NationStates Jolt Archive

for the position of janitor, I presume.
Better to do some honest work than sit on your arse ordering about employees

Better to do some honest work than sit on your arse ordering about employees

Fine. After we win the election, I promise you we will reserve the position of janitor in the government for you. Not a lot of work (a very small government), and less pay, but at least it is honest.

Fine. After we win the election, I promise you we will reserve the position of janitor in the government for you. Not a lot of work (a very small government), and less pay, but at least it is honest.

score. Ill have access to dangerous chemicals yes?

score. Ill have access to dangerous chemicals yes?

No. water and a brush. All specialised and skilled work is contracted out to provide opportunities for the talented. This leaves just mopping up spilt coffee for the grunts like yourself. There will of course be opportunities for self improvement. There will be educartional loans available and plenty of opportunity for you to show your enterpreneurial talent with a mop.

No. water and a brush. All specialised and skilled work is contracted out to provide opportunities for the talented. This leaves just mopping up spilt coffee for the grunts like yourself. There will of course be opportunities for self improvement. There will be educartional loans available and plenty of opportunity for you to show your enterpreneurial talent with a mop.
Typical libertarian BS. Fine, I'll just beat the ruling classes with a mop

Typical libertarian BS. Fine, I'll just beat the ruling classes with a mop

What ruling classes? We are all individuals, stop trying to push us into your particular twisted pigeonholes, and in particular stop trying to do it with a mop.

What ruling classes? We are all individuals, stop trying to push us into your particular twisted pigeonholes, and in particular stop trying to do it with a mop.
What? You're denying the very nature of capitalism which splits people into groups of those who can make money off the labour of others and those who actually work for a living.

By the way- are we arguing in three different threads?

I thought of something as a saying. Vote for a seperation of economy and state. That's now very clear, however.
Anyway, we liberals value the individual, for that is all there really is.

What? You're denying the very nature of capitalism which splits people into groups of those who can make money off the labour of others and those who actually work for a living.

By the way- are we arguing in three different threads?

That is just the narrow minded prejudiced trotskyite view of capitalism.

And yes, or no. Are we arguing, or is it repartee? Either way it keeps our party thread up the list without being obvious.

That is just the narrow minded prejudiced trotskyite view of capitalism.

And yes, or no. Are we arguing, or is it repartee? Either way it keeps our party thread up the list without being obvious.
No its an honest evaluation of capitalism while you attempt to gloss over the cracks of a failing system.

Well its hardly arguing. But you are right, it is subtle

No its an honest evaluation of capitalism while you attempt to gloss over the cracks of a failing system.

Well its hardly arguing. But you are right, it is subtle
Oh ho, look who is talking about a failing system! If I do recall all largescale attempts at communism have failed miserably.

No its an honest evaluation of capitalism while you attempt to gloss over the cracks of a failing system.

Well its hardly arguing. But you are right, it is subtle

It is an evaluation of capitalism which depends upon built in state protectionism for the status quo. The state is what maintains the class system, not the market. Without corporate welfare etc. the current fat cats would be hunted down and destroyed by the lean mean economic machine of the free market.

But as a mop wielder, I really don't expect you to understand this, so stick with your misguided religious view of economics.

Oh ho, look who is talking about a failing system! If I do recall all largescale attempts at communism have failed miserably.
They are all run by corrupt bastards though. Not true trots

I would definitely keep both national and private healthcare (as in the UK) as this gives people most choice over whether to reveive health care paid for theough taxes or whether to pay themselves. I'll try and come up with more when I can...

Hail glorious Willsillvania, democratic socialism rocks!

It is an evaluation of capitalism which depends upon built in state protectionism for the status quo. The state is what maintains the class system, not the market. Without corporate welfare etc. the current fat cats would be hunted down and destroyed by the lean mean economic machine of the free market.

But as a mop wielder, I really don't expect you to understand this, so stick with your misguided religious view of economics.
So if we just left it up to corporate rule, corrupt fat cats would somehow be hunted down? I somehow doubt it

Hi people. I was invited to join the party. So here I am. I'm ready to enter the debates and whatever else needs done. :)

My ideas for campaign slogans:

"Classic Liberalism - Allowing you to take care of #1"

"Classic Liberalism - Liberty and Justice for All"

Also, we could use select historical quotes in a "So-and-So would vote Classic Liberalism" campaign. :) Example:

Albert Would Vote Classic Liberalism
"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein

Also, we could use select historical quotes in a "So-and-So would vote Classic Liberalism" campaign. :) Example:

Albert Would Vote Classic Liberalism
"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein

But I heard in another thread, that Einstein was actually a Socialist. Maybe we could use Snake Plissken as an example. That character from Escape From New York is supposed to be one, and the man who plays him, Kurt Russell, is as well.

