NationStates Jolt Archive

Manifesto of the NS Classic Liberal Party.
Constitutional Principles

1. The fundamental principle of free society should be the preservation of the rights and responsibilities of the individual.

a) The foremost role of government is to assure the autonomy of the individual.

b) Regulation of society shall be maintained through the fair enforcement of contracts and competitive forces of the free market.

2. Policies shall be directed toward equal utility for and equal freedom of all individuals within society. If there is conflict between these two principles then freedom shall be given priority.

3. Government should be at the most local level commensurate with the fulfillment of its duties toward the citizens.

4. Religion is a personal choice and of no consequence to the government, therefore religious views will not be recognized or restricted by government.

5. The Judicial system shall be completely independent of the Legislative and Executive systems. Judges shall be elected by a limited suffrage of citizens that have completed degree level education. The Judges themselves shall nominate members of a supreme court from among their number but these shall be confirmed by national vote of this limited suffrage.

6. The executive shall be directly elected by the entire adult suffrage.

7. The Legislative body shall be divided in two houses. The lower house shall have one representative per (n) citizens, such that there shall be (x) representatives.
The upper house shall be made up of experts. These shall be elected by the limited educated suffrage, in the field in which they are qualified. There being three representatives for each field. The role of the upper house is to be consultative and advisory only. All law is to be created by the lower house.

8. The age of majority. This shall be 18 or on the successful completion of a test of judgment capability. Whichever shall occur first. All individuals under the age of 18 shall have the inviolable right to take this assessment once per calendar year.

Public Policy

Education
Free basic education (6 to 12) provided for all children as this is of utility to society. Low interest loans provided for furthered education. The government shall have no control not influence on the educational curriculum for those aged 12 or above. This shall be the free choice of the institution. The parents and or children shall be free to choose which institution they desire to attend, including the option of none.

Security
Government shall be responsible for internal (police) and external (armed forces) security.

a) Under no circumstances shall conscription be allowed. The military is a profession and requires dedicated and motivated individuals.

b) Any community may institute its own policing as it so desires. In any conflict between policing agencies the publicly chartered police shall have priority.

c) There shall be a national police coordinating body, to which each area shall contribute one person, to be selected by the coordinating body.

d) The method of local policing shall be decided by local government. (Direct employment, contracting, other)

Monetary System
The government will maintain its own monetary system, but will repeal all legal tender laws to allow competition to exist.

a) Each coinage issuer will be entitled to set their own rates of interest.

b) All banking institutions shall be required to exchange their currency for the government backed currency on request

Taxation
The government shall apply a flat sales tax, with movement towards self-sufficiency.

a) Essential goods shall not be taxed. These include, but are not limited to: uncooked food, water, energy, residential housing, education, basic clothing, books, communications. Any further claims for tax free status shall be considered by the government.

Health
Emergency and Accident treatment shall be provided by the government. Bearers of health insurance that covers these functions shall receive tax credits in compensation.

a) Abortion shall be at the discretion of the woman

b) Euthanasia shall be available subject to the request being witnessed by a judge.

Trade
All goods, except those that infringe on the basic freedom of individuals (child pornography, slavery, body parts from the living etc.) shall be freely traded within the nation.

a) There will be a range of goods for which evidence of adult status shall be required for purchase: Guns, Drugs, Sex

Border Control
All people shall be at liberty to enter or leave the nation as they see fit. All persons so doing will have their identity confirmed and any convicted criminals shall be detained.

a) Persons entering the country that are convicted of crimes in other nations shall be extradited to that nation if this crime would also have been a crime in our nation.

b) There shall be no restriction on legal employment within our borders. Any person legally entering may attempt to obtain gainful employment.

c) Any person entering without passing through border control shall be presumed to be a criminal and will be returned to their nation of origin when apprehended.

Personal Relationships
These are a matter of private contract. The only condition shall be that the parties so contracting shall be legal adults.

Extension of Rights
All rights are to be extended equally to all living things that are capable of knowingly assuming the commensurate responsibilities towards the rights of others. Those living creatures that are not capable of such understanding may be sponsored by an individual that is capable of such understanding, and who shall be responsible for the behavior of the creature.

a) Implications: The mentally handicapped shall have rights concurrent to their abilities to understand the implications thereof. Where they do not understand there may be a guardian who accepts these responsibilities in order that the handicapped individuals receive their full rights.

b) If you own an animal you are responsible for its actions.

Business restriction
No business shall be restricted from any legal activity. House builders may provide mortgages, Farm owners may run abattoirs etc.

Points I think we should include in the manifesto

- Individual rights were apparent prior to the existence of the state, so the state's main goal should be the preservation of such rights.

- Property rights are of the utmost importance, with the economic goal of a free market system.

- A constitutional government that is defined by its limited abilities to impugn these rights.

- Universal protection of individual rights

- Emphasis on social progressiveness.
__________________

Sounds good to me. Maybe include a provision that all human individuals are recognized as equal under the law, and that fundamental rights may not be infringed upon due to gender, race, creed, sexuality, etc.

Sign me up!

Government should be small and out of people's lives as much as possible.

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.

Government should be small and out of people's lives as much as possible.

Excellent, how should we word those for the manifesto?

Excellent, how should we word those for the manifesto?

Individual rights should only be restricted by the government to prevent harm. The government may only act to prevent harm. ? I dunno, I wouldn't make a very good lawyer! :(

Points I think we should include in the manifesto

(1)- Individual rights were apparent prior to the existence of the state, so the state's main goal should be the preservation of such rights.

(2)- Property rights are of the utmost importance, with the economic goal of a free market system.

(3)- A constitutional government that is defined by its limited abilities to impugn these rights.

(4)- Universal protection of individual rights

(5)- Emphasis on social progressiveness.
__________________
The only problem I see is how to reconcile (5) with (2), since "social Progressiveness" has universally required some sort of confiscatory tax (taking of personal property) scheme.

Individual rights should only be restricted by the government to prevent harm. The government may only act to prevent harm. ? I dunno, I wouldn't make a very good lawyer! :(The government cannot "prevent" harm. The covernment can only (A) restrict rights in the attempt to somehow make causing harm more difficult or (B) punish those who cause harm (if they survive the encounter in which they attempted to cause harm).

Only (B) is the classical liberal stance.

The only problem I see is how to reconcile (5) with (2), since "social Progressiveness" has universally required some sort of confiscatory tax (taking of personal property) scheme.

That is an economic issue. Social progressiveness would recognise changing social climates and adjust representation and political recognition to accomodate the changes.

For example, the recognition of gay marriage would be an example of social progressiveness, and it requires no wealth redistribution.

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Right on!

Why not have competing voluntary governments? That way everyone can get the government they want without being able to force others to join it, with all the benefits of dispersed power, competition, efficiency and choice of the free market.

Right on!

Why not have competing voluntary governments? That way everyone can get the government they want without being able to force others to join it, with all the benefits of dispersed power, competition, efficiency and choice of the free market.

That is an idea that I have been flirting with in my mind. I guess it would be the privatisation of government, and it would strike people as strange. It has some very demanding logistical problems, but it is an overall very good idea.

And how do you guys feel about the privatisation of the monetary system?

Right on!

Why not have competing voluntary governments? That way everyone can get the government they want without being able to force others to join it, with all the benefits of dispersed power, competition, efficiency and choice of the free market.

This does sound like an intriguing idea, but efficiency and organizational structure/behaviour could be a problem if they are busy compeating with each other.

Syniks - They are good points, just goes to show I'm not the person to word this

And how do you guys feel about the privatisation of the monetary system?

How would you work that?

That is an idea that I have been flirting with in my mind. I guess it would be the privatisation of government, and it would strike people as strange. It has some very demanding logistical problems, but it is an overall very good idea.
The fact that government is logistically demanding is one reason why it must be privatised. When was the state ever good at solving demanding logistical problems? Anyway, here's the skinny version of how it would work....

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

and

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html

n.b. these guys call themselves "Anarcho Capitalists" or "Market Anarchists", I can only assume they're trying to frighten and alienate people because they think it's cool.

This does sound like an intriguing idea, but efficiency and organizational structure/behaviour could be a problem if they are busy compeating with each other.
That must be why private businesses are so much less efficient than govt. LOL. :D

How would you work that?

Banks who could manage to back their currency could offer it. It could feasibly work like debit cards without government backed and regulated money. There would be exchange rates between the different mints. It would also have some logistical problems, but mostly due to our dependency on a central bank.

And how do you guys feel about the privatisation of the monetary system?
I'd feel very warm and fuzzy about that. I'd much rather have money exchangeable for gold/silver/oil or whatever than scraps of paper.

n.b. these guys call themselves "Anarcho Capitalists" or "Market Anarchists", I can only assume they're trying to frighten and alienate people because they think it's cool.

That is what I sort of consider myself as well. I only refer to myself as that to combat the communists on here who claim ownership of the anarchist movement.

That is an economic issue. Social progressiveness would recognise changing social climates and adjust representation and political recognition to accomodate the changes.

For example, the recognition of gay marriage would be an example of social progressiveness, and it requires no wealth redistribution.
Ah. I would not call that "social progressiveness" I would just call that "Basic Freedom"

"Social Progressiveness" under the current definition of the term seems to mean "'Progressive' on the issue of Social Welfare".

Since redefining terms is not really somthing we can do, we need to use more concrete definitions.

Right on!

Why not have competing voluntary governments? That way everyone can get the government they want without being able to force others to join it, with all the benefits of dispersed power, competition, efficiency and choice of the free market.
Exactly how the Founding Fathers envisioned the US. *thumbs up*

The problem is: when you have central government mandating "social progressivleness", it infringes on the competitivness of individual state governments.

Personally, I think that's the biggest point where the US government has gone astray.

That is an economic issue. Social progressiveness would recognise changing social climates and adjust representation and political recognition to accomodate the changes.

For example, the recognition of gay marriage would be an example of social progressiveness, and it requires no wealth redistribution.

the term social progressiveness implies some form of government intervention through the tax system. For gay marriage for example the key word is tolerance, which is a motor for social progress within classical liberalism.

That is what I sort of consider myself as well. I only refer to myself as that to combat the communists on here who claim ownership of the anarchist movement.
I know where you're coming from but in my experience calling yourself an Anarchist frightens and alienates people whereas "Voluntary Govt" is something they have a better chance of relating to, keeps minds open, and gives them an idea of what we want to build. It's CONstructive, not DEstructive. I should do PR.

Why not have competing voluntary governments?

This is a stunningly dangerous idea, if not just for the fact that competing governments will eventually resort to violence to gain in power. This would be akin to unleashing the international anarchic order inside a single state. Unless the nation was united enough that a EU style organization could emerge, war on some level would be inevitable.

I know where you're coming from but in my experience calling yourself an Anarchist frightens and alienates people whereas "Voluntary Govt" is something they have a better chance of relating to, keeps minds open, and gives them an idea of what we want to build. It's CONstructive, not DEstructive. I should do PR.

despite the idiocy of the anti-globalisation, anti-WTO, anti-GM, anti-IMF anarchist campaigners, the intellectual wing of anarchism has a lot of credence as a philosophy. It seems to me to be the logical extension of classicla liberalism, the problem is with law and order, obviously.

Exactly how the Founding Fathers envisioned the US. *thumbs up*

The problem is: when you have central government mandating "social progressivleness", it infringes on the competitivness of individual state governments.

Personally, I think that's the biggest point where the US government has gone astray.
That's not quite what I meant. I mean "voluntary" as in you - as an individual - select from any of a number of competing governments. Thus you and your neighbour, or even your flatmates, could have different governments.

I agree with you that federalism is a non-starter.

That's not quite what I meant. I mean "voluntary" as in you - as an individual - select from any of a number of competing governments. Thus you and your neighbour, or even your flatmates, could have different governments.

I agree with you that federalism is a non-starter.

that would make any form of provision of public good completely unworkable.


an interesting tangent would be the legalisation of all drugs

the term social progressiveness implies some form of government intervention through the tax system. For gay marriage for example the key word is tolerance, which is a motor for social progress within classical liberalism.

It appears that the term "Social Progressiveness" is a little to vague and abstract to include. We should definitely have clear cut definitions to avoid confusion.

We need to come to some tenets and terms that we can all reasonable agree to.

I know where you're coming from but in my experience calling yourself an Anarchist frightens and alienates people whereas "Voluntary Govt" is something they have a better chance of relating to, keeps minds open, and gives them an idea of what we want to build. It's CONstructive, not DEstructive. I should do PR.

You are very correct. Anarchism has a very negative connotation among some circles, which is mainly why I don't claim the title often. And I do like the pitch of "Voluntary Government", it is approximately the same thing, only more appealing.

I might join.
I'll probably take a crack at starting my own party too.
well we'll see what happens.

This is a stunningly dangerous idea, if not just for the fact that competing governments will eventually resort to violence to gain in power. This would be akin to unleashing the international anarchic order inside a single state. Unless the nation was united enough that a EU style organization could emerge, war on some level would be inevitable.
It's much less likely to happen than modern states going to war to increase power since any voluntary government fighting a war would frighten away all it's customers (if only because they'd have to pay for it), which evidently isn't the case for nation states. It would also be less of a problem if it did happen since the violence would be smaller scale. Also, any such Spiderman villain would have to fight thousands of other governments and the whole of society. Even Doctor Octopus couldn't do that.

This is a stunningly dangerous idea, if not just for the fact that competing governments will eventually resort to violence to gain in power. This would be akin to unleashing the international anarchic order inside a single state. Unless the nation was united enough that a EU style organization could emerge, war on some level would be inevitable.

I think it could be assumed that if ground rules were established, each would work together for economic benefit.

Right on!

Why not have competing voluntary governments? That way everyone can get the government they want without being able to force others to join it, with all the benefits of dispersed power, competition, efficiency and choice of the free market.
I dunno, doing this would undermine the basic sovreign concept in a set land-area that a government controls. Just a minor philosophical concern.


Such a situation (admittedly I'm somewhat exaggerating) might result in this sort of line of thought. "What? Murder's illegal here? I'm changing my citizenship back murderlegalland."

Now, it would work if the government's had their sovreignity set to a specific piece of land/territory. But then we'd have it the way the world is now.

that would make any form of provision of public good completely unworkable.
It would depend on charitable donations, but I think there are less public goods than are generally imagined. Roads, hospitals, schools etc are not public goods since they are, in the jargon, "excludable". Also, monopoly govt creates the most devastating public goods problem of all, the problem of good government, which has never been solved despite the best efforts of the founding fathers. Under a voluntary system good government is a private good. If the price of this is less lighthouses then bring it on.

an interesting tangent would be the legalisation of all drugs
Suits me. My Dad's a pharmacist.

I dunno, doing this would undermine the basic sovreign concept in a set land-area that a government controls. Just a minor philosophical concern.
It would indeed.

Such a situation (admittedly I'm somewhat exaggerating) might result in this sort of line of thought. "What? Murder's illegal here? I'm changing my citizenship back murderlegalland."
A government that allowed you to be murdered wouldn't be too successful. If you murdered someone else I don't think their govt would be too impressed (a Brit who goes to America and kills someone doesn't get away with it because they're not a citizen of the US).

Now, it would work if the government's had their sovreignity set to a specific piece of land/territory. But then we'd have it the way the world is now.
That manifestly does NOT work very well! A voluntary govt's "territory" would be the sum total of the property belonging to its customers.

This is a stunningly dangerous idea, if not just for the fact that competing governments will eventually resort to violence to gain in power. This would be akin to unleashing the international anarchic order inside a single state. Unless the nation was united enough that a EU style organization could emerge, war on some level would be inevitable.

Not if the Nation was divided into geographically demarked regions, with each region having its own government. Think of the Swiss Canton system for this. This way you get competing governments without physical war as there is no possibility of one government taking over the territory of another. There would remain the possibility of ideological or trade warfare, but that is an essential property of freedom of choice that is the motivation behind the system.

Progressiveness has to be dropped as it is too undefined. It implies that there are better and worse social arrangements with there being a sequence of movement from worse to better. This is, of course, untrue. There are better or worse social arrangements for any given individual depending on the degree that these reflect their beliefs, but for a society as a whole there are not.

A classic liberal system would make the government responsible for only the common elements of society. Transport and utilities infrastructure, epidemic control, internal security (police and fire), the military. Nothing more than this. Now these could be paid for by taxation, or by the government being granted some assets, with the obligation of funding its activities from these assets. I would suggest providing the government with some land, from which it has to derive its revenue. (Make the government a business).

However, having competing governments would allow for variations in the degree of social action and taxation. How would this be controlled by the system. Would there be a central manifesto, or party charter, that all regional governents would be limited by?

This is a stunningly dangerous idea, if not just for the fact that competing governments will eventually resort to violence to gain in power. This would be akin to unleashing the international anarchic order inside a single state. Unless the nation was united enough that a EU style organization could emerge, war on some level would be inevitable.
It worked just fine in the beginnings of the US. States were not warring against each other until the Civil War...but that was a forced situation that could have been diplomatically solved if it weren't for hardheads on both sides of the Mason Dixon.

Not if the Nation was divided into geographically demarked regions, with each region having its own government. Think of the Swiss Canton system for this. This way you get competing governments without physical war as there is no possibility of one government taking over the territory of another. There would remain the possibility of ideological or trade warfare, but that is an essential property of freedom of choice that is the motivation behind the system.

I am beginning to not like the idea of competing governments. It can be assumed that competing governments could oppress minorities in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. I think the best way to protect individual rights would be to have a centralized but very limited government.

Progressiveness has to be dropped as it is too undefined. It implies that there are better and worse social arrangements with there being a sequence of movement from worse to better. This is, of course, untrue. There are better or worse social arrangements for any given individual depending on the degree that these reflect their beliefs, but for a society as a whole there are not.

Agreed

A classic liberal system would make the government responsible for only the common elements of society. Transport and utilities infrastructure, epidemic control, internal security (police and fire), the military. Nothing more than this. Now these could be paid for by taxation, or by the government being granted some assets, with the obligation of funding its activities from these assets. I would suggest providing the government with some land, from which it has to derive its revenue. (Make the government a business).

There would also need to be a judicial system to at least guarantee the acceptance of private arbitration within a contract, while maintaining the fair execution of private arbitration.

