the mods will relent once the frenzy surrounding this latest trend dies down a little?

I agree, in essence, with the political structure proposed by PM and New Burmesia.
please be vocal about any problems you have with it, or suggestions/alterations. i don't want to impose my ideas on the party - this needs to be a joint decision by all

Perhaps an idea would to have a system whereby we have coupons for clothes, food and other necessary goods. This would reduce the liklihood of an 'easy come easy go' waste society developing, and those who opt out of work revieve less credits/coupons.

As with voting, technology could be applied to this system - perhaps even with as the i.d. card system. With i.d. cards we need laws, however, to protect civil liberties as well. What do you think? is this a good idea?

what of the idea of every non-citizen carrying, by law, ID cards? this way their access to the freedoms and wealth of the rest of society can easily be limited. of course, we don't want these people to suffer


I've got no objection to ID cads in principle (we all have to carry ID cards here in France, and it's not a problem), but I wonder whether they'd be necessary solely to prevent non-workers from claiming the same rights as workers? Perhaps the tiny minority of people who consistantly refuse to work could be provided for within the homes they are confined to?

Which leads to the question, do we really need special measures for non-workers? Surely if someone refuses to work, they'll quickly be known to everyone in their neighbourhood, and the citizens there can act appropriately, by refusing to serve them if they want, and by pressurising/shaming them into doing their bit for society.


please be vocal about any problems you have with it, or suggestions/alterations. i don't want to impose my ideas on the party - this needs to be a joint decision by all

No, it's fine. I wouldn't be able to think up anything better. ;)

So if money is abolished, why bother to make things free?

my mistake, I'm used to say that in local politics. (the real thing) ;)

I've got no objection to ID cads in principle (we all have to carry ID cards here in France, and it's not a problem), but I wonder whether they'd be necessary solely to prevent non-workers from claiming the same rights as workers? Perhaps the tiny minority of people who consistantly refuse to work could be provided for within the homes they are confined to?

Which leads to the question, do we really need special measures for non-workers? Surely if someone refuses to work, they'll quickly be known to everyone in their neighbourhood, and the citizens there can act appropriately, by refusing to serve them if they want, and by pressurising/shaming them into doing their bit for society.


yeah that makes more sense. i was thinking of ID cards for non-workers largely cos i expected people to dispise the idea:p

and absolutley, the non-workers shoul be provided for in the homes/areas they are confined to. i don't think this should be a small or unpleasant place - a nice large neighbourhood with nice homes for the non-workers, and a (severely limited in stock) distribution centre for their neighbourhood.
perhaps electronic tagging could be used to prevent them leaving their precinct?
or is the idea of placing non-workers into special areas a bit draconian?

and perhaps ID cards for the general population then?


oh and OP updated again (with a pic or two;))

or is the idea of placing non-workers into special areas a bit draconian?


Well, that's why I suggested this:


Which leads to the question, do we really need special measures for non-workers? Surely if someone refuses to work, they'll quickly be known to everyone in their neighbourhood, and the citizens there can act appropriately, by refusing to serve them if they want, and by pressurising/shaming them into doing their bit for society.

Best Topic Ever.

Best Topic Ever.

Thank you very much! :)

Best Topic Ever.
great. want to join?;)


Which leads to the question, do we really need special measures for non-workers? Surely if someone refuses to work, they'll quickly be known to everyone in their neighbourhood, and the citizens there can act appropriately, by refusing to serve them if they want, and by pressurising/shaming them into doing their bit for society.

sorry i missed the opening sentence :headbang:

agreed.

but i would argue that there should be something concrete to set them apart from society. if we're agreed that ID cards should be carried by citizens in general, then non-citizens (non-workers) should not have ID cards.
this way they can be easily excluded from societal functions and such (like community meetings for example)

btw, i didn't know you had to have ID cards in France :eek:
there's so much opposition to them here in the UK

agreed.

but i would argue that there should be something concrete to set them apart from society. if we're agreed that ID cards should be carried by citizens in general, then non-citizens (non-workers) should not have ID cards.
this way they can be easily excluded from societal functions and such (like community meetings for example)


Hmm. Yes, that could work. Though again, on a local level they'd be recognised by everyone else and barred from entering, so that wouldn't be a problem. For national votes, perhaps they'd need to supply an ID number/code or something? Or swipe their ID card in some machine? To prevent non-workers from voting.


btw, i didn't know you had to have ID cards in France :eek:
there's so much opposition to them here in the UK

*nods* I've got mine on me all the time. It really doesn't reduce our civil rights or anything. ;)

Hmm. Yes, that could work. Though again, on a local level they'd be recognised by everyone else and barred from entering, so that wouldn't be a problem. For national votes, perhaps they'd need to supply an ID number/code or something? Or swipe their ID card in some machine? To prevent non-workers from voting.
thats precisely what i was thinking :)

i think we're getting close to this manifesto...

i think we're getting close to this manifesto...

Indeed. :) But first:



Where would the party stand on issues such as abortion, guns, divorce, war, homosexuality (including marriage and adoption), prostitution, affirmative action, rehabilitation, ages for sex, drinking, marriage etc? I.e social issues. Or would these kind of things (that aren't fundamentals) be dicussed later on?

We passed these issues up earlier, and it's probably time to come back to them. Perhaps we should see where we all stand, so we can find out which specific points we need to debate on, and which ones we all agree on.

For me, abortion, homosexual marriage and adoption, and prostitution would all be legal, the latter with strict procedures for protecting the health of prostitutes (and their clients). Guns would be banned. War would be in self-defence only, except in extreme cases such as WW2. Rehabilitation would be prioritised as the best why to combat crime, but there would also be the use of prison sentences (another thing to be discussed).