Hi people. I was invited to join the party. So here I am. I'm ready to enter the debates and whatever else needs done. :)

Welcome on board. Any comments or suggestions for our manifesto.
Basically at the moment we are playing the raise public awareness game.

Amoingst other things this has involved posting at relatively frequent intervals here, entering other HS party threads and harrasing them a little (As DHomme has been doing to us). TG ing people who may be interewsted in outr policies (such as yourself).

Oh, and sig advertising the party in dark orange.

Albert Would Vote Classic Liberalism
"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein

That would work if einstein hadn't had said
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils[society's ills], namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion."
He was a committed democratic socialist, NOT an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian/classic liberal/whatever

Welcome on board. Any comments or suggestions for our manifesto.
Basically at the moment we are playing the raise public awareness game.

Amoingst other things this has involved posting at relatively frequent intervals here, entering other HS party threads and harrasing them a little (As DHomme has been doing to us). TG ing people who may be interewsted in outr policies (such as yourself).

Oh, and sig advertising the party in dark orange.
Im not harassing :(
I resent that, you bourgeois pig

Im not harassing :(
I resent that, you bourgeois pig

OK, I'll rephrase it: In the same way as DHomme has been posting clichés in ours.

Happier :p

OK, I'll rephrase it: In the same way as DHomme has been posting clichés in ours.

Happier :p

Much happier you tool of the industrial elite, you

That would work if Einstein hadn't had said
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils[society's ills], namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion."
He was a committed democratic socialist, NOT an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian/classic liberal/whatever

Hey, he actually knows something. He knows that a rather overrated physicist who needed help to do the maths, had that to say about politics which was a subject he new nothing about.

If we are going to use authority figures they have to be relevant to politics. No scientists or actors, no sportsmen or sex symbols.

If we are going to use authority figures they have to be relevant to politics. No scientists or actors, no sportsmen or sex symbols.

Lets use Ron Paul then. Best politician around today with classic liberal ideas.

Hey, he actually knows something. He knows that a rather overrated physicist who needed help to do the maths, had that to say about politics which was a subject he new nothing about.

If we are going to use authority figures they have to be relevant to politics. No scientists or actors, no sportsmen or sex symbols.
This isn't the first time you've dissed Einstein...what gives?

Hey, he actually knows something. He knows that a rather overrated physicist who needed help to do the maths, had that to say about politics which was a subject he new nothing about.

If we are going to use authority figures they have to be relevant to politics. No scientists or actors, no sportsmen or sex symbols.

Oh I see, just diss me why don't you? Pft. Fine.

AYN RAND WAS A TOOL

This isn't the first time you've dissed Einstein...what gives?

Go read up on Einstein. He had some brilliant insights into the nature of the universe. He needed help to express these mathematically, and he is regarded, falsely as the archetypal genius. He was hopeless at dealing with people, money, governments etc. All the same people are trying to use him as an authority figure in politics. I am sorry, but Chilavert has more political credentials than Einstein, and not too many people start citing Paraguayan goalkeepers, do they.

Oh I see, just diss me why don't you? Pft. Fine.

AYN RAND WAS A TOOL

I wasn't dissing my straight man, I would never do that. I was dissing Einstein.

Ayn Rand may have been a tool, but at least she knew something about politics.

And, by the way we are Classic Liberals, which whilst it may be very close to libertarian, is not exactly the same. We more follow the scottish professor of mirals that the American philosopher of objectivism.

AYN RAND WAS A TOOL
Ahw, so we do agree on something.

I wasn't dissing my straight man, I would never do that. I was dissing Einstein.

Ayn Rand may have been a tool, but at least she knew something about politics.

And, by the way we are Classic Liberals, which whilst it may be very close to libertarian, is not exactly the same. We more follow the scottish professor of mirals that the American philosopher of objectivism.

So explain the difference for me then. Im interested in all branches of politics, even the wrong ones- HAHAHAHA. But seriously- the major differences, please?

If we are going to use authority figures they have to be relevant to politics. No scientists or actors, no sportsmen or sex symbols.