Not if the Nation was divided into geographically demarked regions, with each region having its own government. Think of the Swiss Canton system for this. This way you get competing governments without physical war as there is no possibility of one government taking over the territory of another. There would remain the possibility of ideological or trade warfare, but that is an essential property of freedom of choice that is the motivation behind the system.

Progressiveness has to be dropped as it is too undefined. It implies that there are better and worse social arrangements with there being a sequence of movement from worse to better. This is, of course, untrue. There are better or worse social arrangements for any given individual depending on the degree that these reflect their beliefs, but for a society as a whole there are not.

A classic liberal system would make the government responsible for only the common elements of society. Transport and utilities infrastructure, epidemic control, internal security (police and fire), the military. Nothing more than this. Now these could be paid for by taxation, or by the government being granted some assets, with the obligation of funding its activities from these assets. I would suggest providing the government with some land, from which it has to derive its revenue. (Make the government a business).

The exceedingly dorky economist Hans Hermann Hoppe has used this line of reasoning to suggest that monarchist city-states would be better than democracy. Not that I agree with him since I don't like either system, just thought you'd like to know.

However, having competing governments would allow for variations in the degree of social action and taxation. How would this be controlled by the system. Would there be a central manifesto, or party charter, that all regional governents would be limited by?
There might be. Depends on what the customers want. Do they patronise the governments which join the charter, or the ones that don't? But most likely roads etc will be privatised and you'd either "pay as you go" or pay a higher "tax" and let your govt pay for the services you want.

E.g., you get a letter from your govt saying "Select which of the following services you require: protection from criminals, protection from fire, vehical access to local roads, electricity, etc..." Then they might give you a range of choices of the companies which provide these services as well as a guide to level of service, value for money, and reliablility. That's what I'd do if I ran one of these companies, anyway.

In response to the call for NS political parties, the is an attempt to form a party based around the tenets of Classic Liberalism. The party needs a manifesto, and I will welcome all input.
I've noticed you're now "officially" a libertarian, so!

Are any workers' rights guaranteed? Like the right to form a union? The right to minimum wage, or the right to weekends?

Is there any kind of right to emergency healthcare?

The government cannot "prevent" harm. The covernment can only (A) restrict rights in the attempt to somehow make causing harm more difficult or (B) punish those who cause harm (if they survive the encounter in which they attempted to cause harm).

Only (B) is the classical liberal stance.
So liberals are not in favour of murder being illegal? (i.e. restricting the "right" to kill people)

Right on!

Why not have competing voluntary governments? That way everyone can get the government they want without being able to force others to join it, with all the benefits of dispersed power, competition, efficiency and choice of the free market.
Libertovania, when did you come back to General? Yay!

To address the point: we already have competing governments. We call them "political parties".

that would make any form of provision of public good completely unworkable.
"Public good" is inherently tied to communism/socialsim/national socialism and has no real place in Classic Liberalism.

I am beginning to not like the idea of competing governments. It can be assumed that competing governments could oppress minorities in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. I think the best way to protect individual rights would be to have a centralized but very limited government.
If we assume that people want minorities oppressed then we can assume they'd vote for such by a centralised govt. With voluntary govt there are inbuilt safeguards i/ the oppressors would pay for it directly out their own pocket in higher "taxes", rather than the current system where you can lobby to have the taxpayer pay for your fetishes, ii/ (more importantly) the minorities can patronise whichever govt does not allow them to be oppressed.


There would also need to be a judicial system to at least guarantee the acceptance of private arbitration within a contract, while maintaining the fair execution of private arbitration.
What makes you think that the "limited" govt would have fair courts? If anyone's dumb enough to go to an arbitrator who has EVER had even the SLIGHTEST HINT that they were unfair then they deserve whatever happens to them! An arbitrator lives or dies by his reputation.

The right to freedom of association, to walk away from one govtand join or form another, is a MUCH better system of checks and balances than any that can be provided by monopoly govt or democracy.

I'd support a federal-structure government, based similarly to the US and German governmental organizations.

Libertovania, when did you come back to General? Yay!
Since the Uni sent me to Denmark for a month where I'm bored and belligerant. Thanks for the welcome though, really cheered me up!

To address the point: we already have competing governments. We call them "political parties".
That's not really the same. They aren't voluntary. If I want to change govt I have to convince several million to people change with me.

I've noticed you're now "officially" a libertarian, so!

I don't like considering myself "officially" Libertarian. I do not agree with much of the Libertarian Party's stances. However, the basic principles they stand for generally mesh with my own. That and I can't stand either of the major parties.

Are any workers' rights guaranteed? Like the right to form a union? The right to minimum wage, or the right to weekends?

It depends on what you consider to be the worker's right. It is a tricky situation, as I believe union's have way to much power in determining wages and can interfere with the employer's right to run his business as he see fits.

Is there any kind of right to emergency healthcare?

I personally believe there is, but that may not be the will of this party.

"Public good" is inherently tied to communism/socialsim/national socialism and has no real place in Classic Liberalism.
Actually, Adam Smith made room in "The Wealth of Nations" for certain works that would help the public good, things like lighthouses and roads for example. I don't have the passage with me, so I can't quote it right off, but I think it's a pretty good arguement for some things in the interest of the public good.

So liberals are not in favour of murder being illegal? (i.e. restricting the "right" to kill people)
any human rights document of any usse includes the clause that a person's rights are only applicable when they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Actually, Adam Smith made room in "The Wealth of Nations" for certain works that would help the public good, things like lighthouses and roads for example. I don't have the passage with me, so I can't quote it right off, but I think it's a pretty good arguement for some things in the interest of the public good.
Adam Smith wasn't consistent with his own principles and economics has come far since the Wealth of Nations. For example, roads are not a public good. Lighthouses arguably are, yet there have been private lighthouses.

If we assume that people want minorities oppressed then we can assume they'd vote for such by a centralised govt. With voluntary govt there are inbuilt safeguards i/ the oppressors would pay for it directly out their own pocket in higher "taxes", rather than the current system where you can lobby to have the taxpayer pay for your fetishes, ii/ (more importantly) the minorities can patronise whichever govt does not allow them to be oppressed.

A government could easily support itself by appealing to a specific large demographic. In doing this it could oppress existing citizens in order to obtain new ones, and it should not be a need for a person to geographically move to avoid government interference.

Also, seperate competing governments could play towards demographics and eventually create a situation where we have large groups of idealogies pooled together geographically. This could cause a powder keg situation.

What makes you think that the "limited" govt would have fair courts? If anyone's dumb enough to go to an arbitrator who has EVER had even the SLIGHTEST HINT that they were unfair then they deserve whatever happens to them! An arbitrator lives or dies by his reputation.

The right to freedom of association, to walk away from one govtand join or form another, is a MUCH better system of checks and balances than any that can be provided by monopoly govt or democracy.

There would at least need to be a system to guarantee that arbitration can be sought and that the arbitration can be enforced.

any human rights document of any usse includes the clause that a person's rights are only applicable when they do not infringe on the rights of others.
Perhaps inserting the word "actively" in there might be better. Because leaving it as is might leave room to semi-socialist concepts.

Now what I mean by actively is not just the usual things like theft and murder, but also things like dumping radioactive waste into an aquifer and giving lot's of people cancer.

Of course, passive behavior (not giving a poor person some of your money) that could harm people indirectly are to be fairly untouched.

Banks who could manage to back their currency could offer it. It could feasibly work like debit cards without government backed and regulated money. There would be exchange rates between the different mints. It would also have some logistical problems, but mostly due to our dependency on a central bank.
Sure, why not just split up into a number of different nations?

What existing problems does privatised money solve?

I might join.
I'll probably take a crack at starting my own party too.
well we'll see what happens.
You're a democratic socialist. They're not going to accept you.

I think it could be assumed that if ground rules were established, each would work together for economic benefit.
And hence you establish a central government.

A voluntary govt's "territory" would be the sum total of the property belonging to its customers.
That would be communism.

I am beginning to not like the idea of competing governments. It can be assumed that competing governments could oppress minorities in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. I think the best way to protect individual rights would be to have a centralized but very limited government.
Who seriously thinks that "voluntary competing governments" could actually work in real life?

But most likely roads etc will be privatised and you'd either "pay as you go" or pay a higher "tax" and let your govt pay for the services you want.
For roads, tax is most convenient. Paying as you travel is damn annoying, and it also means you need a lot of cash on hand.

It depends on what you consider to be the worker's right. It is a tricky situation, as I believe union's have way to much power in determining wages and can interfere with the employer's right to run his business as he see fits.
I agree that unions have too much power, at least where I live, but I think they should have a right to exist in some form. I think that the minimum wage is too high (7.65euro/hour last time it went up, which was 1st May!) The excessive minimum wage makes everything expensive, but on the same count I don't think that employers should be allowed to pay slave wages á la sweatshops.

So, do you support the right to time off at weekends?

I personally believe there is, but that may not be the will of this party.
Then what are you doing in this party?

A government could easily support itself by appealing to a specific large demographic.
That's what present govts do.

In doing this it could oppress existing citizens in order to obtain new ones, and it should not be a need for a person to geographically move to avoid government interference.
That's the beauty of the system, you DON'T have to move, you just change govt, like changing insurance company or mortgage provider. There isn't a regional monopoly.

Also, seperate competing governments could play towards demographics and eventually create a situation where we have large groups of idealogies pooled together geographically. This could cause a powder keg situation.
You mean like monopoly govts do now? One thing to bear in mind when comparing a new idea to the present one is to judge them by the same standards. These problems are all worse in the current system.

There would at least need to be a system to guarantee that arbitration can be sought and that the arbitration can be enforced.
There is. If A and B have a dispute there are 2 possibilities. They either have the same govt or they don't. If they do then their govt handles arbitration and enforcement. If they don't have the same govt then it is in both govt's interest to settle it in court rather than go to "war". They go to an independent arbitrator and the loser doesn't prevent the winner from enforcing the verdict. Most likely they will have an "extradition treaty" to handle such disputes as this would be more efficient than handling things on a case by case basis. For a more in depth analysis by a professor of economist, David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman, the noble prize winner) see the articles I posted earlier.

Then what are you doing in this party?

It's better than the democratic communist party :D

You're a democratic socialist. They're not going to accept you.
oh well. due to the vague and confusing nature of this party's beliefs i have decided to support them on principle while abstaining membership.

That would be communism.
I don't think most communists would agree. Perhaps I haven't explained it properly.

Who seriously thinks that "voluntary competing governments" could actually work in real life?
Presumably those who have lived in such systems in medieval Iceland, England and Ireland along with renaissance merchants and American settlers. Even in the industrial era in America there were many parts of the country without monopolistic govt. BTW, crime got WORSE when the feds took over.

For roads, tax is most convenient. Paying as you travel is damn annoying, and it also means you need a lot of cash on hand.
These days you can pay by credit card over the phone, like the rush hour charge in London. If you go the same way often you'd probably buy a monthly or annual ticket and put it in your windscreen. Personally, since I don't drive and yet am forced at gunpoint to subsidise the roads via taxation, I find this system most INconvenient. :D

Sure, why not just split up into a number of different nations?

What existing problems does privatised money solve?

The inauthentic valuation of the dollar; by creating legal tender laws the dollar will be continually overvalued.

Look at it this way:

Legal tender laws force the individuals to accept the US Dollar as repayment for debt. If the US dollar were always the best choice, legal tender laws would not be necessary. So in effect the government is forcing individuals to make monetary transactions that are detrimental to them.

Even though, I think the Centralised Banking status quo will not change in the near future.[/QUOTE]

And hence you establish a central government.
Who seriously thinks that "voluntary competing governments" could actually work in real life?

Yes, the idea piqued my interest initially, but it seems entirely unfeasible now.

Sure, why not just split up into a number of different nations?
This assumes that your concept of nation is purely political, and culture and tradition have no part to play in making a nation a cohesive entity. It is a false assumption. If this were the case there would be no federal nations at all, as each state in such nations would be regarded as a nation in its own right. There are questions of freedom of movement, tyransference of rights etc, that distinguiosh nations, from different regions within one nation. Again look at Switzerland for an existing model of many governments one nation.

What existing problems does privatised money solve? Government interference in the economic realm by controlling the money supply. Classic liberalism implies that economics is not a realm for government action.

And hence you establish a central government. No more than the Treaty of Rome created a central European government (It did not). It is possible to have an agreed document that shall be binding on all regions within the nation. The basic legal structure would be the same between the regions and each region would have to adopt the document as binding to be regarded as part of the nation. Again, look at the Swiss constitution, as an example of this type of overarching guiding document.


That would be communism. Was this a deliberate misunderstanding? The 'territory' signifies the land area over which the government has control. It did not imply a transference of ownership.


Who seriously thinks that "voluntary competing governments" could actually work in real life?
It is only taking the federal concept to its logical conclusion. Of course it could work as it already does.


For roads, tax is most convenient. Paying as you travel is damn annoying, and it also means you need a lot of cash on hand. Why pay tax? That is not convenient at all. It is expensive to administer, impossible to enforce, and necessarily unfair. There are alternatives to cash, such as automatic charging via smart chips implanted in the vehicle, or as I suggested a while back, have the government generate its own funds.

As to universal health care and pensions I do not believe that these items of individual concern are within the sphere of government action. Allow the people to choose their own level of cover, and to spend their wealth as they see fit. The government does not have the right to spend my money for me on me.

Education is a more difficult matter. Basic education, (Reading, Arithmetic, Writing) should be provided as this benefits the community as a whole, not just the individual. More advanced education should be available privately, with perhaps government loans being made available (Note, loan, not funding. It has to be repaid) This is one area where regions could have considerable freedom in their policies.

I agree that unions have too much power, at least where I live, but I think they should have a right to exist in some form. I think that the minimum wage is too high (7.65euro/hour last time it went up, which was 1st May!) The excessive minimum wage makes everything expensive, but on the same count I don't think that employers should be allowed to pay slave wages á la sweatshops.

So, do you support the right to time off at weekends?

I support the right to quit if the employer demands unfair work requirements.

Workers do have the right to assembly, but I don't believe they can use this right to assembly to fix wages like most unions do.

Then what are you doing in this party?

Compromising. A party of one person is not going to get anything done.

That's what present govts do.

But they are limited by a constitution as to what they can do.

That's the beauty of the system, you DON'T have to move, you just change govt, like changing insurance company or mortgage provider. There isn't a regional monopoly.

That is completely unfeasible. How does one distinguish between government works and services?

You mean like monopoly govts do now? One thing to bear in mind when comparing a new idea to the present one is to judge them by the same standards. These problems are all worse in the current system.

That is not true at all. Under the current system, there are not seperate autonomous groups of people of opposing idealogies that are equipped with their own military.

There is. If A and B have a dispute there are 2 possibilities. They either have the same govt or they don't. If they do then their govt handles arbitration and enforcement. If they don't have the same govt then it is in both govt's interest to settle it in court rather than go to "war". They go to an independent arbitrator and the loser doesn't prevent the winner from enforcing the verdict. Most likely they will have an "extradition treaty" to handle such disputes as this would be more efficient than handling things on a case by case basis. For a more in depth analysis by a professor of economist, David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman, the noble prize winner) see the articles I posted earlier.

You are showing the need of a governing body over the two governments to insure that they uphold the arbitration.

oh well. due to the vague and confusing nature of this party's beliefs i have decided to support them on principle while abstaining membership.

While Democratic Socialism may not align itself with our tenets, stick around, and you will learn more about the party's stance as we define them amongst ourselves. You may find that we are trying to solve the problems you are worried about, and that we may have a good solution.

I agree that unions have too much power, at least where I live, but I think they should have a right to exist in some form. I think that the minimum wage is too high (7.65euro/hour last time it went up, which was 1st May!) The excessive minimum wage makes everything expensive, but on the same count I don't think that employers should be allowed to pay slave wages á la sweatshops.

So, do you support the right to time off at weekends?


No minimum wage legislation. Of course people would have the freedom to associate and form interest groups. The negotiations between these, call them unions if you want to, would be the basis of the nature of employment contracts. The government, however, would have no role to play other than in enforcing whatever contracted terms existed through the legal system. If a group decided that its members would not work for less than a certain value, then tan employer would have the option of paying that value or not employing people from the group. Membership of such groups is not compulsory and can not be enforced except by specific contracts. (I.E. if the employer agrees and contracts with a group to only employ members form that group, then this is enforcable by contract law.)

Time off at the weekends is part of these negotiations, and not part of the government's responsibility.

No minimum wage legislation. Of course people would have the freedom to associate and form interest groups. The negotiations between these, call them unions if you want to, would be the basis of the nature of employment contracts. The government, however, would have no role to play other than in enforcing whatever contracted terms existed through the legal system. If a group decided that its members would not work for less than a certain value, then tan employer would have the option of paying that value or not employing people from the group. Membership of such groups is not compulsory and can not be enforced except by specific contracts. (I.E. if the employer agrees and contracts with a group to only employ members form that group, then this is enforcable by contract law.)

Time off at the weekends is part of these negotiations, and not part of the government's responsibility.

Do you think that employers should be able to join together and fix wages and prices?

While Democratic Socialism may not align itself with our tenets, stick around, and you will learn more about the party's stance as we define them amongst ourselves. You may find that we are trying to solve the problems you are worried about, and that we may have a good solution.
thank you. I have continued to observe the discussion with interest, and many of your policies are similar to my views in intention. however, our difference of opinion as to how to achieve these ends prevents me from completely commiting myself to this party. therefore i respectfully offer my support, while humbly declining membership. in effect, this party gets my second preference vote.
le meas,
the odd one.

Do you think that employers should be able to join together and fix wages and prices?

I said clearly that people can associate and act as a group. This includes the employers and owners of businesses. Anti cartel laws contrary to a liberal position. If there is a cartel then this simply creates a space in the market for new competition to enter. I know that people will argue that the big fish will simply eat the little ones, but this takes time and money, which eventually will prevent this happening as cartel membership would get to cost more than the business gains from it. Cartels are self destructive if there is no legal restriction on starting businesses.

thank you. I have continued to observe the discussion with interest, and many of your policies are similar to my views in intention. however, our difference of opinion as to how to achieve these ends prevents me from completely commiting myself to this party. therefore i respectfully offer my support, while humbly declining membership. in effect, this party gets my second preference vote.
le meas,
the odd one.

Thats fine, thanks for the consideration.

Presumably those who have lived in such systems in medieval Iceland, England and Ireland
When in Ireland did we have voluntary government?