The legal age for sex is 15 over here, and that seems fine for me. I would put the legal age for marriage at 16. As for drinking, in private parents can give alcohol to their kids if they want, but you'd have to be 15 to purchase alcohol and/or consume alcohol in a public place.

ah yes. but first i got to do some revision :(

ah yes. but first i got to do some revision :(

Good luck!

Hmm, I'm not sure about the "freedom of religon" thing....Communist ideology just isn't compatiable with religon...religon is reactionary and counter-revolutionary.

Or we could just settle for cutting all state sponsered funding to any religous organzation or cause.


I like the idea that is proposed for an organizational structure, but I think some of the Politburo leadership could be dispersed and run on a local level though.

Pure Metal; aren't you on the Che-lives/revleft forums? :)

Pure Metal; aren't you on the Che-lives/revleft forums? :)
indeed i am, though i'm new there :D
i assume you're on there, then?

For me, abortion, homosexual marriage and adoption, and prostitution would all be legal, the latter with strict procedures for protecting the health of prostitutes (and their clients). Guns would be banned. War would be in self-defence only, except in extreme cases such as WW2. Rehabilitation would be prioritised as the best why to combat crime, but there would also be the use of prison sentences (another thing to be discussed).

Would prostitution work very well in a society without money? I don't think many women are going to whore themselves out if they can make just as much money doing something else. Although I could be wrong...

Or we could just settle for cutting all state sponsered funding to any religous organzation or cause.


There'd be no money anyway. ;) But if there were, I agree the government should not fund religions.

Would prostitution work very well in a society without money? I don't think many women are going to whore themselves out if they can make just as much money doing something else. Although I could be wrong...

Erm... Good point. Well, we can just say that the government doesn't interfere in sexual matters between consenting adults.

Erm... Good point. Well, we can just say that the government doesn't interfere in sexual matters between consenting adults.
agreed. what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom between two consenting adults is none of the government's business.

while we're on the issue, publc nudity should be prohibited

while we're on the issue, publc nudity should be prohibited

or it could be decided locally, so if there is a group of people who want public nudity they could start some sort of nudist community

or it could be decided locally, so if there is a group of people who want public nudity they could start some sort of nudist community

Good idea. We can leave that issue up to local communities.

How do you all feel about the other issues brought up by Glitziness, then?

or it could be decided locally, so if there is a group of people who want public nudity they could start some sort of nudist community
good point.


We passed these issues up earlier, and it's probably time to come back to them. Perhaps we should see where we all stand, so we can find out which specific points we need to debate on, and which ones we all agree on.

For me, abortion, homosexual marriage and adoption, and prostitution would all be legal, the latter with strict procedures for protecting the health of prostitutes (and their clients). Guns would be banned. War would be in self-defence only, except in extreme cases such as WW2. Rehabilitation would be prioritised as the best why to combat crime, but there would also be the use of prison sentences (another thing to be discussed).

The legal age for sex is 15 over here, and that seems fine for me. I would put the legal age for marriage at 16. As for drinking, in private parents can give alcohol to their kids if they want, but you'd have to be 15 to purchase alcohol and/or consume alcohol in a public place.

homosexual marrage/adoption, prostitution, guns ban, war: and criminal justice, all as you say - agreed

i disagree on:
abortion: illegal after 19 weeks of pregnancy (when the embryo gains conciousness and self-awareness)
legal age for sex AND marrage: 16
legal age for obtaining alcohol and marijuana: 18

Ok... lots to catch up on!

I agree with a consitution though the public must be involved in it.

I'm rather excited about it all too ;) hehe

I agree with legalising abortion (though a limit like PM said with improved facilities so people won't have any reason for late term abortions), homosexual marriage and adoption and prostitution (like someone else said that concept would fall apart anyway), agree with banning guns, agree with the take on war and rehabilitation. Should we discuss prison sentences?

For sex I'd probably say 15 (with increased funding into sex education), marriage at 16 and alcohol and marijuana at 16. What's the view on cigarettes?

Research into cancer and AIDs seems a good idea. Agree with the take on testing. Would also like to see people having wider range of subjects, less focus on academia and more personal choice. Agree with working as a trainee though I think it should be optional.

Agree with the right to vote and yes, with residents of different nationality. Say a years residence? Less? More? Agree with freedom of speech (other than yelling fire uncalled for etc) and agree with freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is important I think. The "government" wouldn't have any particular one and schools should teach about all equally. Expression of religion should be allowed in uniform and generally as long as it doesn't restrict anyone elses rights (i.e. human sacrifices...)

Where do we stand on being politcally correct?

I agree with recycling and think nucler should be shut down after we have enough other resources. Animal cloning I think is ok and cell cloning is ok for research purposes and euthanasia should be legal but with regulations.

We should have retirement (no pensions because no money remember?) either at a set age such as 65 (optional) or we could say when the doctors say their health is deteriorating, work is too much strain etc What kind of maternity leave, holidays etc would we have?

Agree with PMs whole tech idea though I think at least annually there should be personal meetings. Also think we need to be very careful about forums and people having multiple accounts etc Elected champber idea seems ok too.

People who are too lazy.... I think that should be part of their ID card (an idea I agree with) so that when they use it to get food or anything they will have restricted amounts, only bare neccesities.

On ID cards we need to be careful of fraud. What about electronic chips?

The idea of coupons could be used during the changeover as people get used to the system.

I agree with public nudity being a local issue.