--Ditto that, but leave in the sex symbols..hehehehehehehehe

And, by the way we are Classic Liberals, which whilst it may be very close to libertarian, is not exactly the same. We more follow the scottish professor of mirals that the American philosopher of objectivism.

Not all Libertarians follow Rand. I think objectivism is abit nitpicky about religion, a true Libertarian shouldn't brow beat anyone for what they believe, just beat the snot out of them if they try to enforce it on anyone else.

So explain the difference for me then. Im interested in all branches of politics, even the wrong ones- HAHAHAHA. But seriously- the major differences, please?
One has a penis and the other has a vagina, oh sorry you meant the philosophies, um...

One has a penis and the other has a vagina, oh sorry you meant the philosophies, um...
*wonders what the hell happened to kervoskia*

--Ditto that, but leave in the sex symbols..hehehehehehehehe

That's why I'm still in the party.

Not all Libertarians follow Rand. I think objectivism is abit nitpicky about religion, a true Libertarian shouldn't brow beat anyone for what they believe, just beat the snot out of them if they try to enforce it on anyone else.

Should we really capitalize the "l" in libertarianism? People may confuse us with the Libertarian Party here.

Should we really capitalize the "l" in libertarianism? People may confuse us with the Libertarian Party here.
Use a small 'l' just for the sake of consistency.

I must bring up something for the manifesto. We claim to respect everyone's rights, and yet we have down that people under 18 don't have rights. Shouldn't they have at least SOME rights? For instance, what do we say when a parent wants to raise a child as a Southern Baptist, but the teen doesn't want to be a part of that denomination?

Or what about cities having curfews for people under 18? Isn't that against their rights?

Should we really capitalize the "l" in libertarianism? People may confuse us with the Libertarian Party here. I tend to use them interchangable as that is the party I tend to vote with in the US, I'll use lower case in the future, except when I get self-referential...LOL

OK... since Einstein is out... here's a Ron Paul quote:The obligations of our representatives...are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.
- Ron Paul

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.

Issued currency is in and of itself unstable and something that is the hallmark of some varying degree of authoritarian.

What we need is a return to the gold standard.

Also, this nation is one of two that were originally founded to try both ways (Republican communism and anarchist capitalism). Now it's just trying to make the most powerful nation game-wise.

Issued currency is in and of itself unstable and something that is the hallmark of some varying degree of authoritarian.

What we need is a return to the gold standard.

Also, this nation is one of two that were originally founded to try both ways (Republican communism and anarchist capitalism). Now it's just trying to make the most powerful nation game-wise.
We could never maintain the gold standard for very long.

I must bring up something for the manifesto. We claim to respect everyone's rights, and yet we have down that people under 18 don't have rights. Shouldn't they have at least SOME rights? For instance, what do we say when a parent wants to raise a child as a Southern Baptist, but the teen doesn't want to be a part of that denomination?

Or what about cities having curfews for people under 18? Isn't that against their rights?

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.

We do not have down that people under 18 do not have rights. We have that those that show themselves to be capable of making responsible decisions, understanding that their actions have consequences, and that these consequences they are responsible for shall have rights. They shall be forced to be self resposible at their 18th birthday (a final cut off) but they can adopt this position at any age prior to that.
Yes even a 2 year old could take the test. It would be a miracle, and I don't believe in miracles, if it passed, but it has the right to take it. (Actually so does a one year old and a neonate, but there are physical problems with writing at those ages.)

We could never maintain the gold standard for very long.

Why not?

Why not?
At this point in time I don't think we would have enough gold to maitain it. It seems practical, but it may not be plausable. I choose to go with Friedman on this one.

I applaud you men, the world could use more people like you.

We do not have down that people under 18 do not have rights. We have that those that show themselves to be capable of making responsible decisions, understanding that their actions have consequences, and that these consequences they are responsible for shall have rights. They shall be forced to be self resposible at their 18th birthday (a final cut off) but they can adopt this position at any age prior to that.
Yes even a 2 year old could take the test. It would be a miracle, and I don't believe in miracles, if it passed, but it has the right to take it. (Actually so does a one year old and a neonate, but there are physical problems with writing at those ages.)

Yes, but the Age of Majority has to do with age to sign contracts and whatnot. I'm talking simple rights such as what they believe and such. Teenagers are rebellious, and if they don't pass the test early, they may end up worshipping something just because their parents told them to from a early age by fear of a beating, which we do allow.

At this point in time I don't think we would have enough gold to maitain it. It seems practical, but it may not be plausable. I choose to go with Friedman on this one.