These days you can pay by credit card over the phone, like the rush hour charge in London. If you go the same way often you'd probably buy a monthly or annual ticket and put it in your windscreen. Personally, since I don't drive and yet am forced at gunpoint to subsidise the roads via taxation, I find this system most INconvenient. :D
Not all of us have credit cards!

BTW, please stop using the "at gunpoint" bit to add drama to your arguments. It is just an emotional appeal and makes you look silly.

BTW, please stop using the "at gunpoint" bit to add drama to your arguments. It is just an emotional appeal and makes you look silly.
Why? It's an accurate description. Just ask the MANY US businessmen that have had their places of business raided by gun-wielding IRS agents in full SWAT gear.

Not all of us have credit cards!

BTW, please stop using the "at gunpoint" bit to add drama to your arguments. It is just an emotional appeal and makes you look silly.

How about the suggestions I made then. Oh, and the 'at gunpoint' bit is a true description of how tax collection is enforced. It is enforced by threat, it is neither voluntary nor discretionary. It is dramatic, but it is true, learn to live with the truth.

I said clearly that people can associate and act as a group. This includes the employers and owners of businesses. Anti cartel laws contrary to a liberal position. If there is a cartel then this simply creates a space in the market for new competition to enter. I know that people will argue that the big fish will simply eat the little ones, but this takes time and money, which eventually will prevent this happening as cartel membership would get to cost more than the business gains from it. Cartels are self destructive if there is no legal restriction on starting businesses.

You are correct. Competition will always cause price fixers to be inefficient and they will be forced to lower prices to fair competition level. So if there is no regulation and restriction to businesses with the ability to undercut price fixers, price fixers will be forced to stay fair. However, do you think that across the board price fixing could be possible?

You are correct. Competition will always cause price fixers to be inefficient and they will be forced to lower prices to fair competition level. So if there is no regulation and restriction to businesses with the ability to undercut price fixers, price fixers will be forced to stay fair. However, do you think that across the board price fixing could be possible?

By what mechanism? If the price is fixed across the board by agreement between the parties involved we are back to the cartel system. If it is government enforced I want no part of it. The only possibility is where there is some rare commodity, say oil, and the owners of this commodity fix the price by agreement. All this would do is to promote the development of alternatives to the commodity, causing the price fixers to lose out in the end.

The other situation is where ther is a new product, which has only one manufacturer at the time. In this case the manufacturer deserves to be able to milk as much profit as they can out of their innovation. If they pricve too high then they will be encouraging competitors to enter the market, so it is in their interests to keep the prices reasonable.

What do have so far as a manifesto?

Could people indicate an agreement or if they disagree an alternative to the following points.


The fundamental principle of the society is to be that of competition
The role of the government is to be limited to areas that affect the community as a whole
Different geographical regions may have seperate governments within the overall constitutional structure
The only involvement of government in business shall be the enforcement of legal contracts
Basic education shall be provided fopr the benefit of the community
Health care shall be the responsibility of the individual
The government shall be responsible for internal and external security


Please feel free to add to, disagree with, reword or otherwise mess up these suggestions.

By what mechanism? If the price is fixed across the board by agreement between the parties involved we are back to the cartel system. If it is government enforced I want no part of it. The only possibility is where there is some rare commodity, say oil, and the owners of this commodity fix the price by agreement. All this would do is to promote the development of alternatives to the commodity, causing the price fixers to lose out in the end.

The other situation is where ther is a new product, which has only one manufacturer at the time. In this case the manufacturer deserves to be able to milk as much profit as they can out of their innovation. If they pricve too high then they will be encouraging competitors to enter the market, so it is in their interests to keep the prices reasonable.

What if the established companies in an industry agree to fix prices. They will have marketing and monetary ability to suppress new entrants to the market. However, I am becoming more and more convinced that anti-trust laws are unnecessary.

We do need to get back to forming a manifesto.


The fundamental principle of the society is to be that of competition - I feel that the principle should be autonomy. Competition would just be a natural form of regulation.

The role of the government is to be limited to areas that affect the community as a whole - This is a little vague. I am not really sure what this means.

Different geographical regions may have seperate governments within the overall constitutional structure - I disagree with this for reasons I stated earlier in this thread.

The only involvement of government in business shall be the enforcement of legal contracts - Totally agree.

Basic education shall be provided for the benefit of the community - To what extent do you consider "Basic education" to go?

Health care shall be the responsibility of the individual - I disagree, but I am willing to concede this point as I figure this to be the overriding opinion.

The government shall be responsible for internal and external security - Agreed


We should also address the nature of rights, especially property rights, the univeral nature of these rights, and the set up of constitutional limitations to government.

You're right. I do concur with this party's view.

Vittos Ordination, you have my full support. I am a classical liberal and will help in any way possible.

What about taxes? How about a 15% flat tax rate?

What about taxes? How about a 15% flat tax rate?
Not flat tax. "Flat Tax" implies an income tax. I'm patently against an income tax...but would be for a sales tax system much like: http://www.fairtax.org/

Not flat tax. "Flat Tax" implies an income tax. I'm patently against an income tax...but would be for a sales tax system much like: http://www.fairtax.org/
Sounds good, its more voluntary than an income tax.

Not flat tax. "Flat Tax" implies an income tax. I'm patently against an income tax...but would be for a sales tax system much like: http://www.fairtax.org/

A flat sales tax would have to be carefully administered to avoid overloading the lower income groups. There would have to be exemptions for basic clothing, food, education, housing, utilities etc. etc. It gets very difficult to ensure that the tax burden is not placed in the wrong places. Additionally making businesses exempt is asking for evasion, but charging businesses will mean paying the tax twice for the average consumer. A no win situation.

I still feel that the government holds enough assets to be able to generate funds to cover its expenditure. It owns large amounts of land, it employs a ridiculous number of people in the armed forces and civil service. It has the resources, make it use these to generate funds, rather than to cost money. You want security guards for your jewelry wholesale business, contract the army. You want to visit one of the most beautiful parts of the world, come stay in our luxury log cabins in ******* national park, only $150 per person per night, with all that beauty on your doorstep. etc. If private companies can make profits providing these sort of services, so can the government, even in a limited government situation. Government should not regulate business, it should participate in business.

A flat sales tax would have to be carefully administered to avoid overloading the lower income groups. There would have to be exemptions for basic clothing, food, education, housing, utilities etc. etc. It gets very difficult to ensure that the tax burden is not placed in the wrong places. Additionally making businesses exempt is asking for evasion, but charging businesses will mean paying the tax twice for the average consumer. A no win situation.
Most of that is covered by the Fair Tax. Also, I believe that business shouldn't be charged tax, if, say, in manufacturing, they needed some parts from other businesses to complete their products. But they should be charged sales tax on pens/pencils/paperclips/desktop computers and the like. It balances out.

Besides, cost of doing business will always be factored into the prices the consumer pays.

We do need to get back to forming a manifesto.


The fundamental principle of the society is to be that of competition - I feel that the principle should be autonomy. Competition would just be a natural form of regulation.
OK so we split it into two parts:
The fundamental principle of society is of the autonomy of the individual.

The society shall be regulated by free and unrestricted competition.


The role of the government is to be limited to areas that affect the community as a whole - This is a little vague. I am not really sure what this means. What I was meaning to say was that the government shall not meddle with matters that affect only the individual. The work of the government should be restricted to those areas which are common to all individuals. i.e. in medicine, the government is oinly concerned with infectious disease control and the prevention of epidemics. It has no role in the day to day well being of any citizen. Likewise the government could be responsible for integrity of the national electric power grid, but not for the provision to any particular residence.

Different geographical regions may have seperate governments within the overall constitutional structure - I disagree with this for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. - Can we then compromise on a federal system with nearly all government functions devolved to the local level. In desert areas water supply could be a communal government issue, whereas in mountain ones it could be snow clearing. Appropriate structures can then be built for the area. This would leave leeway for the socialists to build their own enclave and restricted freedom society, thereby allowing the rest of us to get on with life.

The only involvement of government in business shall be the enforcement of legal contracts - Totally agree.

Basic education shall be provided for the benefit of the community - To what extent do you consider "Basic education" to go? - My turn not to be sure what you mean. I was proposing that the government be responsible for education of all in terms of basic linguistic and mathematical literacy. After that it would be a regional decision, with the recommendation being that low interest loans are made available for all students to be repaid within a defined time period after the completion of the loan period, graduated or not.

Health care shall be the responsibility of the individual - I disagree, but I am willing to concede this point as I figure this to be the overriding opinion.
- Make a counter suggestion. I am sure that some here would like to see emergency health care to be government responsibility. It is still open to discussion

The government shall be responsible for internal and external security - Agreed


We should also address the nature of rights, especially property rights, the univeral nature of these rights, and the set up of constitutional limitations to government.

Rights. Hum, these cause considerable problems. I would like to see a system whereby each person has the right to freedom of action that is comensurate with this same right being extended to all other individuals. The problem is that this lets in pedophiles and masochistic torturers or suicidal murderers. I think we would have to have some limitation that actions affecting a persons health can only be carried out with the express permission of the person so affected. With this limitation in place then the freedom right can be considered.

Constitution. Being British I am oposed to explicit constitutions as being too limiting and to difficult to maintain relevant to the circumstances of the day. What is needed is a system of checks on the power of the government, that can adapt to the circumstances. This should come from the judiciary and the people themselves. No piece of paper can stop a malicious government that has the support of the military. (See South American history for evidence of this.) A government can be held to have acted illegaly if it breaks its own laws concerning the rights of individuals etc. No specialy consecrated laws are really needed for this.

1) The fundamental principle of the society is to be that of competition
2) The role of the government is to be limited to areas that affect the community as a whole
3) Different geographical regions may have seperate governments within the overall constitutional structure
4) The only involvement of government in business shall be the enforcement of legal contracts
5) Basic education shall be provided fopr the benefit of the community
6) Health care shall be the responsibility of the individual
7) The government shall be responsible for internal and external security

All good, here's a couple of my own.

i) The constitution must have a status of higher law, and must cement the limits of government power,
ii) The government shall have its own monetary system, and may openly compete with those of other banks. The central bank should use interest rate controls to keep inflation of ITS OWN currency within a 1-2%,
iii) The people should be represented by proportional representation, a house of local representation may be supplemantary to this. Legislation should be as difficult to pass as possible,
iv) The rise of extortive and aggresive bodies should be culled (aka unions)
v) Externalities should be taxed.

1) The fundamental principle of the society is to be that of competition
2) The role of the government is to be limited to areas that affect the community as a whole
3) Different geographical regions may have seperate governments within the overall constitutional structure
4) The only involvement of government in business shall be the enforcement of legal contracts
5) Basic education shall be provided fopr the benefit of the community
6) Health care shall be the responsibility of the individual
7) The government shall be responsible for internal and external security

All good, here's a couple of my own.

i) The constitution must have a status of higher law, and must cement the limits of government power,
ii) The government shall have its own monetary system, and may openly compete with those of other banks. The central bank should use interest rate controls to keep inflation of ITS OWN currency within a 1-2%,
iii) The people should be represented by proportional representation, a house of local representation may be supplemantary to this. Legislation should be as difficult to pass as possible,
iv) The rise of extortive and aggresive bodies should be culled (aka unions)
v) Externalities should be taxed.


I fail to see how iv can be reconciled with 4. Unions are essentially part of the economic/business landscape. If the only involvement of governemnt in this landscape is to be the enforcement of contracts, it can not restrict unions.

There had been some important modifications made to this list due to VO's points. See the post imediately above yours. One of these modifications was about autonomy. Autonomy implies the freedom to associate as the individuals wish. Restricting unions or cartels would impinge on this principle.

PR is problomatic in that it moves the political decision away from the people and to the politicians, or it induces complete political stagnation and apathy. I would move toward direct democracy. I.E. doing away with representatives altogether. The party would still exist to make proposals to be voted, to campaign for support etc.

I still see no advantage in constitutions. If the powers that are in place are ot going to obey the basic laws of the land, then they are not going to obey a constitution. It offers no safeguards whatsoever. However, if you want a constitution, draft it for discussion.

Competition between money is fine.

What is an externality? Everything that is not an emotion or idea is external to me. Are you suggesting that we tax everything. If you mean foreign goods, how do you define these? Does it matter who owns the shares of the company, what about the nationality of the members of the board of directors? etc.

Not flat tax. "Flat Tax" implies an income tax. I'm patently against an income tax...but would be for a sales tax system much like: http://www.fairtax.org/

I don't like flat taxes, they benefit the wealthy of the society. The wealthy of the society benefit much more from the protection of society and much more from the markets of the society. Since they take more utility from the society, they should pay more back into the society.

I don't like flat taxes, they benefit the wealthy of the society. The wealthy of the society benefit much more from the protection of society and much more from the markets of the society. Since they take more utility from the society, they should pay more back into the society.

What are your governement revenue generating proposals ? Flat percentage income, flat sales, progressive income, property, tolls, power usage? There are many options, What would you, as our founder, like to see.

The fundamental principle of the society is to be that of competition - I feel that the principle should be autonomy. Competition would just be a natural form of regulation.
OK so we split it into two parts:
[list=a] The fundamental principle of society is of the autonomy of the individual.

The society shall be regulated by free and unrestricted competition.


That sounds fine.

The role of the government is to be limited to areas that affect the community as a whole - This is a little vague. I am not really sure what this means. What I was meaning to say was that the government shall not meddle with matters that affect only the individual. The work of the government should be restricted to those areas which are common to all individuals. i.e. in medicine, the government is oinly concerned with infectious disease control and the prevention of epidemics. It has no role in the day to day well being of any citizen. Likewise the government could be responsible for integrity of the national electric power grid, but not for the provision to any particular residence.

That sounds good, but it does need some new wording.

Different geographical regions may have seperate governments within the overall constitutional structure - I disagree with this for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. - Can we then compromise on a federal system with nearly all government functions devolved to the local level. In desert areas water supply could be a communal government issue, whereas in mountain ones it could be snow clearing. Appropriate structures can then be built for the area. This would leave leeway for the socialists to build their own enclave and restricted freedom society, thereby allowing the rest of us to get on with life.

I want a centralised government to reflect the universal nature of the rights of society. If the entire body of citizens have the same rights, the entire body should have their rights guaranteed by one entity. If we can guarantee that rights will be protected on the federal level, I have no problem with decentralisation.

Basic education shall be provided for the benefit of the community - To what extent do you consider "Basic education" to go? - My turn not to be sure what you mean. I was proposing that the government be responsible for education of all in terms of basic linguistic and mathematical literacy. After that it would be a regional decision, with the recommendation being that low interest loans are made available for all students to be repaid within a defined time period after the completion of the loan period, graduated or not.

That seems very reasonable. I wondered if you considered basic education to be elementary school, high school, or undergraduate college. As long as there are the means to foster private education for everyone, I am fine.

A question, however, how do you feel about school vouchers? Do you like the idea? I am not pushing this idea for our manifesto, just wanting your opinion on it.

Health care shall be the responsibility of the individual - I disagree, but I am willing to concede this point as I figure this to be the overriding opinion.
- Make a counter suggestion. I am sure that some here would like to see emergency health care to be government responsibility. It is still open to discussion

My personal belief is that the costs of most necessary healthcare be provided by the government. I don't think it is possible for there to be a free market, and that any market will be slanted with leverage towards the business. However, my views and that of the majority of libertarians differ on this issue, and I am willing to compromise this.

Rights. Hum, these cause considerable problems. I would like to see a system whereby each person has the right to freedom of action that is comensurate with this same right being extended to all other individuals. The problem is that this lets in pedophiles and masochistic torturers or suicidal murderers. I think we would have to have some limitation that actions affecting a persons health can only be carried out with the express permission of the person so affected. With this limitation in place then the freedom right can be considered.

A set of statutes and laws concerning crimes like murder and theft do not need to be defined, as long as the limited judicial system has the ability to define the crime and the limits to punishment.

We definitely need to acknowledge fundamental rights, and the universal guarantee of these rights. We should also make sure that we declare complete and equal recognition by government and law for all people.

What are your governement revenue generating proposals ? Flat percentage income, flat sales, progressive income, property, tolls, power usage? There are many options, What would you, as our founder, like to see.

First off, I don't think the founder should have any added level of input. That seems rather Hobbesian and counter to the notions of this party. That, and I don't like being put on the spot.

I would personally prefer a progressive income tax, but I am open minded.

@ VO.

Voucher systems for education are a good idea in societies where there is considerable variation in economic standards. In Western Europe and the rest of the economically developped world I consider vouchers to be an unnecessary burden on the tax payer. The individuals could easily repay low rate loans after completing their education.
In the developping world it is another matter. Where the potential income is not sufficient to repay the cost of education then voucher systems do have a place. Now these could be styled after the UK student loan system where there is an income threshold for repayment. i.e. it is a loan that is only repyable if your income rises above a certain level.

First off, I don't think the founder should have any added level of input. That seems rather Hobbesian and counter to the notions of this party. That, and I don't like being put on the spot.

I would personally prefer a progressive income tax, but I am open minded.

Respect does not imply added influence, just that I wanted to hear your opinion. Sorry for putting you on the spot.

So far we have suggestions for :
Progressive taxation (Vittos Ordination)
Autonomus income generation (Alien Born)
15% Flat Tax (Kervoskia)
Fair Sales Tax (Texpundistan)

Any further suggestions, or do we debate these four?

Respect does not imply added influence, just that I wanted to hear your opinion. Sorry for putting you on the spot.

I see, you noted that I was the founder, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being given added weight because of it.

So far we have suggestions for :
Autonomus income generation (Alien Born)


By this, do you mean that the government generates its own income?

@ VO.

Voucher systems for education are a good idea in societies where there is considerable variation in economic standards. In Western Europe and the rest of the economically developped world I consider vouchers to be an unnecessary burden on the tax payer. The individuals could easily repay low rate loans after completing their education.
In the developping world it is another matter. Where the potential income is not sufficient to repay the cost of education then voucher systems do have a place. Now these could be styled after the UK student loan system where there is an income threshold for repayment. i.e. it is a loan that is only repyable if your income rises above a certain level.

Do you think that the governments of developed countries should allow defaults on loans for those who do not earn a certain level of income?

I figure that, since the rates are set artificially low anyway, that an income threshhold for repayment would not do much harm.

By this, do you mean that the government generates its own income?