Phew!

yay an updated version of the governmental chart. do we still want an elected house of representatives (the idea being battered about was the people are the 1st 'house of parliament', and a second elected house, (un)like the house of lords, would be the necessary 'checks and balances' of a political system)
in a way this is provided by the 'Council of Consistancy and Board of Constitutional Appeal' as shown on the diagram. sorry about the name, just the first thing that popped in me head

http://www.hlj.me.uk/government%203%20small.jpg (http://www.hlj.me.uk/government%203.jpg)

click it for a larger version :)


so how is that looking? changes?

glad we're all agreed on these issues :) i'll update the OP in a bit
For sex I'd probably say 15 (with increased funding into sex education), marriage at 16 and alcohol and marijuana at 16. What's the view on cigarettes?
ok, i'll consent to party opinion on this.
cigarettes should be 16 - same as alcohol and cannabis - but we need some way (other than taxes) to discourage use of these demerit goods. health education in schools - teaching people about eating right, not smoking or drinking too much? how about providing extra info and more advertising campaigns against smoking and such?

i also propose encouraging and supporting locally produced food through regular farmers markets and the like, as part of the 'eat helthy' campaign
also, this would help each region/locality be more self-sufficient should that need arise.

Research into cancer and AIDs seems a good idea. Agree with the take on testing. Would also like to see people having wider range of subjects, less focus on academia and more personal choice. Agree with working as a trainee though I think it should be optional.
optional traineeships. i put something about this on the OP in 'education'

Agree with the right to vote and yes, with residents of different nationality. Say a years residence? Less? More?
i say two years residence. people should be freely allowed to travel and move around as they wish, so 2 years will be more fair to the long-term local populus.

Freedom of religion is important I think. The "government" wouldn't have any particular one and schools should teach about all equally. Expression of religion should be allowed in uniform and generally as long as it doesn't restrict anyone elses rights (i.e. human sacrifices...)
agreed.

Where do we stand on being politcally correct?
offensive language should not be allowed. the problem is who decides what is offensive? how the hell do we decide it now?
i say keep things PC as they are now, but no further

I agree with recycling and think nucler should be shut down after we have enough other resources. Animal cloning I think is ok and cell cloning is ok for research purposes and euthanasia should be legal but with regulations.
euthanasia should be legal provided the person has made a Living Will, i say
without that they have no legal consent to end their life, so it should remain illegal (without such consent)

We should have retirement (no pensions because no money remember?) either at a set age such as 65 (optional) or we could say when the doctors say their health is deteriorating, work is too much strain etc What kind of maternity leave, holidays etc would we have?
seeing as there's no money, i say mothers should get 2 or 3 years maternity leave, and fathers (unless single parents) 2 years.
i think there should be a minimum retirement age of 60, but after that retirement is not mandatory. if someone wants to retire at 60 they can. if they want to keep working till they're 100, let them (as long as its not detrimental to their health)

Agree with PMs whole tech idea though I think at least annually there should be personal meetings. Also think we need to be very careful about forums and people having multiple accounts etc Elected champber idea seems ok too.
at local level i think we've agreed there should be fairly regular local meetings (perhaps the regularity should also be decided at local level, with no less than 1 a year)

the use of ID cards would provide security from voter fraud if, in order to vote, you had to swipe your card or give a fingerprint ID (or both, especially if biometric data is stored on the card).
should voting be done at electronic voting centres in the community (so you have to go vote, ensuring greater security), or done virtually on the internet? systems can be built in to protect against hackers etc as well (but we don't have to know what those are)

People who are too lazy.... I think that should be part of their ID card (an idea I agree with) so that when they use it to get food or anything they will have restricted amounts, only bare neccesities.
agreed. good idea

On ID cards we need to be careful of fraud. What about electronic chips?
biometric data stored on chips, yeah

The idea of coupons could be used during the changeover as people get used to the system.

ok

phew.... :p

Looks good to me :) Thanks for the work being put into this.

abortion: illegal after 19 weeks of pregnancy (when the embryo gains conciousness and self-awareness)

Yes, that's what I meant, sorry. And it should be legal for all before that.

cigarettes should be 16 - same as alcohol and cannabis - but we need some way (other than taxes) to discourage use of these demerit goods. health education in schools - teaching people about eating right, not smoking or drinking too much? how about providing extra info and more advertising campaigns against smoking and such?

Yes, health courses in school are definitely a good idea.


i also propose encouraging and supporting locally produced food through regular farmers markets and the like, as part of the 'eat helthy' campaign
also, this would help each region/locality be more self-sufficient should that need arise.

Well, again, in a system without money, competition or the greed for profit, that should happen spontaneously.


i say two years residence. people should be freely allowed to travel and move around as they wish, so 2 years will be more fair to the long-term local populus.

Fair enough.


offensive language should not be allowed. the problem is who decides what is offensive? how the hell do we decide it now?
i say keep things PC as they are now, but no further


We could have clear guidelines instituted as to what constitutes abusive and intolerable language?


euthanasia should be legal provided the person has made a Living Will, i say
without that they have no legal consent to end their life, so it should remain illegal (without such consent)


Agreed, if we have a campaign in place to make everyone aware they need to have such a will if they ever want to be euthanised. For people under 18, it would be the decision of the closest relatives, I suppose.

I agree on parent leave and retirement.


should voting be done at electronic voting centres in the community (so you have to go vote, ensuring greater security), or done virtually on the internet?


I'd say voting centres. It's safer, and it means people will have to get up and go out if they're interested in voting. ;)

I'm for tighter controls on abortion, but not totally outlawing it. I think it should be used in exceptional cases only, risk of harm to the mother and probably rape too.

If we got our act together on informing and educating people, people would know how to use contraception to minimise the risks of sex, and they would understand that having sexual intercourse almost always carries a small risk of pregnancy (unless a woman has no ovaries or something).

I think teaching kids critical thinking in school, and educating people to understand the consequences of their actions would help society in so many more ways than reducing the amount of unwanted pregnancies.

What do people think about language? I'm for a universal language that everyone must speak, although allowing other langages and dialects to be spoken if people want (but they must be able to speak the universal language too.) This would mean that everyone could read laws and proposals in the language in which they were written, and would foster information sharing and cooperation.

Would it be possible to get an external forum or something set up so we could discuss some issuse in seperate threads, or is this not allowed/not a good idea. This big long thread is making my head hurt, and I'm worried decisions will be made by a few people, simply because others weren't online/didn't see that bit of thre thread.