Remember we are dealing with NS here, not the US or any other existing country. We have enough gold.

Remember we are dealing with NS here, not the US or any other existing country. We have enough gold.
Then the gold standard is a wonderful idea.

Yes, but the Age of Majority has to do with age to sign contracts and whatnot. I'm talking simple rights such as what they believe and such. Teenagers are rebellious, and if they don't pass the test early, they may end up worshipping something just because their parents told them to from a early age by fear of a beating, which we do allow.

If the youngster is not capable of passing the test, then this indicates that the youngster does not have sufficient experience/intelligence/wit whatever you care to call it to make their own judgements and be responsible for themself. In this case the parent is responsible for the actions of the juvenile and as such it is unreasonable to attribute this responsibility without also attributing comensurate authority. One or two kids may get caught in this trap, but I for one can not see a better way. If you can then please suggest it.

New slogans:

"Collectivism Never Works - Vote Classic Liberalism"

"Classic Liberalism - Social Guilt Not Included"

"Giving You The Power To Succeed - Classic Liberalism"

If the youngster is not capable of passing the test, then this indicates that the youngster does not have sufficient experience/intelligence/wit whatever you care to call it to make their own judgements and be responsible for themself. In this case the parent is responsible for the actions of the juvenile and as such it is unreasonable to attribute this responsibility without also attributing comensurate authority. One or two kids may get caught in this trap, but I for one can not see a better way. If you can then please suggest it.

In regards to the test, how can we know it will be fair? The test, I am assuming, would be made by adults and therefore would be on either an overadvanced or underadvanced level for younger people. (For my source on this issue, look at Public school standardized testing) What kind of questions would this test have? Some may not be well off in math skills. Others not well off in logic and reasoning. Others may just have issues with tests.

Perhaps a system whereby if the person under 18 realizes that he doesn't have rights, and brings it up, he has thereby shown that he has reasoning skills, and may therefore get such rights.

Another possibility could be an abridged version of rights for people under 18.

Another possibility could be an abridged version of rights for people under 18.
Abridged Bill of Rights for Persons Under 18

1. You have the right to be respectful of your elders.

2. You have the right to shut your mouth and listen to your parents.

3. You have the right to be disciplined when you screw up.

4. You have the right to shut your mouth until you actually know what you're talking about.

5. You have the right to keep your damned pants on when alone with the opposite (or same) sex.

6. You have the right for your life to be under the parental microscope until you're old enough to move out, get a job and pay your own bills.

I'm stopping here because I'm lazy right now. ;)

In regards to the test, how can we know it will be fair? The test, I am assuming, would be made by adults and therefore would be on either an overadvanced or underadvanced level for younger people. (For my source on this issue, look at Public school standardized testing) What kind of questions would this test have? Some may not be well off in math skills. Others not well off in logic and reasoning. Others may just have issues with tests.

Perhaps a system whereby if the person under 18 realizes that he doesn't have rights, and brings it up, he has thereby shown that he has reasoning skills, and may therefore get such rights.

Another possibility could be an abridged version of rights for people under 18.

Merely realising your position is a start but it is not enough. I am not a developmental psychologist or an experet in psychometrics, but there have to be ways of determining if people are capable of making sound judgements. that is all we would be looking for.
It would have to include questions of this type:

You experiment with various substances that a schoolmate gave you to try and which you know to be potentially addictive. After a while you become dependant on one of these substances. Who is responsible for this dependence?

If they answer anything other than "I am" or the equivalent then their answer would count against them. I do not consider that the test would demand mathematical or specialised linguistic skills, Just good common sense thinking.

Restricted rights are difficult. Which ones do you give when, and why those ones. Either the person is capable of mature judgement in which case they can choose to be an adult, or they are not and they are still a child.

Abridged Bill of Rights for Persons Under 18

1. You have the right to be respectful of your elders.

2. You have the right to shut your mouth and listen to your parents.

3. You have the right to be disciplined when you screw up.

4. You have the right to shut your mouth until you actually know what you're talking about.

5. You have the right to keep your damned pants on when alone with the opposite (or same) sex.

6. You have the right for your life to be under the parental microscope until you're old enough to move out, get a job and pay your own bills.

I'm stopping here because I'm lazy right now. ;)


While I get where you are coming from I seriously hope that you are not a parent Tex. I am, and this kind of thing doesn't work too well.

Kids are individuals as much as adults are but the adult is responsible and has ultimate authority. If the kid wants to take the authority away, they have to be capable of bearing the responsibility.