I do, yes. I explained it in post #77 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8865354&postcount=77) and earlier as well.

But they are limited by a constitution as to what they can do.
How's that working out for you?

That is completely unfeasible. How does one distinguish between government works and services?

I don't understand the question.

You are showing the need of a governing body over the two governments to insure that they uphold the arbitration.
Well then don't we need a world government? Otherwise the US and the UK won't be able to peacefully extradite each others criminals. If only there was a way they could realise it was in their common interest to allow for prisoner transfer from one country to another and thus avoid the need for violent conflict. Oh wait. I know a way. The way I just said.

Do you think that the governments of developed countries should allow defaults on loans for those who do not earn a certain level of income?

I figure that, since the rates are set artificially low anyway, that an income threshhold for repayment would not do much harm.

It is not exactly defaulting. It is more deferment of repayment. I do not think that this should apply to developped countries, there the loan should be repaid regardless. It is a possibility for countries in development where income levels for some catagories of professionals would not allow for repayment and the maintenance of a basic standard of living.

It is not exactly defaulting. It is more deferment of repayment. I do not think that this should apply to developped countries, there the loan should be repaid regardless. It is a possibility for countries in development where income levels for some catagories of professionals would not allow for repayment and the maintenance of a basic standard of living.
If sure when some poor guy wants to start a business and nobody'll lend him money (since they can't make him pay it back) he'll be sure to thank you for compassionately taking away his right to make choices for himself. Why don't we just ban alcohol while we're at it? Don't want these stupid and incapable poor people wasting their money on drink. Big brother will look after them.

How's that working out for you?

Not too bad really. I mean it isn't perfect, but progress is being made on a national level. I would hate to see the level of civil rights in the Deep South were we to pursue a voluntary government system.

I don't understand the question.

Many government works are open for free use by all of its citizens. How do we guarantee that people aren't using the resources of a government to which they don't belong?

Well then don't we need a world government? Otherwise the US and the UK won't be able to peacefully extradite each others criminals. If only there was a way they could realise it was in their common interest to allow for prisoner transfer from one country to another and thus avoid the need for violent conflict. Oh wait. I know a way. The way I just said.

Assuming this plan is feasible and governments will work for common interest peacefully, why is it necessary to establish this system?

Not too bad really. I mean it isn't perfect, but progress is being made on a national level. I would hate to see the level of civil rights in the Deep South were we to pursue a voluntary government system.
You're joking, right? Americans are not significantly freer than French or Brits. The constitution has barely slowed govt growth at all. Progress is most definitely not being made from what I can see. Govt spending is skyrocketing and Bush is pushing for all out Fascism with ID cards, imperialism and corporate cronyism. The constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is, and the supreme court judges are appointed by the supreme imperial president.


Many government works are open for free use by all of its citizens. How do we guarantee that people aren't using the resources of a government to which they don't belong?
The same way any business does.


Assuming this plan is feasible and governments will work for common interest peacefully, why is it necessary to establish this system?
Becuase the current system is corrupt, inefficient, oppressive and has inbuilt mechanisms making it more so every year (see "Public Choice Economics"), whereas private govts would have all the usual benefits of a free market in anything.

Have you read the articles I posted? They might shed some light.

n.b. these guys call themselves "Anarcho Capitalists" or "Market Anarchists", I can only assume they're trying to frighten and alienate people because they think it's cool.

I consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist...its not to frighten people, its a discriptor of my belief. I believe in as little to no government as possible, esp. as regards the market (i.e. the economy). Government says it exists to protect you, but what can it really protect you from? Terrorists? Nope, as any good anti-terrorism expert can tell you, if a terrorist wants you bad enough and is willing to sacrifice his/her life they will get you. Bad business? Nope, I esp. apply this to Republicans...they talk a good game about being pro-business, but they are only pro the businesses they own, not the new guys on the block. Case in point Bill Gates. People complain that Gates has/had a monopoly. A true monopoly blocks competition from starting, Gates was smarter than that, he paid his competitors not to compete. That's not a monopoly thats enterprising. You can be just as successful as Gates, come up with a better computer, thats cheaper to make and buy but lasts longer. Make software that integrates better. So my question is what does government provide? The answer is simple, it provides money (tax breaks) to the already wealthy, makes the poor poorer (by handicapping them and making them dependent on government handouts) and taking the hard earned money of the middle class to prop the whole thing up. Forgive me for preferring anarchy to that.........

Rob :mp5:

If sure when some poor guy wants to start a business and nobody'll lend him money (since they can't make him pay it back) he'll be sure to thank you for compassionately taking away his right to make choices for himself. Why don't we just ban alcohol while we're at it? Don't want these stupid and incapable poor people wasting their money on drink. Big brother will look after them.

Get off your high horse and put the post I made in context. We were discussing government voucher/loan systems for education. Not general loans for any purpose. I am not taking away any rights of anyone.

Money lending in general is like any business, controlled by contract. Whatever agreement is freely made between the parties should be enforcable in law.

You're joking, right? Americans are not significantly freer than French or Brits. The constitution has barely slowed govt growth at all. Progress is most definitely not being made from what I can see. Govt spending is skyrocketing and Bush is pushing for all out Fascism with ID cards, imperialism and corporate cronyism. The constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is, and the supreme court judges are appointed by the supreme imperial president.

OK, constitution is out, I shouldn't have brought it up since it really isn't a valid point, anyway.

The same way any business does.

And how is that?

Becuase the current system is corrupt, inefficient, oppressive and has inbuilt mechanisms making it more so every year (see "Public Choice Economics"), whereas private govts would have all the usual benefits of a free market in anything.

Have you read the articles I posted? They might shed some light.

I am hungover and at work, but I will try and read them.

I still feel that the government holds enough assets to be able to generate funds to cover its expenditure. It owns large amounts of land, it employs a ridiculous number of people in the armed forces and civil service. It has the resources, make it use these to generate funds, rather than to cost money. You want security guards for your jewelry wholesale business, contract the army. You want to visit one of the most beautiful parts of the world, come stay in our luxury log cabins in ******* national park, only $150 per person per night, with all that beauty on your doorstep. etc. If private companies can make profits providing these sort of services, so can the government, even in a limited government situation. Government should not regulate business, it should participate in business.

That is not a bad idea, but I would worry about the government using its power to influence prices and competitors of the industries it was involved in.

Becuase the current system is corrupt, inefficient, oppressive and has inbuilt mechanisms making it more so every year (see "Public Choice Economics"), whereas private govts would have all the usual benefits of a free market in anything.

Have you read the articles I posted? They might shed some light.

I have read the articles, and Friedman makes some assumptions that simply are not justifiable. There are also risks involved that do not apply to the economicv model that he is using, when the idea is aplied to social control ratrher than economic control. For example:

The answer is that the distributional starting point is the solution to a bilateral monopoly bargaining game between the agencies. Each agency can threaten to refuse to agree to any arbitrator, subjecting both to the costs of occasional violence, or at least ad hoc negotiation to avoid violence. Each knows that the other would prefer even a rather unfavorable set of legal rules to no agreement at all. The situation is analogous to a union management negotiation or the negotiations determining borders, trade policies, and the like between neighboring countries. While there is no good theoretical account of exactly what determines the outcome of bilateral monopoly bargaining, experience suggests that some reasonably efficient equilibrium usually exists. Most unionized firms manage to settle their differences without lengthy strikes, and most nations are at peace with most of their neighbors most of the time

I have highlighted two points which are problematic.
There is no evidence whatsoever that a company would prefer an unfavourable set of rules to no rules. If the company's business is that of enforcement, then no rules are clearly better than unfavourable ones. Look to the situation that exists in the counter culture and parallel state situations of drug cartels and street gangs. They have the options of unfavorable rules or no rules, and they consistently chose no rules, rather than adopt the rules of society which are unfavourable to them. Friedman is making a huge and false assumption here.

Secondly there is the consequence of a lack of agreement. It may be acceptable that unions and ownership only one time in three or so end up with even short wildcat strikes. This is acceptable because it does not kil people, it does not threaten the security of the society. However, if the dispute between governments went one time in three or so to border skirmishes, and sometimes to outright war, within the country, this is not acceptable in security terms. The analogy between the employment conditions dispute and the government dispute does not hold.

I still propose the maximum devolution of central power to regional level that is commensurate with government being able to provide its basic function, security. I do not go so far as to hold that any one region could reliably have more than one government. It is too complicated to run and impossible to avoid conflict in the NI or Palestine mould.

That is not a bad idea, but I would worry about the government using its power to influence prices and competitors of the industries it was involved in.

If government action in the economic field is restricted to enforcing contracts, I fail to see how it would have any more influence than any other business.

So far we have suggestions for :
Progressive taxation (Vittos Ordination)
Autonomus income generation (Alien Born)
15% Flat Tax (Kervoskia)
Fair Sales Tax (Texpundistan)

Any further suggestions, or do we debate these four?
I'm for my option (obviously) or Alien Born's option. Flat tax is not voluntary and progressive taxation is anathema to my views. Confiscatory/punitive taxes based on wealth shoot any kind of freedom in the foot.

I'm for fair and equal taxation based on consumption, not on what the government thinks it can dig out of our pockets whenever it feels like it.

If government action in the economic field is restricted to enforcing contracts, I fail to see how it would have any more influence than any other business.

Yes, I see that, but a profit motive within the government would grease the wheels towards more government action and regulation of business.

Confiscatory/punitive taxes based on wealth shoot any kind of freedom in the foot.

I don't support a progressive tax system as a method of wealth redistribution. I support it based on the benefit recieved by the individual. High income earners make more use of government works than low income earners. I also like the idea of accounting for the utility of the dollar instead of the established value of the dollar.

I don't support a progressive tax system as a method of wealth redistribution. I support it based on the benefit recieved by the individual. High income earners make more use of government works than low income earners. I also like the idea of accounting for the utility of the dollar instead of the established value of the dollar.
But automatically assuming that the wealthy would use more government services under this system of government is jumping the gun, therefore, progressively taxing the rich right off the bat with no real data would be punitive and confiscatory.

Also, since the government in question (as we are writing it) would provide almost no services, how would the wealthy gain more from them? What services would they benefit from more than the poor?

I'm for my option (obviously) or Alien Born's option. Flat tax is not voluntary and progressive taxation is anathema to my views. Confiscatory/punitive taxes based on wealth shoot any kind of freedom in the foot.

I'm for fair and equal taxation based on consumption, not on what the government thinks it can dig out of our pockets whenever it feels like it.

I have to agree here. I would prefer a sales tax, where people have some control over their tax burden, to either a flat or progressive income tax. Can I suggest that we adopt a fair sales tax policy with the intention of the government becoming more and more self funding over time, thereby reducing either the range of items taxed and or the taxation level.

I'll join.

But automatically assuming that the wealthy would use more government services under this system of government is jumping the gun, therefore, progressively taxing the rich right off the bat with no real data would be punitive and confiscatory.

It is not just assuming. Wealthy people are guaranteed to enter into more contracts of more value than the poor, and the insurance of contracts requires government funding.

I don't support a progressive tax system as a method of wealth redistribution. I support it based on the benefit recieved by the individual. High income earners make more use of government works than low income earners. I also like the idea of accounting for the utility of the dollar instead of the established value of the dollar.

I have argued elsewhere (a couple of months ago at least) that if marginal utility is to be considered on the taxation side, it also has to be considered on the service provision side. And it never is. Do you bulid roads for those for whom the roads will be most useful, and not bother for those that have little use for them. Hoe do you control that roads are only used by those that have the most use for them. Do you perform a life saving operation on a ninety seven year old, or a pain relieving operation on a seventeen year old, given that they both cost the same? If you want to account for marginal value, do it all the way around. I disagree with this, as I hold that individuals are equal undere the law, and as such have the right to equal treatment by the government. This is not equal marginal value treatment, it is absolute equal treatment. Hence progressive taxation is also in conflict with this principle.

I'll join.

Oh well. that ends this thread then. ;)

Welcome aboard. Freedom for all here.

It is not just assuming. Wealthy people are guaranteed to enter into more contracts of more value than the poor, and the insurance of contracts requires government funding.
You forget that companies/corporations/the wealthy would be buying more big-ticket taxable items (under a sales tax system) and would be paying more taxes. No progressive tax needed. They wealthy tend to spend more, so they would already be paying more taxes.

Progressive taxes are punitive, period.

I have to agree here. I would prefer a sales tax, where people have some control over their tax burden, to either a flat or progressive income tax. Can I suggest that we adopt a fair sales tax policy with the intention of the government becoming more and more self funding over time, thereby reducing either the range of items taxed and or the taxation level.

I would support a sales tax that was graduated according to expenditure amount.

However, would a significant sales tax cut demand to a point where jobs are being cut as well?

Doesn't a sales tax punish the poor by equally raising the price of goods and services?

I would support a sales tax that was graduated according to expenditure amount.

However, would a significant sales tax cut demand to a point where jobs are being cut as well?

Income tax is built into prices, and removed from the disposable income of the population. We end up paying it twice in some cases. A simple flat taxation on purchases over a certain value, would
1. ensure that those that spend more pay more,
2. encourage companies to keep prices low (below the taxation threashold),
3. be easy and efficient to administer,
4. remove all tax burden from the poorest members of the society,
5. allow the consumer to choose whether to pay tax or not.

I would support a sales tax that was graduated according to expenditure amount.

However, would a significant sales tax cut demand to a point where jobs are being cut as well?
First... I am against any kind of progressive tax. Under a flat sales tax, the wealthy would automatically be paying more taxes due to their higher expenditures. A progressive tax would be punitivie.

Also, I don't see the relation between a sales tax cut and job loss.

Doesn't a sales tax punish the poor by equally raising the price of goods and services?
The Fair Tax takes into account the plight of the poor by not taxing necessities.

Some obvious stuff that needs to be included in the manifesto.

1. Abortion is to be legal
2. There are to be no illegal drugs
3. Marriage is a contract between two or more individuals and of no government concern
4. No immigration or emmigration controls, just border checks to pick up fugitive criminals.
5. There is to be no arms control, guns are goods like any other.
6. There is to be no state support for any religion, nor restriction on religious practices that do not infringe individual rights.
7. Animals have no rights as they are not capable of bearing responsibilities.

This last point may be contentious.

Any comments, or items to add?

7. Animals have no rights as they are not capable of bearing responsibilities.
What about helper animals? I would think they bear a fair degree or responsibility.

I'll join, by the way.

What about helper animals? I would think they bear a fair degree or responsibility.

I'll join, by the way.

Welcome aboard.

Helper animals are not responsible in the way that humans are. They are useful, they can do things, but this applies to my kitchen appliances or computer, and I would not want to extend rights to them.

A right always comes with the matching obligation to extend that same right to others. If you have the right to live free of fear of harm then you have to extend that to everyone else so that they chave the same right. Animals are not capable of understanding this. Because I don't bite a mosquito, does not mean that it will not bite me, or even that it has done anything socially wrong if it does.

Rights require the ability to reason and to abstract the situation from the specific to the general. Animals do not have this ability (as far as we know).

I have argued elsewhere (a couple of months ago at least) that if marginal utility is to be considered on the taxation side, it also has to be considered on the service provision side. And it never is. Do you bulid roads for those for whom the roads will be most useful, and not bother for those that have little use for them. Hoe do you control that roads are only used by those that have the most use for them. Do you perform a life saving operation on a ninety seven year old, or a pain relieving operation on a seventeen year old, given that they both cost the same? If you want to account for marginal value, do it all the way around. I disagree with this, as I hold that individuals are equal undere the law, and as such have the right to equal treatment by the government. This is not equal marginal value treatment, it is absolute equal treatment. Hence progressive taxation is also in conflict with this principle.

As for consideration of marginal utility for the service provision side, it sometimes is considered. To use the road example, more money is spent on roads that are utilized more. For example, back in the podunk town I grew up in, our house is on a gravel road, it is a road that does not have any marginal utility. If they paved it and kept it nice, it would still not bring in more traffic and would only benefit a few. But I-95 going through Atlanta has millions spent on it yearly due to the utility it provides.

Also, due to graduated tax brackets, no one is treated differently. Everyone pays the same tax rate on the first 20K they earn. It is also not a direct reflection of the person's income, it is a direct reflection of the dollar's value.

Anything to deal with monopolies, market and accounting transparency, etc.?

You forget that companies/corporations/the wealthy would be buying more big-ticket taxable items (under a sales tax system) and would be paying more taxes. No progressive tax needed. They wealthy tend to spend more, so they would already be paying more taxes.

I think it is untrue that the wealthy spend that much more than the poor. Those that are not outrageously wealthy and have built their own wealth, quite often live well within their means. With the leftover funds they have, they are perfectly free to invest the rest of their income, which, assuming they have enough disposable income and the nominal interest rates are good, would pay for their taxes. Middle class workers would enjoy neither the ability to invest away their taxes, nor the tax breaks the poor recieve, and would therefore get squeezed.

Progressive taxes are punitive, period.

Read and address my post about the marginal utility of a dollar.

Anything to deal with monopolies, market and accounting transparency, etc.?

Any cases of fraud constitutes theft, and the individual at fault should be held criminally liable. If the individual causes someone to be financially harmed by 10K, charge the individual at fault as if he had stolen $10,000 dollars.

As for consideration of marginal utility for the service provision side, it sometimes is considered. To use the road example, more money is spent on roads that are utilized more. For example, back in the podunk town I grew up in, our house is on a gravel road, it is a road that does not have any marginal utility. If they paved it and kept it nice, it would still not bring in more traffic and would only benefit a few. But I-95 going through Atlanta has millions spent on it yearly due to the utility it provides.

Also, due to graduated tax brackets, no one is treated differently. Everyone pays the same tax rate on the first 20K they earn. It is also not a direct reflection of the person's income, it is a direct reflection of the dollar's value.

It is, however a disincentive to achievement. I do more, I create more wealth for my nation, what do I get, a bigger tax bill!
Have you never been in the situation where all the work seems to be placed on you. The more you do, the more is demanded of you. It is a common practice, common enough to have the saying "If you want something done quickly, ask a busy man" attached to it. The idea of progressive tax is the same. The more tax you have to pay, the more they tax you. It is simply not a fair or reasonable way of taxing.