EDIT: Forgot to add, I think retirement should be a gradual process... at a certain age you go part-time, before retiring fully when you get older. A lot of oldish people can't cope with the stress and physical demands of a full time job but would actually enjoy having a part time one. Also, a lot of people get bored and lonely when they retire one day and suddenly find they don't have anything to do.

Agree with improved education in health. I think education should have a big focus on issues that affect everyone such as health, prejuduce, current issues, politics, emotional maturity, developing independece and responsibilty etc or at least a bigger focus than now. It should prepare people for life in more than just intelligence.

I'd support and encourage locally produced food.

Two years residence seems fine to me.

I think PC things such as not being able to sing 'baa baa black sheep' is ridiculous but not being able to call someone a '******' seems reasonable to me. Drawing the line is difficult because those are extremes and sometimes things can blur. Maybe this can be case-to-case or the "government" can not have a real opinion, it can be decided locally depending on minorites or peoples opinions there etc. Maybe something like that?

Yup, a living will seems reasonable to me. When does the choice pass from child to parent? Is it decided by the professionals at hand? Is it always child? Will they have living wills? These issues also come up in other areas such as when getting medicine or operations or the general age when someone is considered an adult.

Also, with work, will we have working hours and ages?

Agree with maternity leave and retirement.

Regular meetings-good.

Fingerprint seems like a good idea aswell.

Also be electronic chip I meant an electronic tagging type thing from a young age so that instead of a card, the chip is scanned in a person. Though that might not be very popular...

I think voting should be at a community centre. It's too important to risk. Maybe as the tech system improves it could be changed.

Hehe :p

We could have clear guidelines instituted as to what constitutes abusive and intolerable language?

I'd say voting centres. It's safer, and it means people will have to get up and go out if they're interested in voting. ;)
i don't know. we don't want PC to be too inflexible.
see what party consensus is - i don't mind either way

as for voting centres, agreed.

we should summarise all these new issues again... i'll do it later tonight if nobody else wants to
but now i must revise again


ooh just had a thought. philosophy & critical thinking should be a core subject in schools. i've heard thats the case in France & think its a great idea

I'm for tighter controls on abortion, but not totally outlawing it. I think it should be used in exceptional cases only, risk of harm to the mother and probably rape too.

If we got our act together on informing and educating people, people would know how to use contraception to minimise the risks of sex, and they would understand that having sexual intercourse almost always carries a small risk of pregnancy (unless a woman has no ovaries or something).

How about cases where contraception fails? And does emotional and finanical harm count?

What do people think about language? I'm for a universal language that everyone must speak, although allowing other langages and dialects to be spoken if people want (but they must be able to speak the universal language too.) This would mean that everyone could read laws and proposals in the language in which they were written, and would foster information sharing and cooperation.

I think something like that should be up to the public. Perhaps... I don't feel that strongly either way.

Would it be possible to get an external forum or something set up so we could discuss some issuse in seperate threads, or is this not allowed/not a good idea. This big long thread is making my head hurt, and I'm worried decisions will be made by a few people, simply because others weren't online/didn't see that bit of thre thread.

If someone wants, I can have one set up either this evening or tomorrow.

Would it be possible to get an external forum or something set up so we could discuss some issuse in seperate threads, or is this not allowed/not a good idea. This big long thread is making my head hurt, and I'm worried decisions will be made by a few people, simply because others weren't online/didn't see that bit of thre thread.

very good idea. i have unlimited personal webspace (hlj.me.uk in me sig) and i was thinking of setting up a site anyway (well, part of that site)

so Glitz, if you need somewhere to host the forum just yell

we should summarise all these new issues again... i'll do it later tonight if nobody else wants to
but now i must revise again

Thanks. I would offer but I'm off out soon. My brothers back from France so we're going out. Have fun revising :p

ooh just had a thought. philosophy & critical thinking should be a core subject in schools. i've heard thats the case in France & think its a great idea

Agreed. I think religious education is important for tolerance but philosphy, ethics and critical thinking is important and very useful-what I'm doing right now.

Also what do you think of politics and current issues being talked about? And what would be the view on teachers voicing their opinions? Personally I think they should be allowed as long as it isn't spoken as fact, students are encouraged to think for themselves and it isn't offensive.

very good idea. i have unlimited personal webspace (hlj.me.uk in me sig) and i was thinking of setting up a site anyway (well, part of that site)

so Glitz, if you need somewhere to host the forum just yell

Might be better. We can easily just use a free forum hosting site but depends what everyone would prefer, what's easiest etc

How about cases where contraception fails? And does emotional and finanical harm count?

When contraception fails I'm leaning towards people knew the risk was there, now they have to accept it. Financial harm is not really an issue in a cashless society. Emotional harm... well, emotional health and physical health are intertwined, so I suppose there should be some provision made for emotional disturbances (especially in people who had existing problems excaberated by the pregnancy, are suicidal, or stressed to the point of severe depression or physical effects). But I wouldn't say "I don't want a baby, make it go away for me" would count as emotional harm severe enough to justify an abortion, unless there were other, serious problems intertwined with this. Indeed, the emotional harm caused by abortions is often great, and parents who may feel desperately unhappy about learning that they are pregnant may change their minds once over the initial shock and enjoy parenthood. I was an unwanted pregnancy, but my very anti-abortion mother decided part way through the pregnancy that she did want a baby after all, and she even went on to have another one afterwards.

However, I'd rather wait to come to any decisions on abortion because it's a huge issue that we've barely touched on so far, and everyone should have a chance to discuss and take part in the decision.

Another thing we might want to look at, in relation to abortion and other issues: does a human life have innate value? Does it have to be self-conscious? My veiw is that all human life should be valued and protected, but that self-conscious human life (those who are conscious of themselves as a seperate being), while being not intrinsicly more valuble, should be given greater priority if two lives come into conflict, because it is aware of itself as existing and has the ability to desire to avoid, and indeed fear, being destoyed.