I do agree completely with 1, 3 and 6 though.

What we need is a return to the gold standard.

.I quite agree, but I think the gold silver, copper or what have you isn't as important as realizing there are a MILLION things people can barter. Oil, technology, goods and services, etc. It needn't be about gold only, gold is just simply the most recognizable and most used system of natural occuring metal, to become an object of trade. So the question becomes, if they barter goods and services what do you do if someone makes a deal then breaks it? You publish their name everywhere and make them infamous and no one else will do business with them.

Abridged Bill of Rights for Persons Under 18

1. You have the right to be respectful of your elders.

2. You have the right to shut your mouth and listen to your parents.

3. You have the right to be disciplined when you screw up.

4. You have the right to shut your mouth until you actually know what you're talking about.

5. You have the right to keep your damned pants on when alone with the opposite (or same) sex.

6. You have the right for your life to be under the parental microscope until you're old enough to move out, get a job and pay your own bills.

I'm stopping here because I'm lazy right now. ;)

I like L. Neil Smith's idea that kids could get divorced from their parents, that also means that they would have to assume total ownership of their own lives. If they succeed or fail it will be strictly on their own merits.But I believe this is how it should be for everyone anyway.

Damn, people! I was being facetious. :rolleyes:

I quite agree, but I think the gold silver, copper or what have you isn't as important as realizing there are a MILLION things people can barter. Oil, technology, goods and services, etc. It needn't be about gold only, gold is just simply the most recognizable and most used system of natural occuring metal, to become an object of trade. So the question becomes, if they barter goods and services what do you do if someone makes a deal then breaks it? You publish their name everywhere and make them infamous and no one else will do business with them.


1.
b) Regulation of society shall be maintained through the fair enforcement of contracts and competitive forces of the free market.


Barter is legally a contract. Anyone breaking a deal is breaking the law and subject to punishment by the state. This is one of the fundamental roles of the state.

Damn, people! I was being facetious. :rolleyes:

Being a father of an 8 year old I still agree with 1, 3, and 6; facetious or not.

Merely realising your position is a start but it is not enough. I am not a developmental psychologist or an experet in psychometrics, but there have to be ways of determining if people are capable of making sound judgements. that is all we would be looking for.
It would have to include questions of this type:

You experiment with various substances that a schoolmate gave you to try and which you know to be potentially addictive. After a while you become dependant on one of these substances. Who is responsible for this dependence?

If they answer anything other than "I am" or the equivalent then their answer would count against them. I do not consider that the test would demand mathematical or specialised linguistic skills, Just good common sense thinking.

Restricted rights are difficult. Which ones do you give when, and why those ones. Either the person is capable of mature judgement in which case they can choose to be an adult, or they are not and they are still a child.


Sounds like those under 18 would have less rights under our rule than they do now. Sorry if I'm sounding confrontational about this, but I do have issues with this.

Being a father of an 8 year old I still agree with 1, 3, and 6; facetious or not.
Well, I have a 9 and 11 year old nephew and neice that I helped raise and they're generally wonderful kids and sharp as tacks. Yes, 1, 3 and 6 is factoring heavily in their upbringing. We're still trying to teach my nephew (9 yo) that "a wise man speaks when he has something to say -- a fool speaks because he has to say something", though. ;)

We could never maintain the gold standard for very long.

Sorry, I should have specified. When I say gold standard, I mean some kind of valued commodity. It doesn't necessarily need to be gold, just something that isn't printed money that has worth only because it's "legal tender". After all, the invisible hand isn't just limited to goods, it's about the trade inherent to economy.

Gold standard is just an accepted term for this idea.

Sounds like those under 18 would have less rights under our rule than they do now. Sorry if I'm sounding confrontational about this, but I do have issues with this.

I don't understand why you think they would have less rights. They have none now. Perhaps we are at cross purposes concerning the word rights.

Rights are the compensation you recieve for respecting the desires and wishes of others. They are the counterpart of obligation. It is not possible to have a legal right and not have the legal obligation to extend this right to all other adults.

As rights imply legal obligations, non adults can not have rights. They can be awarded protections, we could impose obligations on adults to treat non adults in particular ways. These however, are contrary to the central spirit of the party. With freedom comes responsibility.

Don't worry about sounding confrontational, we all do when it is a particular point that is close to home.

If you want to extend rights to non adults, you have to extend obligations to them as well. Which ones, how, and why?

I don't understand why you think they would have less rights. They have none now. Perhaps we are at cross purposes concerning the word rights.