The point I was making about marginal utility is really that the concept only applies to economic schemes. It does not apply to people in real life. A beer costs the same whether you are rich or poor. The fact that you could buy 200,000 beers, or 20 beers on your salary is irrelevant to the price of the beer, and the pleasure you get from it. To say that the 200,000th dollar is worth less than the 20th is plain false. It is worth the same, it will buy the same things. It can be argued thatr it is less useful to you, that it is less needed to survive, but this does not reduce its value. It is a trade token, it represents a quantity of goods, or work. It does not represent less goods or less work for a rich man than it does for a poor man.

Marginal utility is not used on a personal basis on the supply side. You are not restricted from using a road because you do not get as much benefit from it as someone else. Yes marginal utility is used on a community wide scale, as taxation should be. This means is it worth charging x tax to provide y service. What is the utility gain against the disposable income utility loss. If it were to be applied on the personal side, then the police would not protect the rich neighbourhods, after all they have insurance and can afford to repalce anything stolen. The police would only protect the poor, who can not afford to replace losses.

No marginal utility is not a good concept to apply to individuals, and taxation does apply to individuals so marginal utility is not acceptable as a justification of progressive taxation.

I think it is untrue that the wealthy spend that much more than the poor. Those that are not outrageously wealthy and have built their own wealth, quite often live well within their means. With the leftover funds they have, they are perfectly free to invest the rest of their income, which, assuming they have enough disposable income and the nominal interest rates are good, would pay for their taxes. Middle class workers would enjoy neither the ability to invest away their taxes, nor the tax breaks the poor recieve, and would therefore get squeezed.

How is investment not purchasing something. The one good that should attract the highest level of sales tax is money. After all it is a luxury to be able to buy money. There is no reason why taxes should make people poorer. The purpose is to fund the government. If this can be done without impinging on the purchasing power of anyone, then so much the better.

Anything to deal with monopolies, market and accounting transparency, etc.?

What is the problem with a monopoly? See the arguments I made earlier about price fixing in a cartel. A monopoly is just a one company cartel. The same arguments apply.

Market regulation is to be non existent surely. This is not an area for government action. If you don't like the price, don't buy the goods. If the goods are bad, tell people and don't buy them from that company again. Let the market regulate itself.

Accounting regulations are only necessary if you have complex taxatiuon schemes, with tax to be avoided. Where the only entity to suffer from fraudulent accounting is the company itself, I feel that self regulation is all that is needed. Shareholders buy shares at their own risk. They can, of course, insist on accounting transparency as part of the share buying contract. This would then be enforceable. Typically this would be done by pension funds etc.

Some obvious stuff that needs to be included in the manifesto.

1. Abortion is to be legal
2. There are to be no illegal drugs
3. Marriage is a contract between two or more individuals and of no government concern
5. There is to be no arms control, guns are goods like any other.

One thing I have never understood about American politics is that all of these special interest groups argue to have these minor details added to the constitution. I do believe that these are far too specific to be included in the constitution and are already covered by the Ninth Amendment.

I think that all we need is something similar to the ninth instead of listing them.

6. There is to be no state support for any religion, nor restriction on religious practices that do not infringe individual rights.

This does not need to be included, as people are already given the right to free speech and the right to assembly, the freedom to practice religion is guaranteed by those rights. Adding this can cause people to think that all religious practices are a right.[/QUOTE]

7. Animals have no rights as they are not capable of bearing responsibilities.

This one is a little dangerous. We don't want to condone animal cruelty. I'm not saying that this stance is wrong, per se, just that isn't very palatable.

How is investment not purchasing something. The one good that should attract the highest level of sales tax is money. After all it is a luxury to be able to buy money. There is no reason why taxes should make people poorer. The purpose is to fund the government. If this can be done without impinging on the purchasing power of anyone, then so much the better.

I thought that we were talking about a consumption tax. If we were, I didn't think that investments applied to a consumption tax.

It is, however a disincentive to achievement. I do more, I create more wealth for my nation, what do I get, a bigger tax bill!
Have you never been in the situation where all the work seems to be placed on you. The more you do, the more is demanded of you. It is a common practice, common enough to have the saying "If you want something done quickly, ask a busy man" attached to it. The idea of progressive tax is the same. The more tax you have to pay, the more they tax you. It is simply not a fair or reasonable way of taxing.
Thank you. You make my points more eloquently than I can myself. :D

One thing I have never understood about American politics is that all of these special interest groups argue to have these minor details added to the constitution. I do believe that these are far too specific to be included in the constitution and are already covered by the Ninth Amendment.
We are writing a manifesto, not a constitution. As such the electorate should know where we stand on these issues. I still hold that a constitution is unnecessary anyway.
This does not need to be included, as people are already given the right to free speech and the right to assembly, the freedom to practice religion is guaranteed by those rights. Adding this can cause people to think that all religious practices are a right. Again it is about vote catching, not about defining the basic law of the land. Be explicit, so people know what we stand for. We are a religiously inclusive party.

This one is a little dangerous. We don't want to condone animal cruelty. I'm not saying that this stance is wrong, per se, just that isn't very palatable.
If you dress it up as saying that we hold all men to be equal and to be responsible individually for the welfare of other animals in their care in accordance with their personal and heartfelt moral values, then we are denying animal rights without making it sound unpalatable. (A little tricky I know)

I thought that we were talking about a consumption tax. If we were, I didn't think that investments applied to a consumption tax.

No we are talking about a sales tax. Sales != consumption. I buy a house, I pay tax on it. I do not consume it though, I have simply acquired an asset with a value. I invest money to earn a return. What I am doing is buying money, acquiring assets, I should pay tax on this as well. As I mentioned, this can be highly taxed as it is a luxury. Returns on shares and such could be taxed lower to encourage investment into productive areas and away from being dead money investment.

It is, however a disincentive to achievement. I do more, I create more wealth for my nation, what do I get, a bigger tax bill!
Have you never been in the situation where all the work seems to be placed on you. The more you do, the more is demanded of you. It is a common practice, common enough to have the saying "If you want something done quickly, ask a busy man" attached to it. The idea of progressive tax is the same. The more tax you have to pay, the more they tax you. It is simply not a fair or reasonable way of taxing.

I can't reasonably counter this argument because I don't understand the point you are trying to make or the basic reasoning behind it.

I have read about the principle of taxation that high taxation would be less profitable to the government by killing the profit incentive. With the small amount of funding our limited government would need, our taxes would not even come close to that threshhold.

The point I was making about marginal utility is really that the concept only applies to economic schemes. It does not apply to people in real life. A beer costs the same whether you are rich or poor. The fact that you could buy 200,000 beers, or 20 beers on your salary is irrelevant to the price of the beer, and the pleasure you get from it. To say that the 200,000th dollar is worth less than the 20th is plain false. It is worth the same, it will buy the same things. It can be argued thatr it is less useful to you, that it is less needed to survive, but this does not reduce its value. It is a trade token, it represents a quantity of goods, or work. It does not represent less goods or less work for a rich man than it does for a poor man.

It certainly does apply to everyday life. The capital provided by a $1000 purchase is much more valueable to an individual with an income of $25,000 than it is to an individual with an income of $500,000.

Marginal utility is not used on a personal basis on the supply side. You are not restricted from using a road because you do not get as much benefit from it as someone else. Yes marginal utility is used on a community wide scale, as taxation should be. This means is it worth charging x tax to provide y service. What is the utility gain against the disposable income utility loss. If it were to be applied on the personal side, then the police would not protect the rich neighbourhods, after all they have insurance and can afford to repalce anything stolen. The police would only protect the poor, who can not afford to replace losses.

No marginal utility is not a good concept to apply to individuals, and taxation does apply to individuals so marginal utility is not acceptable as a justification of progressive taxation.

A graduated tax does not differentiate between individuals, it only differentiates between dollars.

We are writing a manifesto, not a constitution. As such the electorate should know where we stand on these issues. I still hold that a constitution is unnecessary anyway.

Yes, I just was using the constitution because I was talking about American politics.

Since they are hot topics at present we should establish where we stand on these. However, were we to include rights as specific as this, it can be misconstrued that things left off the list are not allowed.

We should make sure that it is known that this is a set of limits on government, not a list of the rights of the individual.

Again it is about vote catching, not about defining the basic law of the land. Be explicit, so people know what we stand for. We are a religiously inclusive party.

I do not like religion and I despise any recognition of religion by government.

If you dress it up as saying that we hold all men to be equal and to be responsible individually for the welfare of other animals in their care in accordance with their personal and heartfelt moral values, then we are denying animal rights without making it sound unpalatable. (A little tricky I know)

Just keep adding words until they don't really know what it means, but it still sounds good. Sounds like a good idea.

I can't reasonably counter this argument because I don't understand the point you are trying to make or the basic reasoning behind it. That has become apparent. I will try again.
There are people that have more of something and people who have less of something. This diferential is normally due to the actions of the people concerned. If I have more hair, it is often because I choose to let my hair grow, because I want to have more hair and I make the effort to keep my flowing locks in good condition . It satisfies me to have a lot of hair. If I have less hair, this may be due to several factors. Pure bad luck (I am bald or suffer from alopetia), a dislike of long hair so I keep mine short, or simply that long hair takes too much effort to keep in good condition so I can not be bothered. Now imagine that we are to tax people on the basis of their hair length. Some people will luck out and not have to pay tax (the baldies), others chose not to have this luxury so they pay less as well (those that don't like long hair). Then we are left wit two groups. The lazy ones, who pay less, and the hard workers, who pay more. That is not fair, you pay more because you made the effort. If we tax income progressively, this being earned income, not interest payments or investment returns, then we are doing the same thing. Making those who wored hard pay more than the lazy bugger who does nothing with his life. Not just more in total, but a higher percentage . More in total is still bad enough, but acceptable, but to increase the burden for working hard is just counter productive and counter intuitive.

I have read about the principle of taxation that high taxation would be less profitable to the government by killing the profit incentive. With the small amount of funding our limited government would need, our taxes would not even come close to that threshhold.
In that case why are you proposing a progressive scheme. Low total taxation is much more effectively dealt with on either a flat rate scheme or a sales tax. I do not wish to have half of the governments expenditure involvewd in revenue collection.

It certainly does apply to everyday life. The capital provided by a $1000 purchase is much more valueable to an individual with an income of $25,000 than it is to an individual with an income of $500,000.
To the individual it is not. It still the same thing. $1000 of capital goods is just that, $1000 worth, it is not a different amount for a rich man than it is for a poor one. It is still the same goods, and represents the same work.

A graduated tax does not differentiate between individuals, it only differentiates between dollars.
All dollars are worth the same. They buy the same amount of sugar or whatever. It is not the case that this dollar in Donald Trump's pocket only buys half a pund, whilst the one in your pocket buys two pounds. There is no difference to be differentiated between. Marginal value is an illusion, and a convenient tool for the income redistributionists to argue their case. Don't be taken in by it.

That has become apparent. I will try again.
There are people that have more of something and people who have less of something. This diferential is normally due to the actions of the people concerned. If I have more hair, it is often because I choose to let my hair grow, because I want to have more hair and I make the effort to keep my flowing locks in good condition . It satisfies me to have a lot of hair. If I have less hair, this may be due to several factors. Pure bad luck (I am bald or suffer from alopetia), a dislike of long hair so I keep mine short, or simply that long hair takes too much effort to keep in good condition so I can not be bothered. Now imagine that we are to tax people on the basis of their hair length. Some people will luck out and not have to pay tax (the baldies), others chose not to have this luxury so they pay less as well (those that don't like long hair). Then we are left wit two groups. The lazy ones, who pay less, and the hard workers, who pay more. That is not fair, you pay more because you made the effort. If we tax income progressively, this being earned income, not interest payments or investment returns, then we are doing the same thing. Making those who wored hard pay more than the lazy bugger who does nothing with his life. Not just more in total, but a higher percentage . More in total is still bad enough, but acceptable, but to increase the burden for working hard is just counter productive and counter intuitive.

This doesn't counter my argument at all. I am not trying to say that individuals that can pay more should pay more. Wealth distribution is government theft, we agree on that. I am saying that they should pay an equal value, and to do that you should account for marginal utility.

In that case why are you proposing a progressive scheme. Low total taxation is much more effectively dealt with on either a flat rate scheme or a sales tax. I do not wish to have half of the governments expenditure involvewd in revenue collection.

Because I think a graduated tax rate is the most fair way to tax people.

To the individual it is not. It still the same thing. $1000 of capital goods is just that, $1000 worth, it is not a different amount for a rich man than it is for a poor one. It is still the same goods, and represents the same work.

An individual values a good based on its utility to them. Because of this, the required utility of a good must be higher for a poor individual to purchase it than a wealthy individual to purchase it. That means that a good a poor person might be willing to pay $1000 for, a wealthy person may be willing to $1500 for. They are both gathering the same good with the same utility, but the wealthy individual paid a third more. That means that the wealthy individual values his dollars at a third less than the poor person does.

VO. We are going to keep arguing this until the cows come home it appears.

You hold that marginal utility is a real factor in the world. I believe that it is simply a device used to justify taxing the rich more than the poor for the redistributive lines of thought. It is obvious that I am not going to change your opinion, and equally so that ypou are not going to change mine. One solution is to forget income taxation altogether.

Luxury goods tax plus a sales tax would have the effect you want of taxing those living a life of luxury at a higher rate than those living an ordinary life, plus it allows the citizen to decide whether that luxury is worth that extra contribution to the government.

Of course what qualifies as a luxury would have to be worked out after we are elected, but it would clearly be things like cars with more then 3 litre engines, jet skis, diamonds above a certain size (allowing the romance of a simple wedding ring without placing excess tax on it seems reasonable) second homes etc.

Could you agree to this. The basic sales tax would exclude unprepared food, clothing that does not cost more than three times its raw material cost, books, energy, water, and a first residence. (Other exemptions such as prescription medicines could be included)

I see we are arguing about tax here.... has anybody ever heard of the "voluntary consumption tax?" It's a tax based not off of your income, but rather how much you spend....

I see we are arguing about tax here.... has anybody ever heard of the "voluntary consumption tax?" It's a tax based not off of your income, but rather how much you spend....

Yep, we had a link to it about five pages back. It is one of the four proposed systems. At the moment I am just trying to reach a compromise position that gets fairly close to it. (It is not my position, see post #77, for what I would prefer, but it is acceptable.)

VO. We are going to keep arguing this until the cows come home it appears.

You hold that marginal utility is a real factor in the world. I believe that it is simply a device used to justify taxing the rich more than the poor for the redistributive lines of thought.

The entire microeconomic model of the free market is based on marginal utility and marginal costs.

It is obvious that I am not going to change your opinion, and equally so that ypou are not going to change mine. One solution is to forget income taxation altogether.

I have no preference for income or sales taxation, one taxes labor, one taxes capital. It all pretty well works out the same.

Luxury goods tax plus a sales tax would have the effect you want of taxing those living a life of luxury at a higher rate than those living an ordinary life, plus it allows the citizen to decide whether that luxury is worth that extra contribution to the government.

I don't want to tax people just because they live a life of luxury, that isn't fair. No matter how the tax code is set up, it should it should be based on a fair and reasonably accurate determination of value. I am trying to justify a luxury sales tax and am having trouble doing it. Help me out.

Could you agree to this. The basic sales tax would exclude unprepared food, clothing that does not cost more than three times its raw material cost, books, energy, water, and a first residence. (Other exemptions such as prescription medicines could be included)

Yes, those should be tax exempt. (I was actually preparing to argue against it, but decided I was just being contrary)

And AB,

I would support a income producing government if you could insure me that it would remained checked, and that it is feasible.

The entire microeconomic model of the free market is based on marginal utility and marginal costs.
No, it is not, not originally. The model of the market takes marginal return as a necessary factor, but not marginal utility. This goes back to what I said about this being an idea that applies to economic models, and not to real life people. The sticking point is there. I accept the marginal return theories of market self regulation, I do not accept the marginal utility arguments for progressive taxation of the individual. However as:
I have no preference for income or sales taxation, one taxes labor, one taxes capital. It all pretty well works out the same.
we can accept sales taxation which avoids the whole issue. The more you buy, the more you pay. Now the question remains as to whether this is a flat rate tax on all but exempt products, or whether there is to be a tiered system with some goods attracting higher tax rates. You have already commented:
I don't want to tax people just because they live a life of luxury, that isn't fair. No matter how the tax code is set up, it should it should be based on a fair and reasonably accurate determination of value. I am trying to justify a luxury sales tax and am having trouble doing it. Help me out.
which leads me to think that a flat rate sales tax should be acceptable. Remember that this applies to buying moneyt in the form of investments etc. It may be that we should reserve the right to create a different tax band if we wish to direct investment toward market sectors, but that may be too much interference in the market. (It is too much for my liking. but I could swallow it if need be.)

And AB,

I would support a income producing government if you could insure me that it would remained checked, and that it is feasible.

If our basic policy ids to keep government interference out of the market, then there should be no problem with the government acting as a business in that market. As soon as you go away from the basic policy, then there could be a problem, but as this is a core item for our party platform, no Classic Liberal government would do so. Other governments would, of course, have their own tax schemes worked out.
(Remember we are not drafting a constitution, nor founding a country. We are putting together a political manifesto for how we would like the country to be run, and this is what we would do if elected to power. As we would control the government we could ensure that it remained checked.)

Feasability is to be tried and tested. I can see no reason why the government could not generatew enough profit from competitive business activities to eliminate the need for taxation in the long run. Obviously there is a start up period for Gov plc. which would need to be covered by taxation of some sort. This is where I would propose the sales tax. If the self funding idea does not pan out fully, at least we will have a fair taxation system with the tax burden held to the minimum by government fund generation.

Bump to entice new members.

Of course what qualifies as a luxury would have to be worked out after we are elected, but it would clearly be things like cars with more then 3 litre engines
Woah! Better watch out on that one. Farmers/ranchers routinely have to buy vehicles with engines larger than 3 liters in order to pull trailers/haul goods. There needs to be an exemptions for individuals who generally must have larger vehicles. I'm not talking full exemption, but a halt in the tax rate so that they're not paying luxury tax on the vehicle, but normal tax rates that any other business would pay.

Woah! Better watch out on that one. Farmers/ranchers routinely have to buy vehicles with engines larger than 3 liters in order to pull trailers/haul goods. There needs to be an exemptions for individuals who generally must have larger vehicles. I'm not talking full exemption, but a halt in the tax rate so that they're not paying luxury tax on the vehicle, but normal tax rates that any other business would pay.