Might be better. We can easily just use a free forum hosting site but depends what everyone would prefer, what's easiest etc
i can't do PHPbb forums (probably could but dunno how) so a free one would certainly be easiest. i could do a msn community unless you've got another plan

i can't do PHPbb forums (probably could but dunno how) so a free one would certainly be easiest. i could do a msn community unless you've got another plan

A wiki could also be cool. Fits the commie/anarchist ideology nicely too. :)

Although, a forum might be more practical...

A wiki could also be cool. Fits the commie/anarchist ideology nicely too. :)

Although, a forum might be more practical...
we can do both... its all free and its not like we have anything better to do;)

just remembered the discussion boards on msn groups are truly crap.

i'll do an ezboard

hmm...What do you do with people who are too lazy to work and contribute to the 'system'?

only give them the basic needs: food, water and a bed

we can do both... its all free and its not like we have anything better to do;)

Woohoo! How exciting! :D

Although, I do have these wee things called exams, lectures, assigments and lab reports to do... I'll try and participate as much as possible though, but it'd be great if people could hold off final decision making until as many people as possible have had their say. Or if we need to rush we could make provisional decisions and re-discuss them later in more depth.

When are people planning this poll thing anyway?

I would be honoured to join the UDCP!

Shouldn't our manifesto also include something about the socialist system that comes between capitalism and communism? And would you like me to write a preamble and a more abstract statement of principles, in addition to the list of concrete policies we have now?

Woohoo! How exciting! :D

Although, I do have these wee things called exams, lectures, assigments and lab reports to do... I'll try and participate as much as possible though, but it'd be great if people could hold off final decision making until as many people as possible have had their say. Or if we need to rush we could make provisional decisions and re-discuss them later in more depth.

When are people planning this poll thing anyway?
i dunno. tbh i'm just excited and pleased this idea has gotten this far:)
a big well done to Ariddia!

and the forum is up!

http://p097.ezboard.com/bnsudcpdiscussiongroup

hope it all works! u gotta register. i got to go for a sec so any problems i'll be back soon :)

Regarding abortion, I'd lean towards it always being legal (up to 19 weeks only, of course), but I'm willing to compromise. Still, it should automatically be legal if the woman's life would be endangered, or if she was raped.

Regarding languages, everyone should be taught the official language of the country, but if a person's native language is not the official language, they should be encouraged to preserve their own language too, and the culture that goes with it.

I agree philosophy should be taught in school, and children encouraged to think critically for themselves. Teachers should indeed be allowed to speak their own opinions, as long as they're presented as such.

I would be honoured to join the UDCP!

Shouldn't our manifesto also include something about the socialist system that comes between capitalism and communism? And would you like me to write a preamble and a more abstract statement of principles, in addition to the list of concrete policies we have now?

Welcome!

And, well, we'll be starting with a transitional period which you might call socialism, and that'll be in our manifesto. A preamble could be nice, thanks, when we get to actually writing the full manifesto.

When are people planning this poll thing anyway?

There's no fixed date, yet. There was supposed to be campaigning, and debates in which the parties ask one another questions and reply to questions from the public, but the mods have made that a little difficult now...

i dunno. tbh i'm just excited and pleased this idea has gotten this far:)
a big well done to Ariddia!

Hehe... I'm very pleased about it too! And thank you! You've done a great job here.


and the forum is up!


Woo! *wanders off to take a look*

Hehe... I'm very pleased about it too! And thank you! You've done a great job here.



Woo! *wanders off to take a look*
yay! my pleasure:)

and there's not much on the forum just yet, but its early days (well, hours...;))
sign up and get posting!

There's no fixed date, yet. There was supposed to be campaigning, and debates in which the parties ask one another questions and reply to questions from the public, but the mods have made that a little difficult now...
more difficult, yes, but we can still have them! i don't want to see this great idea come to nothing

I would be honoured to join the UDCP!

Shouldn't our manifesto also include something about the socialist system that comes between capitalism and communism? And would you like me to write a preamble and a more abstract statement of principles, in addition to the list of concrete policies we have now?
welcome, comrade! please feel free to contribute in any way you wish. our own forum is up and running (see the OP for link) if you would rather talk about your ideas there first or whatever.

glad to have another on-board :)

When contraception fails I'm leaning towards people knew the risk was there, now they have to accept it. Financial harm is not really an issue in a cashless society. Emotional harm... well, emotional health and physical health are intertwined, so I suppose there should be some provision made for emotional disturbances (especially in people who had existing problems excaberated by the pregnancy, are suicidal, or stressed to the point of severe depression or physical effects). But I wouldn't say "I don't want a baby, make it go away for me" would count as emotional harm severe enough to justify an abortion, unless there were other, serious problems intertwined with this. Indeed, the emotional harm caused by abortions is often great, and parents who may feel desperately unhappy about learning that they are pregnant may change their minds once over the initial shock and enjoy parenthood. I was an unwanted pregnancy, but my very anti-abortion mother decided part way through the pregnancy that she did want a baby after all, and she even went on to have another one afterwards.

Personally I'm always going to be pro-choice though I may compromise depending on majority views. As long as it is legal in the case of rape and danger to mother either physically or mentally/emotionally (which personally I would include underage pregnancy as, if the teenager feels they can't cope) I will be fairly ok. And yes, forgot about the financial thing :p

I think if abortion is to be illegal then adoption services need to be improved and encouraged along with the health/sex education we've talked about.

However, I'd rather wait to come to any decisions on abortion because it's a huge issue that we've barely touched on so far, and everyone should have a chance to discuss and take part in the decision.

Sure thing.

Another thing we might want to look at, in relation to abortion and other issues: does a human life have innate value? Does it have to be self-conscious? My veiw is that all human life should be valued and protected, but that self-conscious human life (those who are conscious of themselves as a seperate being), while being not intrinsicly more valuble, should be given greater priority if two lives come into conflict, because it is aware of itself as existing and has the ability to desire to avoid, and indeed fear, being destoyed.

I'd agree with that. Though, for me, a fetus is not equal to a human (i.e. after birth) in the case of abortion.

Agree with all Arridia said and would like to thank her aswell :)

Along with PM. Am now off to look at the forum :)

Free speech: I am for free speech in almost all cases. For instance, if your free speech incites a riot, then "inciting a riot" should be a crime. If you threaten someone, then "terroristic threats" should be a crime. But as far as other things go, I'm fine with it. I don't think speech should be curtailed just because it might be offensive. Some people find four-letter-words offensive, but I personally love the use of them. (I do dislike how they're overused, though.)

Abortion: I am pro-choice until birth, however I think that if a woman had a late-term abortion just because she felt like it, then society would shun her and discourage that sort of thing on its own.

Religion: I am all in favor of religion, but agree that it should be kept separate from the government. Most of the early communists here in the U.S. were so for religious reasons.
Marriage: I am for either all marriages between two consenting adults being legal, or the gov. keeping out of marriage entirely and simply granting civil unions.

Discrimination: Already covered.

Marijuana: I am in favor of it being legal for medical purposes, and industrial purposes (hemp) but not for recreational purposes. I would be willing to compromise and allow it to be legal in hash bars, and in a person's home, provided that smoking it (or anything) around a child constitutes child abuse.
Cigarettes/Alcohol: See above.

Age of consent: I believe that there should be an age of consent, however people mature at different rates, so there are certain ages where it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

If I missed anything I'll get back.

hey, i registered a dotTK domain name for the forum, it should be a little easier than the actual URL

you can now reach it here: http://www.udcp-central.tk/

I have an idea on the posistion of the armed forces. I belief that a small force should be kept and given the fair share everyone else gets, and just put labour in wherever they can. However, if one of the nations involved was to be attacked by another nation, citizens will have to fight. Say for 1 month or whatever and then come home and another group go and replace them. This way not only are you helping a fellow communist state, the economy of the countries will not suffer to much either.
:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Agree with Jello Biafra on limitations of free speech, child abuse when smoking around child and case-by-case/flexible laws on age of consent. For marriage, I think everyone should get civil unions with religious additions for those who want it. So they'd have the service, either religious or not and then go to sign the papers for the rights of a civil union. Personally don't agree with pro-choice until birth unless the woman is in serious danger.

Probably should debate these on the new forum instead....

About cruely to animals, what is the take on animal testing?

I'm for in scientific experiments as long as it isn't unneccesarily cruel and against for cosmetics.

About cruely to animals, what is the take on animal testing?

I'm for in scientific experiments as long as it isn't unneccesarily cruel and against for cosmetics.

I agree, besides cosmetics would probably be far less in demand in a truely communist society anyway. I also think that animal testing should only be done when necessary.

I'm going to stress that alot of these issues to be solved at a local level, so we don't slide into a giant beaucratic police state. One other objection though...

legal age for sex AND marrage: 16


Objection: Abolish Marriage, marriage is an ancient patriarchal custom that enslaves the woman. For both sexes to be free, free unions, so both can leave when they want if they feel the need.

Outlaw marriage for all members, one of the few things I think should be a party rule.

I'm Zingu on the revleft forums by the way Pure Metal.

Link doesn't seem to be working..... :(

The military should also be run democractically, soldiers elect their officers, so they can feel confident under officers they think are capable.

Autonomous Workers' militias should be organized in local Soviets along with a regular army.

Age of consent: I believe that there should be an age of consent, however people mature at different rates, so there are certain ages where it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

how about there is a set age of consent (15, 16, whatever), then if somone younger than that wants consent they can take some sort of course which covers STDs, contraception, and general maturity and responsibility, then they take a test and if they score high enough they are allowed to have sex

I have an idea on the posistion of the armed forces. I belief that a small force should be kept and given the fair share everyone else gets, and just put labour in wherever they can. However, if one of the nations involved was to be attacked by another nation, citizens will have to fight. Say for 1 month or whatever and then come home and another group go and replace them. This way not only are you helping a fellow communist state, the economy of the countries will not suffer to much either.


No, I suggest there simply be a trained army of professional volunteers, sufficient in number but not excessive. I see no valid reason to re-introduce conscription.

About cruely to animals, what is the take on animal testing?
I'm for in scientific experiments as long as it isn't unneccesarily cruel and against for cosmetics.

Against for cosmetics, definitely. As for scientific/medical experiments, there are alternatives to animal testing, and I feel those alternatives should be looked into fully to replace animal testing.


Objection: Abolish Marriage, marriage is an ancient patriarchal custom that enslaves the woman. For both sexes to be free, free unions, so both can leave when they want if they feel the need.
Outlaw marriage for all members, one of the few things I think should be a party rule.


We can redefine it rather than abolish it, and indeed make it a free union that either member can leave at any time.

The military should also be run democractically, soldiers elect their officers, so they can feel confident under officers they think are capable.

That's potentially dangerous. Officers do need to be people who have the training and expertise for the job, and electing them isn't necessarily the best way to achieve that. We could have a system whereby soldiers could put in a motion of no-confidence against their officer, though.


Autonomous Workers' militias should be organized in local Soviets along with a regular army.