Fair comment. By car I meant a basic town vehicle, not a working vehicle. Trucks, pick ups etc. registered to businesses would not attract the luxury tax.

I do think though that I managed to persuade VO to stick with a basic flat rate sales tax along the lines of your original proposal. This eliminates the concern about what would be a luxury to strt with.

I do think though that I managed to persuade VO to stick with a basic flat rate sales tax along the lines of your original proposal. This eliminates the concern about what would be a luxury to strt with.
Good deal. To me, any kind of graduated tax is confiscatory and possibly punitive. "Luxury" items are usually priced through the roof to start with, which would mean the consumer would be paying more in taxes automatically. I don't see the "fairness" in arbitrarily calling something a "luxury" and then taxing it at a higher rate.

On a different note: I'm positive that we'll end up having to have an organization to watch businesses about environmental concerns. I'm a dedicated capitalist, but after watching large corporations and multinational conglomerates do anything they can in order to get around environmental regulations and show no interest in keeping raw pollution down, I don't trust them to be responsible in that aspect.

Fair comment. By car I meant a basic town vehicle, not a working vehicle. Trucks, pick ups etc. registered to businesses would not attract the luxury tax.

I do think though that I managed to persuade VO to stick with a basic flat rate sales tax along the lines of your original proposal. This eliminates the concern about what would be a luxury to strt with.

I just want to register the fact that I am only accepting the flat sales tax in order to finalize our manifesto. That discussion was taking to long and going nowhere, so I decided that a straight flat tax was the next best alternative.

I stand by my original stance on this, and maybe once we establish our base, we can take up that debate again.

On a different note: I'm positive that we'll end up having to have an organization to watch businesses about environmental concerns. I'm a dedicated capitalist, but after watching large corporations and multinational conglomerates do anything they can in order to get around environmental regulations and show no interest in keeping raw pollution down, I don't trust them to be responsible in that aspect.

This can be handled privately as well.

Before I made a comment regarding externalities. Let me explain.

The philospy behind the market is 'consenting adults', worker choose to go to work, just as the employer chooses to employ them. An externality is something that runs contary to the market, in which people are given no choice. The best known externality is pollution. When two agents choose to buy and sell a product, producing this product may cause pollution which negatively effects a third person. This negative effect is an externality, the third person gets no choice in the pollution. ASIDE: Externalities can also be positive.

Thus I was suggesting a tax on "unchoosen bad effects", specifically pollution.


I completely agree with a flat sales tax (although I would like to see a debate on taxing externalities at a future date).

Points I think we should include in the manifesto

- Individual rights were apparent prior to the existence of the state, so the state's main goal should be the preservation of such rights.

- Property rights are of the utmost importance, with the economic goal of a free market system.

- A constitutional government that is defined by its limited abilities to impugn these rights.

- Universal protection of individual rights

- Emphasis on social progressiveness.
__________________

That manifesto rocks, so you've got me.

This can be handled privately as well.
Howso? :confused:

Also, let's stick with a flat sales tax and I won't holler about abortion. ;) :D :p

EDIT: (On a personal level, I abhor abortion. On a public policy level, I have no problem with it as long as government has no part in it.)

Howso? :confused:

Also, let's stick with a flat sales tax and I won't holler about abortion. ;) :D :p

EDIT: (On a personal level, I abhor abortion. On a public policy level, I have no problem with it as long as government has no part in it.)

By holding pollutors liable within the private judicial system.

By holding pollutors liable within the private judicial system.
So we're basically agreeing that there should be laws against raw pollution. :)

Raw polution is baaaaad

So we're basically agreeing that there should be laws against raw pollution. :)

It should depend on the economic viability of the pollution. Illegalising something is so inefficient. We should create a negative market for pollution (or a tax).

It should depend on the economic viability of the pollution. Illegalising something is so inefficient. We should create a negative market for pollution (or a tax).
Nope. No tax.

I prefer fines. And I don't mean half-assed fines. I mean heavy duty, "you'll have to sell half your company to pay the fines" fines.

Also, by raw pollution, I mean dumping oil/chemicals in rivers, unsafe disposal of nuclear waste, etc. An acceptable ammount of pollution must be accounted for due to the inevitability of some pollution from manufacturing. But wanton pollution just to raise profits should be punished...severely.

Nope. No tax.

I prefer fines. And I don't mean half-assed fines. I mean heavy duty, "you'll have to sell half your company to pay the fines" fines.

Also, by raw pollution, I mean dumping oil/chemicals in rivers, unsafe disposal of nuclear waste, etc. An acceptable ammount of pollution must be accounted for due to the inevitability of some pollution from manufacturing. But wanton pollution just to raise profits should be punished...severely.

I suggest you can't draw a line between bad pollution and acceptable pollution. And whats wrong with polluting for profits if some of those profits go to good causes?

Society needs pollution, the government shouldn't prevent it; but there does need to be some financial disincentive to prevent 'surplus' pollution. I think another good idea is "tradable pollution rights," where the government sells the right to pollute which can then be traded on an exchange.

I don't think classical liberalism matches well with greenism.

I suggest you can't draw a line between bad pollution and acceptable pollution. And whats wrong with polluting for profits if some of those profits go to good causes?

Society needs pollution, the government shouldn't prevent it; but there does need to be some financial disincentive to prevent 'surplus' pollution. I think another good idea is "tradable pollution rights," where the government sells the right to pollute which can then be traded on an exchange.

I don't think classical liberalism matches well with greenism.
Well... I'm what you call a "green conservative" in that I've been involved with the local conservation district since I was a child...4-H...I buy organics...I recycle...I practice safe offroading...I'm against trophy hunting if you do nothing with the meat...etc.

The problem with pollution credits is that it involves the government in ways that we don't really want.

I'm still just for basic fines. If a company if found to be needlessly polluting (as opposed to marginal pollution as a byproduct of manufacturing) then they get find out the wazoo...and the fine must be paid within 30 days. If the fine is not paid within 30 days, the government seizes the company's assets and liquidates enough that the fine is paid, then gives the rest back to the original owners.

With a system as scary as that...companies wouldn't even THINK of needlessly polluting. ;)

Well... I'm what you call a "green conservative" in that I've been involved with the local conservation district since I was a child...4-H...I buy organics...I recycle...I practice safe offroading...I'm against trophy hunting if you do nothing with the meat...etc.

The problem with pollution credits is that it involves the government in ways that we don't really want.

I'm still just for basic fines. If a company if found to be needlessly polluting (as opposed to marginal pollution as a byproduct of manufacturing) then they get find out the wazoo...and the fine must be paid within 30 days. If the fine is not paid within 30 days, the government seizes the company's assets and liquidates enough that the fine is paid, then gives the rest back to the original owners.

With a system as scary as that...companies wouldn't even THINK of needlessly polluting. ;)

The problem with such systems is that they involve the government in activities that fall outside of the genuine concern of the institution. It requires that there is some kind of agency that evaluates the pollution, It rquires the definition of acceptable and unacceptable levels of pollution etc. While I agree that industrial pollution is a potential problem, I do not see it as more of a problem than say racism, or religious intlolerance. We are not proposing to control activities of groups in these types of areas, so why are we proposing to control pollution.
Again it is something that can be done through the market. There would be no restriction on the activities of pro environment groups in publicising and promoting boycotts etc. This, in itself should be enough to eliminate environmentally prejudicial activities from the market. If it is not, then obviously the issue is overplayed, as people simply do not care that much.

The only thing that will stop companies polluting is knowing that it will hurt the bottom line. This can be done in a very authoritarian and expensive way by regulating and imposing fines, or it can be done through the market. I prefer the latter.


Abortion.

We should be pro-choice, not pro-abortion. It has to be the decision of the individuals concerned.

Abortion.

We should be pro-choice, not pro-abortion. It has to be the decision of the individuals concerned.

Same for euthanasia and suicide.

Banks who could manage to back their currency could offer it. It could feasibly work like debit cards without government backed and regulated money. There would be exchange rates between the different mints. It would also have some logistical problems, but mostly due to our dependency on a central bank.

Rather than de-centralizing, why not base money off of a commodity standard (such as gold, platinum or silver)... And have "minted" certificates for value based on this commodity storage banks. This prevents the need for "exchange rates", while preventing the need of the government needing to "fix values" on "fluid" currency. Thus, a bank can base its currency, as hard, off of actual commodity value of "weight" located in their vaults. And merely "fix" the certificate value to commodity centraly. Say 1 "gram" weight silver a "certificate value"... This way, banks can independently draft their certificates, while maintaining consistency accross competing banks, where there is no need for "exchange" rates between banks (which would just cause drastic price fluctuation in the market of certificate values).

Rather than de-centralizing, why not base money off of a commodity standard (such as gold, platinum or silver)... And have "minted" certificates for value based on this commodity storage banks. This prevents the need for "exchange rates", while preventing the need of the government needing to "fix values" on "fluid" currency. Thus, a bank can base its currency, as hard, off of actual commodity value of "weight" located in their vaults. And merely "fix" the certificate value to commodity centraly. Say 1 "gram" weight silver a "certificate value"... This way, banks can independently draft their certificates, while maintaining consistency accross competing banks, where there is no need for "exchange" rates between banks (which would just cause drastic price fluctuation in the market of certificate values).

A gold standard is fine (or whatever other precious material other than gold) so long as the supply of that precious material remains more or less constant. It also requires an assay office to ensure the purity of the precious material being used as security for the script issue. Whilst using a gold standard does give meaning to the value of the scrip, it does not do away with the centralised control. This simply transfers from a central bank to a central assay office. All the same I prefer this as it prevents the artifical revaluation of the any currency in use.

Suicide is legal, of course.

Euthanasia has to be a possibility, this again should be done by contract and subject to contract law. Basically it is a commercial service. (Strange concept, but acceptable to me.)

Classical liberalism is based on the concept of minimising "harm to others."

However in this minimalist government, we have allowed many kinds of extortion, e.g. unions and green groups.

In my country green groups "claim a monopoly to the enviromental agenda" and if we didn't show them a tough hand I believe industry as a whole would come to a stop; a massive harm to society.

But at the same time, pollution represents a harm; I still feel that a moderate market based solution is the best way to minimise "harm" and so do the overwhelming amount of the world's economists.

Classical liberalism is based on the concept of minimising "harm to others."

However in this minimalist government, we have allowed many kinds of extortion, e.g. unions and green groups.

In my country green groups "claim a monopoly to the enviromental agenda" and if we didn't show them a tough hand I believe industry as a whole would come to a stop; a massive harm to society.

But at the same time, pollution represents a harm; I still feel that a moderate market based solution is the best way to minimise "harm" and so do the overwhelming amount of the world's economists.

I agree in principle, what I do not see is how to implement a "moderate market based solution" without introducing a whole snakes nest of regulations and agencies. Any suggestions on the practical side of implementation of a pollution charge system.

As to the points on unions and green groups being harmful, any group of individuals that disagrees with your personal views could be seen as harmful. However I see no reason why one personal view should have a priveleged position in respect to any other, and that includes my own. If some activity harms me, I have the recourse of claiming an infringement on my personal rights available under the system proposed here. With extensive government control and action there is no such recourse available, as the unions and green activist groups are protected by laws designed to allow the government to impose on individuals. It does require a culture shift, one that the nanny statists will not like, in the attribution of responsibility, away from the state and to the individual. (I am probably preaching to the converted here, but ther may be other readers.)

I agree in principle, what I do not see is how to implement a "moderate market based solution" without introducing a whole snakes nest of regulations and agencies. Any suggestions on the practical side of implementation of a pollution charge system.


A market based solution would fund itself. This may mean a financial cost to society, but it would be more than made up for in enviromental and social benefits. Try this system for size:
The government sets a series of pollution targets, which can be altered (perhaps run by an independent body). Each target is then broken into lets say 100ton permits and auctioned off. The government uses part of the permit revenue to hire inspectors to check firms aren't commiting unpermitted pollution. In time, entrepeneurs will develop an emmisions trading markets. This will allow for a more natural market solution, and government will be able to more directly target pollution pricing.

As to the points on unions and green groups being harmful, any group of individuals that disagrees with your personal views could be seen as harmful.
The point is we are working to prevent governments from interfering in individual freedoms, but we are allowing individuals too.

A market based solution would fund itself. This may mean a financial cost to society, but it would be more than made up for in enviromental and social benefits. Try this system for size:
The government sets a series of pollution targets, which can be altered (perhaps run by an independent body). Each target is then broken into lets say 100ton permits and auctioned off. The government uses part of the permit revenue to hire inspectors to check firms aren't commiting unpermitted pollution. In time, entrepeneurs will develop an emmisions trading markets. This will allow for a more natural market solution, and government will be able to more directly target pollution pricing.
I am not really concerned about the finance side, I am more concerned about the bureaucracy and the opportunities for abuse. A control system has to be bullet proof, or at least immune to the effects of interest groups, which this would not be. The setting of targets is prone to corruption and lobbying. The allocation of permits clearly opens doors for government interference in the market place. How do we ensure that it does not end up like Kyoto, a good idea, that simply won't work because companies won't play along. It would also encourage clandestine and illegal dumping of waste, as this would be cheaper than buying permits etc.


The point is we are working to prevent governments from interfering in individual freedoms, but we are allowing individuals too.
The freedom of the individual is limited only by the reciprocal freedoms of other individuals. This has to be for the individuals to sort out for themselves. What is a freedom for one individual may be nothing of any importance for another. What our system does require is effective arbitration and the means of enforcing the decisions of recognized arbiters. As has been indicated, the best tool for creating efficient sytems is the market, so private courts would appear to be a good way to go. Breaking a contract has to be one of the most serious crimes in our state, and parties would contract to abide by arbitration results before entering the process. The defendant (accused), in any case should have the right to select from a list of arbitration companies. The accuser would have a power of veto over two such choices (to massively reduce nepotism type cases). Any one refusing arbitration would be in breach of contract with the government and punished apropriately.

This leads on to the point of punishments. What type of punishments are acceptable and or correct.

Fines for compensating financial loss.
Indentureship? (Temporary unpaid labour)
Exile?
Legal non personship? (Preventing the individual from entering into contracxts for a period)
Death?
Imprisonment?
Forced Labour?
Conscription?

Just some suggestions. Some more serious than others.

Fines for compensating financial loss.
Indentureship? (Temporary unpaid labour)
Exile?
Legal non personship? (Preventing the individual from entering into contracxts for a period)
Death?
Imprisonment?
Forced Labour?
Conscription?

Just some suggestions. Some more serious than others.

Repayment for damages would be good, but set fines that are paid to the government would not be, in my opinion.

Inprisonment would be fine, as it takes people who refuse to abide by societies rules out of society.

I don't like the death penalty, it is never a fair punishment.

Indentureship in situations where the individual is unable to make reparations for damages.

Conscription is a definite no, conscription benefits the government, not the individual who was damaged.

I don't like the death penalty, it is never a fair punishment.
I disagree. I see it as fitting punishment for one who takes another's life needlessly.

But, hey, I'm an eye for an eye kind of guy. ;)

Repayment for damages would be good, but set fines that are paid to the government would not be, in my opinion.

Inprisonment would be fine, as it takes people who refuse to abide by societies rules out of society.

I don't like the death penalty, it is never a fair punishment.

Indentureship in situations where the individual is unable to make reparations for damages.

Conscription is a definite no, conscription benefits the government, not the individual who was damaged.

OK so fines are reparation only, not punitive.

I am not sure about imprisonment, as it is expensive and prevents individuals from contributing due to one error they made. Maybe repeat offenders, but none of this prisoners rights stuff. If they are in prison it is because they have repeatedly ignored the rights of others. I think they have sacrificed their rights by doing so. So hard labour sounds like a good idea.

The death penalty is debateable still for me. I think that anyone that deliberately and knowingly causes severe physical or psychological harm to a child deserves to be treated as the animal they are. If a dog mauled a child we would kill the dog, why not do the same if a human does it? Serial murderers? I don't know on this one.

Indentureship could be used also where financial reparations really do not fit or are not sufficient. If one person maliciously destroys the results of the effort of another, then I think that the destroyer should be the one tpo have to make the effort to reconstruct the results. Some things do not have clearly defined financial value, but do have months of work involved. (Think of a landscaped garden for an example)

Conscription I would suggest is useful for those who refuse to go to arbitration. They have thus broken their contract with the government, and are punished by indeture into government service. This translates as conscription. I do not sufggest that conscripts should make up the military in general, but they could serve as latrine diggers, ditch clearers, potato peelers etc.

What about the removal of rights (Non personship) or exile?

I am not sure about imprisonment, as it is expensive and prevents individuals from contributing due to one error they made. Maybe repeat offenders, but none of this prisoners rights stuff. If they are in prison it is because they have repeatedly ignored the rights of others. I think they have sacrificed their rights by doing so. So hard labour sounds like a good idea.

The death penalty is debateable still for me. I think that anyone that deliberately and knowingly causes severe physical or psychological harm to a child deserves to be treated as the animal they are. If a dog mauled a child we would kill the dog, why not do the same if a human does it? Serial murderers? I don't know on this one.

For one thing, dogs don't have rights, so there is no ethical delimma if the dog shows itself to be dangerous. As for an argument against capital punishment, see your argument against prison.

Conscription I would suggest is useful for those who refuse to go to arbitration. They have thus broken their contract with the government, and are punished by indeture into government service. This translates as conscription. I do not sufggest that conscripts should make up the military in general, but they could serve as latrine diggers, ditch clearers, potato peelers etc.

What about the removal of rights (Non personship) or exile?

Exile seems dangerous and rather ineffective to me. Non personship would have logistical problems, not to mention serious ethical questions when someone unwittingly enters into a contract with the non person.

I am not really concerned about the finance side, I am more concerned about the bureaucracy and the opportunities for abuse. A control system has to be bullet proof, or at least immune to the effects of interest groups, which this would not be. The setting of targets is prone to corruption and lobbying. The allocation of permits clearly opens doors for government interference in the market place. How do we ensure that it does not end up like Kyoto, a good idea, that simply won't work because companies won't play along. It would also encourage clandestine and illegal dumping of waste, as this would be cheaper than buying permits etc.

I think an independent body should run the permit system; much like the Reserve Bank runs interest rates. Political neutrality. Voting of board members should be secret, as should be minutes. You could lobby someone, but it would be impossible to tell if you had succeeded (I don't know much about culling lobbying, but I know there are ways).

To make companies play along, we make it too dangerous not to. Immediate business closure, huge fines, possible execution!

As for the bureaucracy, I'm not sure; but from what I can tell it wouldn't be huge. There would be two basic elements; the board and inspectors. Never know if you never go.

The freedom of the individual is limited only by the reciprocal freedoms of other individuals. This has to be for the individuals to sort out for themselves.

Does this mean if my workers go on strike I can "sort them out" real good?

Fines for compensating financial loss.
Indentureship? (Temporary unpaid labour)
Exile?
Legal non personship? (Preventing the individual from entering into contracxts for a period)
Death?
Imprisonment?
Forced Labour?
Conscription?
I quite like exile. If you won't play by the rules, get off our board.

Also good are: Indentureship, fines and forced labour.

Does this mean if my workers go on strike I can "sort them out" real good?
No...but you can immediately fire them and hire new workers.

No...but you can immediately fire them and hire new workers.

Actually, since we are so keen on property rights and my business is my property, if workers strike and block the enterance to my business, I should be able to go what I want to them. My property, my right.

Just a little speculation. Same applies to greenies, socialists etc.

"First do no harm". If all of our laws were bolied down this is what they would say. If people followed this mandate you wouldn't need anything else.

Rob :mp5:

Actually, since we are so keen on property rights and my business is my property, if workers strike and block the enterance to my business, I should be able to go what I want to them. My property, my right.

Just a little speculation. Same applies to greenies, socialists etc.

Not quite. You can request the assistance of the security forces in the restitution of your rightful property, but you have no right to inflict harm on their persons. The workers are not your property. You can do what you like to your business and the material assets of that business, but you do not own the workforce.

"First do no harm". If all of our laws were bolied down this is what they would say. If people followed this mandate you wouldn't need anything else.

Rob

What counts as harm? Pollution is harmful, driving a car is harmful, playing an electric guitar is harmful, taking cocaine is harmful. So we should prevent all of these being done?

To simplistic to work.

Let's finalize this manifesto.

Comment on some of these points.

1. The fundamental principle of society should be the preservation of the rights and responsibilities of the individual

a) The foremost role of government is to assure the autonomy of the individual.
b) Regulation of society shall be maintained through the fair enforcement of contracts and competitive forces of the free market.

2. The government should remove itself from any issues that will affect society on an individual level. Policies should provide universal utility and freedom to society.

(need individual examples, healthcare, energy, military?)

3. Local or federal level government functions?

4. Free basic education provided for the benefit of society. Low interest loans provided for furthered education.

5. Government shall be responsible for internal and external security.

a) any specific policies pertaining to the military?
b) any specific policies pertaining to the police force?

6. The government may maintain its own monetary system, but must repeal all legal tender laws to allow competition to exist.

7. The government shall apply a flat sales tax, with movement towards self-sufficiency.

8. Religion is a personal choice and of no consequence to the government, therefore religious views will not be recognised or restricted by government.

9. Individual issues:

a) guns are an indistinguishable good, and will be treated as such
b) abortion is the choice of those involved and not that of the government
c) all drugs should be legalised
d) the government shall have no control over immigration or emmigration
e) marriage is a private contract between individuals and will be treated as such
f) the level of rights provided shall equal the level of responsibility assumed by members of society. As animals are not capable of assuming responsibility the will be afforded no rights.


What else should be added?

Comment on some of these points.

1. The fundamental principle of society should be the preservation of the rights and responsibilities of the individual

a) The foremost role of government is to assure the autonomy of the individual.
b) Regulation of society shall be maintained through the fair enforcement of contracts and competitive forces of the free market.

2. The government should remove itself from any issues that will affect society on an individual level. Policies should provide universal utility and freedom to society.

3. Government should be at the most local level comensurate with the fulfilment of its duties toward the citizens. This requires that the Military be commanded nationally, and that there is some police co-ordinating body at a national level. The rest of government can and shall be local.

4. Free basic education (6 to 12) provided for the benefit of society. Low interest loans provided for furthered education. The government shall not control the curriculum of schools for those aged 12 or above.

5. Government shall be responsible for internal and external security.

a) any specific policies pertaining to the military?
b) any specific policies pertaining to the police force?

6. The government will maintain its own monetary system, but must repeal all legal tender laws to allow competition to exist.

7. The government shall apply a flat sales tax, with movement towards self-sufficiency.

8. Religion is a personal choice and of no consequence to the government, therefore religious views will not be recognised or restricted by government.

9. Individual issues:

a) guns are an indistinguishable good, and will be treated as such
b) abortion is the choice of those involved and not that of the government
c) all drugs should be legalised
d) the government shall have no control over immigration or emmigration
e) marriage is a private contract between individuals and will be treated as such
f) the level of rights provided shall equal the level of responsibility assumed by members of society. As animals are not capable of assuming responsibility the will be afforded no rights.


I have made one or two adjustments or additions (in bold). Other than those this is fine for me as a manifesto.

Ok, on your revisions; How do we assume that the government will provide universal rights and utility to the people if it is spread out to the regional level? It seems to me that, were we to form this government correctly, there would be no reason for regional governments.

Ok, on your revisions; How do we assume that the government will provide universal rights and utility to the people if it is spread out to the regional level? It seems to me that, were we to form this government correctly, there would be no reason for regional governments.

Utility has to be local. There is no possible way for a central government to be able to maximiuze utility, as it is too distant from the issues affecting the people.
Universal rights are not a matter of manifesto. They are a matter of constitutional law. The constitution, if there is any, should be national. However law is to be national anyway. By devolution of power to the regions/districts I mean that matters of taxation and spending should be locally decided.

We do not, as of the moment, know what sort of country we are planning on running. That has to be corrected. If it is a large federal country (USA style) then we have to decide how we would organise the layers of power. If it is a small integrated country (Holland) then I believe that there should be a national assembly that decides laws, and foreign policy; with local chambers dealing with taxation and services. (Does that make sense?)

I am going to hunt down the starting post for al this NS Political Party stuff to see if anything is said about the geographical nature of NS, and if not, then post some questions for Arridia in the debate thread.

Utility has to be local. There is no possible way for a central government to be able to maximiuze utility, as it is too distant from the issues affecting the people.
Universal rights are not a matter of manifesto. They are a matter of constitutional law. The constitution, if there is any, should be national. However law is to be national anyway. By devolution of power to the regions/districts I mean that matters of taxation and spending should be locally decided.

Matters of taxation and spending are fine. I was worried that you meant legal issues. However, do we set a limit on the ability of the regions to tax?

We do not, as of the moment, know what sort of country we are planning on running. That has to be corrected. If it is a large federal country (USA style) then we have to decide how we would organise the layers of power. If it is a small integrated country (Holland) then I believe that there should be a national assembly that decides laws, and foreign policy; with local chambers dealing with taxation and services. (Does that make sense?)

I am going to hunt down the starting post for al this NS Political Party stuff to see if anything is said about the geographical nature of NS, and if not, then post some questions for Arridia in the debate thread.

I guess we should specify the roles our government will perform, and decide on the most efficient way for government to perfrom them.

Matters of taxation and spending are fine. I was worried that you meant legal issues. However, do we set a limit on the ability of the regions to tax?
Wouldn't setting constraints on the action of a business (local government) be contrary to our basic position. There would be nothing stopping competing local service providers setting up as local government businesses. (Go back to very early in this thread)



I guess we should specify the roles our government will perform, and decide on the most efficient way for government to perfrom them.

I have just posted here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419066&page=4&pp=15) a list of questions that need to be answered to enable the whole manifesto to be finely tuned. Add any further questions you may have.

Wouldn't setting constraints on the action of a business (local government) be contrary to our basic position. There would be nothing stopping competing local service providers setting up as local government businesses. (Go back to very early in this thread)


Are we talking about opening up the government for competition again?

What services will be open to competition and what will not?

Are we talking about opening up the government for competition again?

What services will be open to competition and what will not?

Just at the local level. Services such as basic education, road maintenance (tolls are fine for interstates, but they don't work to well for residential back streets.) Trash collection.

I do, however see this in a different light to that proposed earlier. I see it more as companies competing to win a fixed term contract to provide these services for the area, rather than each consumer choosing at any time to change company.

There is a service that needs to be supplied for the society to function, there is no reason why this can not be done through private companies, or a collective of such companies. What a local election is, is to select the area manager, who will allocate these contracts, negotiate the deals for the area.

It is not greatly different to the current contracting out of services, it simply becomes statutory that services be contracted out to minimise government size.

Trash collection, Street Maitenance, mainly should be privitized.

I am more on the fence on education (I think there should be public and private in this case).

Police, Military and the like should definitely be government runned, but also intercooperative with private militia/security (Military/Police should be accountable to the civil authority). However, equipment should be obtained through private market.

Trash collection, Street Maitenance, mainly should be privitized.

I am more on the fence on education (I think there should be public and private in this case).

Police, Military and the like should definitely be government runned, but also intercooperative with private militia/security (Military/Police should be accountable to the civil authority). However, equipment should be obtained through private market.

How do you pay for street maintenance of quiet surburban residential streets. Making each a private road, supported directly by the residents is possible, but you destroy your local traffic flow and road network connectivity if you do, and lose an essential factor in integrating the community. The actual maintenance will be done by private contractors, but there is no reason why economies of scale and efficiencies gained from the statistics should not be used by contracting as a whole community. These last points also apply to trash collection.

The local government is simply a representative of the community as a whole, enbling the community to take advantage of scale efficiencies.

Military has to be national. Police, depends upon the scale of the nation. Local police (i.e city/town) are not particularly effective with mobile criminals. State police however are another matter if we are dealing with a large nation.

We are not proposing anarchy here. The government does have a role to play, and this should not be sacrificed in the drive for economy. What is proposed is that the government performs its role efficiently and uses the market to ensure this.

Just at the local level. Services such as basic education, road maintenance (tolls are fine for interstates, but they don't work to well for residential back streets.) Trash collection.

I do, however see this in a different light to that proposed earlier. I see it more as companies competing to win a fixed term contract to provide these services for the area, rather than each consumer choosing at any time to change company.

There is a service that needs to be supplied for the society to function, there is no reason why this can not be done through private companies, or a collective of such companies. What a local election is, is to select the area manager, who will allocate these contracts, negotiate the deals for the area.

It is not greatly different to the current contracting out of services, it simply becomes statutory that services be contracted out to minimise government size.

So elections will be held to choose representives that will pool community resources through taxes and representing the population in discussions with private service providers. I like that idea for several public works, like waste management, electricity, phone service, and water. I don't feel it is necessary for education, as that should be a completely up to the individual, and for roads, which for the sake of commerce should be funded nationally.

How do you pay for street maintenance of quiet surburban residential streets. Making each a private road, supported directly by the residents is possible, but you destroy your local traffic flow and road network connectivity if you do, and lose an essential factor in integrating the community. The actual maintenance will be done by private contractors, but there is no reason why economies of scale and efficiencies gained from the statistics should not be used by contracting as a whole community. These last points also apply to trash collection.

Actually, that's what I meant, they should be handled by contractors by the general government direction (obviosult not for "private" roads". And trash collection can be an issue by communities, or by individuals (BFI for example, is a private sanitation company) But the work should be privatized; however, there should be a civil authority whose responsibility is over-view of such needs, and who job is to place "Contracts" for such work...


The local government is simply a representative of the community as a whole, enbling the community to take advantage of scale efficiencies.


Military has to be national. Police, depends upon the scale of the nation. Local police (i.e city/town) are not particularly effective with mobile criminals. State police however are another matter if we are dealing with a large nation.


Actually, here I think we should have both. Military at the National Level (though with both civil and private militias in the local realm). Police handled by locality (city/county/state), however with applicability of private security. And such should be cooperative.


We are not proposing anarchy here. The government does have a role to play, and this should not be sacrificed in the drive for economy. What is proposed is that the government performs its role efficiently and uses the market to ensure this.

I'm not proposing it either... I think there was merely miscommunication.

So elections will be held to choose representives that will pool community resources through taxes and representing the population in discussions with private service providers. I like that idea for several public works, like waste management, electricity, phone service, and water. I don't feel it is necessary for education, as that should be a completely up to the individual, and for roads, which for the sake of commerce should be funded nationally.

The maintenance of Interstates (or equivalents) should be funded by tolls, the construction is a national government matter. I still feel however that the 'capillaries' of the road system. The roads that get you to your house, are not a national concern. They are a local matter. In some regions people will not be too bothered about the state of the local roads (rural regions in the main where off road vehicles are the norm). In other regions the state of the local roads will be of great importance (urban areas where easy and smooth access to services is required). How do you reconcile the difference in spending utility if this is dealt with nationally?

The maintenance of Interstates (or equivalents) should be funded by tolls, the construction is a national government matter. I still feel however that the 'capillaries' of the road system. The roads that get you to your house, are not a national concern. They are a local matter. In some regions people will not be too bothered about the state of the local roads (rural regions in the main where off road vehicles are the norm). In other regions the state of the local roads will be of great importance (urban areas where easy and smooth access to services is required). How do you reconcile the difference in spending utility if this is dealt with nationally?

A mixture of local and national would be most feasible, with regional government providing for local roads within the region, and national government maintaining roads that provide inter-regional travel. Precedent should go to the national government in determining jurisdiction.

A mixture of local and national would be most feasible, with regional government providing for local roads within the region, and national government maintaining roads that provide inter-regional travel. Precedent should go to the national government in determining jurisdiction.
You mean, sort of like the US before nationalization under FDR? :rolleyes:

You mean, sort of like the US before nationalization under FDR? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Seeing as I am unfamiliar with the transportation policies prior to the 1930's, I guess I will say "Maybe?".

A mixture of local and national would be most feasible, with regional government providing for local roads within the region, and national government maintaining roads that provide inter-regional travel. Precedent should go to the national government in determining jurisdiction.

I can go with that for construction. Why should the national government be burdened with the maintenance of inter-regional roads? They can easily and efficiently be paid for by the users.

I can go with that for construction. Why should the national government be burdened with the maintenance of inter-regional roads? They can easily and efficiently be paid for by the users.

I mean that the government should make sure that roads that provide inter-regional travel are maintained, not that the government should fund them.

On a side note, even though I use interstates far less than most, I would still almost like for them to be funded by taxes, due to the inconvenience of toll roads.

I mean that the government should make sure that roads that provide inter-regional travel are maintained, not that the government should fund them.

On a side note, even though I use interstates far less than most, I would still almost like for them to be funded by taxes, due to the inconvenience of toll roads.

We are assuming a technology level sufficient to place transponders in vehicles or driving licences. Automatic charging is possible. You just get a monthly bill, transfer the funds from your account. How is it inconvenient?

I prefer it to be in the licence as well as in the vehicle. (Avoids the "I wasn't driving" claims)

We are assuming a technology level sufficient to place transponders in vehicles or driving licences. Automatic charging is possible. You just get a monthly bill, transfer the funds from your account. How is it inconvenient?

I prefer it to be in the licence as well as in the vehicle. (Avoids the "I wasn't driving" claims)

That would not be inconvenient at all. I was just not assuming that sort of system, since a system like that hasn't even been close to being implemented.

Many of my arguments so far have been heavily biased by the fact that I have always lived in the States and there are topics on which I have never done any research on viable alternatives to systems.

Alien Born,

I will be moving around a bit over the next few weeks and cannot guarantee my participation on NS or with this political party over that time, so if you would want them, I would like to hand over the official reins of this party to you.

I will inform Arridia if you want to take over.

Alien Born,

I will be moving around a bit over the next few weeks and cannot guarantee my participation on NS or with this political party over that time, so if you would want them, I would like to hand over the official reins of this party to you.

I will inform Arridia if you want to take over.

OK I'll carry the flame for a while. That is unless anyone has any objection to this.

Good luck with the moving around (whatever it may be).

OK I'll carry the flame for a while. That is unless anyone has any objection to this.

Good luck with the moving around (whatever it may be).

Seeing as I am the founder and we are the primary contributers I don't think there should be any dissent to this.

And thanks, hopefully I will be able to check back in regularly.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Seeing as I am unfamiliar with the transportation policies prior to the 1930's, I guess I will say "Maybe?".
My point was that that was the way it used to work for MOST US policy up until FDR.

Up until FDR, the US behaved largely as your manifesto reads. Then it became "government to the rescue!" :(

My point was that that was the way it used to work for MOST US policy up until FDR.

Up until FDR, the US behaved largely as your manifesto reads. Then it became "government to the rescue!" :(

During the depression many acts, such as the TVA were helpful, but that level of intervention today is completely unnecessary and more harmful than helpful.

Government should have been pulled back immediately following WWII, unfortunately, ideologically we accepted an expansionist policy and decided to declare war on communism.

My point was that that was the way it used to work for MOST US policy up until FDR.

Up until FDR, the US behaved largely as your manifesto reads. Then it became "government to the rescue!" :(

It is also very similar to the way the UK ran things up until the second world war. There had been a socialist movement, exarcerbated by the slaughter of men in the first world war, that had just about run its course. Then we went and had another war. This meant that whole generations ended up having heard of nothing other than war or government support. Time to undo the harm caused by those circumstancial coincidences, and give the power back to the people.

Also keep in mind we live in a different time. Unlike in the 1950's people live longer and we have more money like Vittos stated

Thus welfare policies should be faded out not expanded.

Also want should be our offical party color...yellow i think is the color of liberalism, though orange will be a good pick too kind of like the party in Ukraine

Also keep in mind we live in a different time. Unlike in the 1950's people live longer and we have more money like Vittos stated

Thus welfare policies should be faded out not expanded.

Also want should be our offical party color...yellow i think is the color of liberalism, though orange will be a good pick too kind of like the party in Ukraine

I can go with orange, should get the uncommitted dutch on our side, and being associated with Holland it does tend to reconfirm a policy of individual freedom.

We are trying to keep welfare policies to a minimum, but still provide the basic footholds for the individual to climb from by their own effort.

I can go with orange, should get the uncommitted dutch on our side, and being associated with Holland it does tend to reconfirm a policy of individual freedom.

We are trying to keep welfare policies to a minimum, but still provide the basic footholds for the individual to climb from by their own effort.

Yes, our goal is complete freedom. People who are able to succeed must be given the opportunity to succeed. But those who cannot succeed should not be propped up at the expense of those who have succeeded.