Why?

how about there is a set age of consent (15, 16, whatever), then if somone younger than that wants consent they can take some sort of course which covers STDs, contraception, and general maturity and responsibility, then they take a test and if they score high enough they are allowed to have sex

That may be a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure it'd be practical nor necessary.

hey, i registered a dotTK domain name for the forum, it should be a little easier than the actual URL

you can now reach it here: http://www.udcp-central.tk/
w00t! good on ya:)

still messing around with the forum but i ask all members who aren't currently signed up there to do so - it'll be especially useful during these inter-party debates (happening now)

speaking of which, who is going to be our chosen representative for them? we can only have one. i suggest Ariddia as he is the founder and all and knows the issues. of course if you don't wish to i'll be more than happy to fill the role - though i do have exams coming up next week which will complicate things:(

speaking of which, who is going to be our chosen representative for them? we can only have one. i suggest Ariddia as he is the founder and all and knows the issues. of course if you don't wish to i'll be more than happy to fill the role - though i do have exams coming up next week which will complicate things:(

I can do it if you want - and if people don't mind me both coordinating the debate and taking part in it. ;)

Comrades-

I'd join but I'm terribly busy building my region, the National Bolshevik Party (no relation to neo-nazis). Put me down as a supporter.

* Armed forces
Someone said: soldiers elect their generals. I would hate to see the army turn into something populistic. Some people DO subject well to enforced authority - and most of those people fit quite well in the army. I believe that a society consists of very different personalities, and that they should all be allowed to explore the good side of their personality - in this case, listening and doing what is told when it is told. Using that principle in the army, makes for a meta-society where people who don't subject well to "freedom" can live out their lives in an environment that suits them well, an environment with structure and rules on personal conduct.
To sum up: everyone has its strengths and weaknesses, and it's for the society to allow one's strength to nullify one other's weakness.

* Labour
Why should everyone have a job? Most of the time, there's always something to do. But I do hope "job" equals "being useful for society", and not "being apllied into the economy", even when it's unnecessary.

* Economy
Unnecessary production is my biggest "anti-point", and I hope the UDCP wants to do something about that. It's also an environmental matter, and I'm very into that (for those of you who don't know). For instance: gadget keychains, or separate packaging for things that don't need them (like, the "small" coca-cola bottles, or Senseo-pads with separate packaging PER PAD dammit...) That's all an unnecessary use of resources (both human and natural), that can be put to much better use in beautification of the habitation and environment.

If the UDCP can see my points here, then I'm game with you guys.

Bah, I want a redscale pic like Aridda and PM.

* Labour
Why should everyone have a job? Most of the time, there's always something to do. But I do hope "job" equals "being useful for society", and not "being apllied into the economy", even when it's unnecessary.

Of course. The economy is no longer geered towards profit, so, as long as you're doing something useful (be it manual work, public services, art, or whatever), you're recognised as a worker.


* Economy
Unnecessary production is my biggest "anti-point", and I hope the UDCP wants to do something about that.


Yes; we've already tackled that issue. In a society which no-longer mass-produces for the sake of profit, people will produce only what they need and genuinely want, and will use the rest of their time for leisure; no-one will waste their time producing unnecessary goods. So goods will no longer be produced for the sake of generating artificial wants in consumers.

Sign me up, then. For my party comrades, my points: planet before people, people before profit. But I'm willing to be tolerant on that first point.

http://img45.echo.cx/img45/7504/commie8gw.jpg

Here we go. My image. :p

Now, because I don't feel like reading 16 pages of posts, what is going on, exactly?

I'm a socialist/communist although I Usually don't reffer to myself as a communist because of the unfortunate authoritarian ideals which seem to have been attached to it in recent years.

I'd be interested in signing up to your party, seeing as I agree with virtually all the policies you have outlined with the exception of:

Compulsory education upto and including university level. I disagree I think that compulsory education this far would be counter productive, I propose ending complusory education at 17.

Banned Human cloning, again I disagree, we have to respect the rights of scientists to research any topics they feel are of interest, remember society owes a great debt to science, far more than to any war hero or religious figure and human cloning, perfected, could provide an massive amount of cultural benefits such as lengthening the human life span and curing "uncurable" diseases such as cancer before they even take a hold.

Comrades, I am most interested in joining your party. There are several points I'm looking foward to debating, as far as Party Policy is concerned.

Compulsory education upto and including university level. I disagree I think that compulsory education this far would be counter productive, I propose ending complusory education at 17.

Hmm... I can't remember anyone actually advocating compulsory university education, so it may be that it's just poorly formulated. ;) I agree that university education should be strongly encouraged, but that people should be allowed to leave the education system at the age of 18 if they want.


Banned Human cloning, again I disagree, we have to respect the rights of scientists to research any topics they feel are of interest, remember society owes a great debt to science, far more than to any war hero or religious figure and human cloning, perfected, could provide an massive amount of cultural benefits such as lengthening the human life span and curing "uncurable" diseases such as cancer before they even take a hold.

Actually, if you look at our policies we will be allowing embryonic stem-cell research. What will be banned is the creation of clones (i.e., creating live cloned babies).

And welcome, Druidvale, Tograna and Hallad! :)

Compulsory education upto and including university level. I disagree I think that compulsory education this far would be counter productive, I propose ending complusory education at 17.

Banned Human cloning, again I disagree, we have to respect the rights of scientists to research any topics they feel are of interest, remember society owes a great debt to science, far more than to any war hero or religious figure and human cloning, perfected, could provide an massive amount of cultural benefits such as lengthening the human life span and curing "uncurable" diseases such as cancer before they even take a hold.

On the first part: I disagree as well, technically: what if we made it so that "education" not just means "school" but also "schooling"? For instance a more
hands-on approach on artisanal baking or whatever should also be considered "schooling". It's a more narrow master-apprentice relation that could benefit those who fail to fit in at school. In my experience, it's not that some people don't want schooling, they just don't want school.

Banned Human cloning: hmm... difficult point. I propose that human cloning research should be highly supervised and made very transparent and public, and we should let experts on the subject matter keep the general public well-informed, so that any referendum on the subject is relevant.
In se, I'm not for cloning; IMO, it's arrogant and messing with nature on a very fundamental level. Nature solves problems in its own way - one man, or even "man", cannot presume to understand how nature does this. For instance, the Down-syndrome: some people call that "a mistake of nature". Well, it isn't. Nature does not make mistakes. What if, through ever-growing population, a new virus emerges that proves to be highly lethal and very easily spread, but Down-syndrome has immunity to it? Are they still gonna be mistakes then? It's the ultimate nature of evolution that individual members of species differ from eachother, just to overcome possibly lethal problems. As a "communist", I believe society is to be composed of differing yet complementary individuals - just the same way as nature is built up. Finding a cure for cancer is one thing, one that I can maybe vote for, but rooting out things that are deemed "erroneous" or "mistakes of nature" is fundamentally wrong. Just so you know.

Edit: and also, lengthening human lifespan is fine, but should be accompanied by tighter population-control - not on a restrictive, but on a mentality-basis. Live longer, less babies. That simple. Overpopulation is one of the most fundamental global problems for ANY species on the planet, and that is even more so for one that is on top of the global food-chain.

After studying most of the other NS General parties, I've decided that I agree with the policy of the UDCP. I agree with almost 100% of what the policy says and I'm sure that the UDCP is a great party to represent me and protect my interests and vice-versa.

After studying most of the other NS General parties, I've decided that I agree with the policy of the UDCP. I agree with almost 100% of what the policy says and I'm sure that the UDCP is a great party to represent me and protect my interests and vice-versa.

Glad to have you with us! Welcome to the UDCP, and feel free to contribute your thoughts and ideas.

I agree with things being decided on a local level as probably best. We can always have some guidelines or some "rules" that apply as default but which are flexible and can be changed on a local level.

With marriage, I agree with redefining it so that it becomes a free union.

The age of consent, I think should be set at 15 but have it flexible so that case-by-case decisions can be made. With good sex education, the course won't really be needed. Perhaps, if the couple has been to a doctors and can show preperation for having sex, the law can be flexible to allow for that. Perhaps we can incorporate the idea of age differences being included in the law i.e. legal for a 14 year old and a 14, 15 or 16 year old but not older. Or something like that.

I'm strongly against conscription. A trained group of volunteers is all we need. Electing officers, maybe it can be election between trained profesionals with electing being a part of choosing the officers but not the defining factor.

With animal experiments, I think research should be done into other methods, sure but I'm not sure if they can replace it sufficiently. We'd have to see.

I agree with Ariddia being our representative and sure you can be involved in the debate too :)

"Jobs" just include contributing to society in some way, whatever fits your ability and skills.

On compulsory education, I think it should only be compulsory up to 16. After that people starting work would benefit everyone and that might be more suited to their ability. The only way I'd support more compulsory education is if it included training for jobs or general skill building in any area.

On cloning, yes, I think some should be allowed for research but like Ariddia said not actualy cloning of a whole human.

And Kanabia, if you look at the first post we have a manifesto that sums up what we've decided so far. Feel free to mention new things or dispute decisions made so far.

Oh and welcome all new members :)

Please visit the forums and register: http://p097.ezboard.com/bnsudcpdiscussiongroup

Perhaps we can incorporate the idea of age differences being included in the law i.e. legal for a 14 year old and a 14, 15 or 16 year old but not older. Or something like that.
That was always my suggestion.

That was always my suggestion.

It was? Must have missed that.

Well, we're agreed then :)

Don't go on NS for a couple of days and you miss the whole of General starting political parties... I would very much like to join the UDCP, and I will be contributing some ideas as soon as I finish looking through what's already been said on here and on the forum.

Don't go on NS for a couple of days and you miss the whole of General starting political parties... I would very much like to join the UDCP, and I will be contributing some ideas as soon as I finish looking through what's already been said on here and on the forum.

Hehe, a few hours is bad enough to cath up on!

Welcome :) We have the manifesto on the first post which sums up what we've decided so far; feel free to bring up other topics or discuss anything you disagree with.

Theres the forum (http://p097.ezboard.com/bnsudcpdiscussiongroup) which we encourage members to register at. We can discuss topics in there much more easily, take votes etc

If you'd like any explanations or have any questions feel free to ask.

I want to be a member. I already made a contribution :D

All members are welcome :D

In the forum, should suggestions for the manifesto go in the topic called UDCP Manifesto or in a new topic within UDCP specifics?

I'm just looking at a new forum I can make with more features and which I find to be better. I'll post a link in a little while and people can decide. I don't mind particurlarly either way.

Suggestions for manifesto can just go in the UDCP specifics area for now.

In the forum, should suggestions for the manifesto go in the topic called UDCP Manifesto or in a new topic within UDCP specifics?
i would suggest a new topic, but its up to you

*checks forum*

right good choice:p


and Eurocountry, new members are always welcome:)


sorry i haven't been very active the last couple of days - (first) big bad exam looming next week :eek:
that and the forum has taken a fair bit of time;)

Good luck with your exam :) Just finished my week of them...

Good luck with your exam :) Just finished my week of them...
:eek: lucky!
how'd they go?


and btw, we need to consolidate the last 2 days of posts into the manifesto (may as well start calling it that). i'll do it later this evening (about midnight) but would certainly appreciate any help :)

Damn, you guys have some awesome ideas. This is the coolest thread I've ever bothered looking at.

:eek: lucky!
how'd they go?

Well, I still have another extra one (evil evil teacher) on Monday but they're basically over. I think they went ok and am fairly confident on most of them. Except for the French exam which I'm still trying to forget about.

Worst. Test. Ever.

Seriously. *shudder*

and btw, we need to consolidate the last 2 days of posts into the manifesto (may as well start calling it that). i'll do it later this evening (about midnight) but would certainly appreciate any help :)

Sure thing. But I can't edit your post....

Edit: I've added things to the manifesto... how shall I send it to you?