Bump for any more suggestions for our manifesto. I intend to draft it out today. (Monday 23rd May GMT +3) I will post a version for suggestions, comments, additions. Repeating this as necessary until a final version is agreed.

Latest Updated Manifesto: Comments, complaints, requests for changes please:

Manifesto of the NS Classic Liberal Party.

Constitutional Principles

1. The fundamental principle of society shall be the preservation of the rights and responsibilities of the individual
a) The foremost role of government is to assure the autonomy of the individual.

b) Regulation of society shall be maintained through the fair enforcement of contracts and competitive forces of the free market.

2. The government shall not intervene in any political matter that has effect purely and solely on one individual.

3. Policies shall be directed toward universal utility for and freedom of society as a whole. If there is conflict between these two principles then freedom shall be given priority

4. Government should be at the most local level commensurate with the fulfillment of its duties toward the citizens.

5. Religion is a personal choice and of no consequence to the government, therefore religious views will not be recognized or restricted by government.

6. The Judicial system shall be completely independent of the Legislative and Executive systems. Judges shall be elected by a limited suffrage of citizens that have completed degree level education. The Judges themselves shall nominate members of a supreme court from among their number but these shall be confirmed by national vote of this limited suffrage.

7. The executive shall be directly elected by the entire adult suffrage.

8. The Legislative body shall be divided in two houses. The lower house shall have one representative per (n) citizens, such that there shall be (x) representatives.
The upper house shall be made up of experts. These shall be elected by the limited educated suffrage, in the field in which they are qualified. There being three representatives for each field. The role of the upper house is to be consultative and advisory only. All law is to be created by the lower house.

9. The age of majority. This shall be 18 or on the successful completion of a test of judgment capability. Whichever shall occur first. All individuals under the age of 18 shall have the inviolable right to take this assessment once per calendar year.

Public Policy
Education
Free basic education (6 to 12) provided for all children as this is of utility to society. Low interest loans provided for furthered education. The government shall have no control not influence on the educational curriculum for those aged 12 or above. This shall be the free choice of the institution. The parents and or children shall be free to choose which institution they desire to attend, including the option of none.

Security
Government shall be responsible for internal (police) and external (armed forces) security.

a) Under no circumstances shall conscription be allowed. The military is a profession and requires dedicated and motivated individuals.

b) Any community may institute its own policing as it so desires. In any conflict between policing agencies the publicly chartered police shall have priority.

c) There shall be a national police coordinating body, to which each area shall contribute one person, to be selected by the coordinating body.

d) The method of local policing shall be decided by local government. (Direct employment, contracting, other)

Monetary System
The government will maintain its own monetary system, but will repeal all legal tender laws to allow competition to exist.

a) Each coinage issuer will be entitled to set their own rates of interest.

b) All banking institutions shall be required to exchange their currency for the government backed currency on request

Taxation
The government shall apply a flat sales tax, with movement towards self-sufficiency.

a) Essential goods shall not be taxed. These include, but are not limited to: uncooked food, water, energy, residential housing, education, basic clothing, books, communications. Any further claims for tax free status shall be considered by the government.

Health
Emergency and Accident treatment shall be provided by the government. Bearers of health insurance that covers these functions shall receive tax credits in compensation.

a) Abortion shall be at the discretion of the woman

b) Euthanasia shall be available subject to the request being witnessed by a judge.

Trade
All goods, except those that infringe on the basic freedom of individuals (child pornography, slavery, body parts from the living etc.) shall be freely traded within the nation.

a) There will be a range of goods for which evidence of adult status shall be required for purchase: Guns, Drugs, Sex

Border Control
All people shall be at liberty to enter or leave the nation as they see fit. All persons so doing will have their identity confirmed and any convicted criminals shall be detained.

a) Persons entering the country that are convicted of crimes in other nations shall be extradited to that nation if this crime would also have been a crime in our nation.

b) There shall be no restriction on legal employment within our borders. Any person legally entering may attempt to obtain gainful employment.

c) Any person entering without passing through border control shall be presumed to be a criminal and will be returned to their nation of origin when apprehended.

Personal Relationships
These are a matter of private contract. The only condition shall be that the parties so contracting shall be legal adults.

Extension of Rights
All rights are to be extended equally to all living things that are capable of knowingly assuming the commensurate responsibilities towards the rights of others. Those living creatures that are not capable of such understanding may be sponsored by an individual that is capable of such understanding, and who shall be responsible for the behavior of the creature.

a) Implications: The mentally handicapped shall have rights concurrent to their abilities to understand the implications thereof. Where they do not understand there may be a guardian who accepts these responsibilities in order that the handicapped individuals receive their full rights.

b) If you own an animal you are responsible for its actions.

Business restriction
No business shall be restricted from any legal activity. House builders may provide mortgages, Farm owners may run abattoirs etc.

That's not classic liberalism, that's Republicanism without drug laws. Count me out.

That's not classic liberalism, that's Republicanism without drug laws. Count me out.

Explain what you would like then. It is easy to say count me out, but this is only a discussion document.

Explain what you would like then. It is easy to say count me out, but this is only a discussion document.
I put forward my preferred system of voluntary govt near the beginning of this thread. If the free market is superior why do you support govt meddling in important areas such as health and education? That's virtually admitting that you don't trust the free market.

I put forward my preferred system of voluntary govt near the beginning of this thread. If the free market is superior why do you support govt meddling in important areas such as health and education? That's virtually admitting that you don't trust the free market.

Your preferred system of voluntary government was not accepted by the community here on the basis that it is unworkable. It is a nioce idea, but impractical.
Classic Liberalism has always supported that the government provides the basic essentials for the community. I, personally dislike the minimum healthcare, but there are good arguments for it within a classic liberal framework. Education to a minimum standard has to be government sponsored if there is to be no welfare state support for families. If this is not done, then you punish individuals for the failures of other individuals (ie.e their parents).

It is not government meddling, in that there is no restriction on anyone else providing these services, and tax credits will be provided for those that can use private services. It is simply a very very minimal provision of equality in respecting the rights of individuals to health and education.

What do you suggest is done with the orphan or the car accident victim who is unemployed?

Bump, for the time zone.

I should join this party, maybe.

Though I was wondering how many waves I could make with a Smoker's Rights Party.

I should join this party, maybe.

Though I was wondering how many waves I could make with a Smoker's Rights Party.

You would be very welcome here. (I have just been following your arguments in the Government vs Smoking thread. ) Our position on smoking is that it is individual choice, both for the smoker and non smoker as well as for the owner of establishments open to the public.

Smoking in open air public spaces will be permitted.

where is the manifesto please?
Ive searched through several pages...cant find one...

where is the manifesto please?
Ive searched through several pages...cant find one...

Page 14

b) All banking institutions shall be required to exchange their currency for the government backed currency on request

This is my only problem with the manifesto, as it is a legal tender laws. Banking institutions should only exchange currency with the government when they decide to as a wise business investment. The government should have no monetary controls.

Other than that, the manifesto looks great, and I will add it to the original post.

I was interested in this party when I first saw the name.

My interest starting going down after that.

Classical Liberalism =/= Anarcho-capitalism

I was interested in this party when I first saw the name.

My interest starting going down after that.

Classical Liberalism =/= Anarcho-capitalism

Nowhere within our manifesto did we advocate the elimination of government. In fact, when the idea of privatised government came up it was rejected. This party was based on trying to insure the utmost in individual liberty, both economically and socially, which is a central tenet of classic liberalism.

What problems do you have with our manifesto?

Page 14
thank you...


Free basic education (6 to 12) provided for all children as this is of utility to society. Low interest loans provided for furthered education. The government shall have no control not influence on the educational curriculum for those aged 12 or above.

Where does classic liberalism support government schooling?
Would it not be better to use a "voucher" style system?

Monetary System
The government will maintain its own monetary system, but will repeal all legal tender laws to allow competition to exist.

a) Each coinage issuer will be entitled to set their own rates of interest.

b) All banking institutions shall be required to exchange their currency for the government backed currency on request

This is still a legal tender system. The gold system used paper, but the paper was able "to be exchanged for gold on request". Hence, a gold backed dollar. The legal tender system we have now is simply a government backed dollar, which you would replace with the same.
Banks can already issue their own currency, exchangeable for government currency. It is called a demand deposit(checking) account.

Security
Government shall be responsible for internal (police) and external (armed forces) security.

a) Under no circumstances shall conscription be allowed. The military is a profession and requires dedicated and motivated individuals.

b) Any community may institute its own policing as it so desires. In any conflict between policing agencies the publicly chartered police shall have priority.

c) There shall be a national police coordinating body, to which each area shall contribute one person, to be selected by the coordinating body.

d) The method of local policing shall be decided by local government. (Direct employment, contracting, other)

what about issues like national security/intelligence? What about border patrol, coast guard, CIA, NSA, and FBI? How would the authorities protect electronic property?


a) Essential goods shall not be taxed. These include, but are not limited to: uncooked food, water, energy, residential housing, education, basic clothing, books, communications. Any further claims for tax free status shall be considered by the government.

Wouldnt it be better to include a "rebate" system, as in the FairTax plan?
This would help to eliminate an area of likely corruption.

I think that there are also certain areas of possible corruption to watch for. For example, the poll tests, and the other times where one must be "qualified" in order to vote, etc.

Also, I would like to see a bill of rights, or a concrete clause that proves there is no need for one(----9th and 10th amendments). Perhaps something that gives the government specific abilities, then forbids them from doing anything else, or doing certain things in fulfillment of those duties.

silly liberals, tricks are for kids.

I'll join this the day pigs fly.

silly liberals, tricks are for kids.


I'll join this the day pigs fly.


Do either of you actually have anything to say?

thank you...

Where does classic liberalism support government schooling?
Would it not be better to use a "voucher" style system?
True classic liberalism, i.e. Adam Smith et al, did support the provision of a basic education for the populace, on the basis that this was something that all would benefit from, and inparticular commerce would benefit from.

However, If you feel that providing education in terms of reading, writing and arithmetic to children is beyond the scope of government, how do you propose to provide such basics to the workforce.

This is still a legal tender system. The gold system used paper, but the paper was able "to be exchanged for gold on request". Hence, a gold backed dollar. The legal tender system we have now is simply a government backed dollar, which you would replace with the same.
Banks can already issue their own currency, exchangeable for government currency. It is called a demand deposit(checking) account.
There are laws in existence that prevent anyone other than the government issuing legal tewnder at the moment. What legal tender means is that the srip has to be accepted in the nations stores etc. No storekeeper has to accept your cheque (Sorry I use the UK spelling) but if banks could issue their own legal tender it has to be accepted. The alternative is to scrap legal tender altogether and then nobody has to accept dollars when tendered as payment.

All that is being suggested is that the monopoly on legal tender is broken.

what about issues like national security/intelligence? What about border patrol, coast guard, CIA, NSA, and FBI? How would the authorities protect electronic property?
Border issues were detailed. Why should we want a CIA? (I don't have a clue what the NSA is, don't assume we are all from the USA). The FBI or equivalent was detailed under security.


Wouldnt it be better to include a "rebate" system, as in the FairTax plan?
This would help to eliminate an area of likely corruption. At the cost of a huge amount of bureaucracy. It is always better not to charge, than to charge and refund. Simpler, easier, and does not squeeze the poor while they wait for the refund to arrive.

I think that there are also certain areas of possible corruption to watch for. For example, the poll tests, and the other times where one must be "qualified" in order to vote, etc.
True, but where there are people there will always be possibilities for corruption. The only way to eliminate this possibility completely would to be to go anarchic, and eliminate the government altogether. A step too far surely.

Also, I would like to see a bill of rights, or a concrete clause that proves there is no need for one(----9th and 10th amendments). Perhaps something that gives the government specific abilities, then forbids them from doing anything else, or doing certain things in fulfillment of those duties.

I, personally am opposed to codified constitutions, but if you or anyone else wants to draft such a document/item, we can include it.

VO

I think Chaos Experiment (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/35910/page=display_nation/nation=chaos_experiment) may not have seen the word "Classic", or understood what it meant.

This is still a legal tender system. The gold system used paper, but the paper was able "to be exchanged for gold on request". Hence, a gold backed dollar. The legal tender system we have now is simply a government backed dollar, which you would replace with the same.
Banks can already issue their own currency, exchangeable for government currency. It is called a demand deposit(checking) account.

This was actually done by goldsmiths and blacksmiths originally. They were usually the only people who could afford a safe. When you rode into town you put your gold in their safe and they gave you slips of paper which you would use as checking slips---No FDIC, but then if we REALLY had a run on banks in the modern era would get your money? I think it is unlikely and if you did it would be paper. The ONLY thing Nixon ever did right was to make it legal to own gold again.


what about issues like national security/intelligence? What about border patrol, coast guard, CIA, NSA, and FBI? How would the authorities protect electronic property?.--Why can't people simply protect their own stuff? Or pay for security? Did you know that the police are NOT liable if they don't respond to a 911 call? Does Al Qiada want you personally? Probably not. So then protect your own stuff or pay on a one to one basis rather than rely on a middle man (city government) to suplly half-assed services. A true market based economy would ensure better services are available to use.


I think that there are also certain areas of possible corruption to watch for. For example, the poll tests, and the other times where one must be "qualified" in order to vote, etc.--Why do we always need a vote? I used to be the biggest proponent of democracy till I realized it is still only a "representative" democracy. If we are to have any freedom at all a) I should be able to represent myself at all times, no individual knows what I need as much as me. b) Your vote shouldn't be a constraint on my freedom. For example, what if everyone else votes for a road that goes through MY property, does that give you the right to take my land to build the road if everyone else says its okay???


Also, I would like to see a bill of rights, or a concrete clause that proves there is no need for one(----9th and 10th amendments). Perhaps something that gives the government specific abilities, then forbids them from doing anything else, or doing certain things in fulfillment of those duties.--The problem with concrete rules is that they don't allow for flexibility in the change of times. For example, since our constitution doesn't mention homosexuality, gays are not treated equally. (thats the first example that comes to mind, another is the the treatment of native Americans during the Indian wars.)

I'll join this the day pigs fly.
They do. They have helicopters they use to help them watch the traffic and chase criminals in cars.

Is there an HQ for this party? Someone should create a region for it so we may move a puppet there and discuss. We could be like the Cato Institute of NationStates.

VO

I think Chaos Experiment (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/35910/page=display_nation/nation=chaos_experiment) may not have seen the word "Classic", or understood what it meant.

Oh, believe me, I know quite a lot about classical liberalism. Enough to know that it loses its attractiveness to the mainstream when you drift into extremism.

Oh, believe me, I know quite a lot about classical liberalism. Enough to know that it loses its attractiveness to the mainstream when you drift into extremism.

We are not drifting at all, and not even close to extremism. Try looking at anarcho-capitalism if you want extremism to criticise.
Whether our brand of maximum freedom compatible with a minimum levle of humanity will appeal will be decided when the election arrives.

My judgement of you misunderstanding was based on having looked at you NS Nation. The policies you have adopted there may be compatible with modern US terminology liberalism, but not with classic liberalism.

Alien Born, should we make campaign posters? I believe the 'Democratic Communist Party' has.

We now have a region.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/33081/page=display_region/region=classic_liberal

Alien Born, should we make campaign posters? I believe the 'Democratic Communist Party' has.

Can you understand how and why these will be used? I can't.

It is not like people will simply see the posters in passing, as they would in RL. It seems like a lot of work for no purpose. It may be good if we worked out a few slogans that we can post or use as sigs etc. though.

Can you understand how and why these will be used? I can't.

It is not like people will simply see the posters in passing, as they would in RL. It seems like a lot of work for no purpose. It may be good if we worked out a few slogans that we can post or use as sigs etc. though.
Good idea. I shall move to the new region immediately.

As may well be obvious, there is a sig slogan for our party. If you want to join, you don't have to use it, (that would be slightly against our principles) but it would be appreciated if you do. Suggestions for further slogans welcome.

Use your freedom to choose. Classic Liberals 05
...I know that was corny.

Corny works with slogans. I will probably start alternating to overcome the "I've seen that before" factor. The more slogans the merrier.

[QUOTE=Alien Born]

(I don't have a clue what the NSA is, don't assume we are all from the USA).
QUOTE]

The NSA stands for National Security Agency.......they are the code breakers of the US Government (Dan Brown goes on ad nauseum about them in Digital Fortress).

On behalf of the one-man Objectivist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423022) [the "Up yours!" party], I'd like to extend the olive branch to your fine organization. We stand for many of the same principles, as a point of fact. But, sadly I cannot associate myself with a collective as large as this one, as it will only serve to compromise my ideas.

Alien Born, should we make campaign posters? I believe the 'Democratic Communist Party' has.
Sorry that I've been out of this thread for a while... but I'm back. :D

If we're going to make campaign posters, I'll volunteer my graphic design skills to making them. :)

Sweet, someone else from Corpus.......glad to hear it!

Sorry that I've been out of this thread for a while... but I'm back. :D

If we're going to make campaign posters, I'll volunteer my graphic design skills to making them. :)

You are free to do as you wish (of course). Any and all contributions are welcome.

Don't worry about having been away, we have no attendance requirements (well basically we don't have rules do we.)

You are free to do as you wish (of course). Any and all contributions are welcome.

Don't worry about having been away, we have no attendance requirements (well basically we don't have rules do we.)
Well, I'm concerned with a few things that have been added in my absence...but I can live with them since I agree with the overall concepts we have come up with. :)

And let's throw around some slogans that I can work with. I can't do the campaigning all by myself. ;)

Sweet, someone else from Corpus.......glad to hear it!
What would be really funny is if we had met somewhere or knew of each other IRL. CC is the biggest "small town" ever.

Heck, if you listen to Lago religiously, you've probably heard me on the radio. I've been "in the box" a couple times. :D

Liberty of the Individual. Classic Liberals 05
Jesus, now more than ever.
Don't vote for a raw deal, vote for the real deal, Classic Liberals 05.

Even online communists apparently need propaganda to get people to accept their ideas. So I suggest this:

Commies are Bastards

NS Classic Liberals

Even online communists apparently need propaganda to get people to accept their ideas.

Not at all. You will notice that people started flocking to us way before PM came up with an election poster. BOO, capitalists! :p

We dont need propaganda! How dare you!

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/6356/rtp3cg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

*runs*

We dont need propaganda! How dare you!

*runs*

for the position of janitor, I presume.