Rights are the compensation you recieve for respecting the desires and wishes of others. They are the counterpart of obligation. It is not possible to have a legal right and not have the legal obligation to extend this right to all other adults.

As rights imply legal obligations, non adults can not have rights. They can be awarded protections, we could impose obligations on adults to treat non adults in particular ways. These however, are contrary to the central spirit of the party. With freedom comes responsibility.

Don't worry about sounding confrontational, we all do when it is a particular point that is close to home.

If you want to extend rights to non adults, you have to extend obligations to them as well. Which ones, how, and why?

People under 18 can and do still pay taxes on their income and their purchases. This is enough for me to say that they deserve every right that those of age do.

With that, I bid you goodnight gentlemen (and ladies if any are present).
May we free this nation tomorrow from the shackles of the government machinery.

I think younger people should have a say in what school they go to. Sure, it's the adult who's doing the upbringing, up it's the child who's life is shaping here. They should have a say (though not a overruling vote) on what subjects they take, what books they can read, etc. What about these vegans that sometimes disallow their kids from drinking milk, and ingesting other various things kids need to grow?

That's another thing. I grew up in rural Virginia. A VERY conservative place. Some parents refused to let their kids read certain books, some verbally assualted teachers for teaching what they were supposed to teach (if it went against their views), and some even were sexually molested by their parents. (I know because my family took in foster kids from those situations.)

Sure, molestation is against basic human rights, which I am assuming we DO grant to underagers, but do we have a Social Services department? My guess is no. So, how do these people get punished, and what happens to the kids?

As rights imply legal obligations, non adults can not have rights. They can be awarded protections, we could impose obligations on adults to treat non adults in particular ways. These however, are contrary to the central spirit of the party. With freedom comes responsibility.

If you want to extend rights to non adults, you have to extend obligations to them as well. Which ones, how, and why?

I totally agree. We all raise our children differently too I'm sure. When my children were considerably younger (they are 10 and 6 now). I occassionally had to spank them, now that they are older I rarely have to. I would hate for the government to impose laws on child rearing as I grew up in a more country enviroment with old fashioned rules about acceptable and unacceptable behavior (negative reinforcement being the rule rather than positive reinforcement as positive reinforcement reeks of bribery to behave, there is no corollary for that in the real world once your children move out of the house.)

Sure, molestation is against basic human rights, which I am assuming we DO grant to underagers, but do we have a Social Services department? My guess is no. So, how do these people get punished, and what happens to the kids?

No social services as such, but we do have a police force. Yes we do enforce rights to your own body, in that my rights stop at your nose as a certain Whipjangle said in a region. Assault and molestation are illegal and can be dealt with.

We do however have to allow parents the right to set the 'moral' standards for their family. To do anything else would be to enforce a community value over an individual value when that community value is really only the values of a few who happen to be in charge.

If a child is capable of really deciding what they should study, which school they should go to etc, then they are capable of becomming adults in our system with the power to so decide. If all they are doing is deciding that they don't want to learn any more math or History because they don't like the teacher or the subject, with no concern for the consequences of this decision then they should not have the power to so decide anyway.

One of the side effects of freedom is that not everyone will use that freedom in a way that seems fair or reasonable to you. It is the price of being able to choose for yourself.

http://img228.echo.cx/img228/9011/friedfuck9xp.jpg

pic ~snip~

You are free to hold your opinion, but tattooing on others without permission is assault.

Which court company would you like to be tried under for this offence agasinst the body of another human?

Yes you may take your mop with you.

You are free to hold your opinion, but tattooing on others without permission is assault.

Which court company would you like to be tried under for this offence agasinst the body of another human?

Yes you may take your mop with you.
I'd like to be tried by a council of peers and a judge who is under 40, not conservative and is from a working class background.... You're screwed now

I'd like to be tried by a council of peers and a judge who is under 40, not conservative and is from a working class background.... You're screwed now

No problem. I am sure there is a justice corporation or five that meet these criteria except the non existent imaginary class requirement seeing as our society has people not classes.

A little like demanding to be tried by a council of peers and a judge under 40, not conservative and is from the Jedi school of knights.

A nice fiction, but nothing to do with real life.

No problem. I am sure there is a justice corporation or five that meet these criteria except the non existent imaginary class requirement seeing as our society has people not classes.

A little like demanding to be tried by a council of peers and a judge under 40, not conservative and is from the Jedi school of knights.

A nice fiction, but nothing to do with real life.
Right...

I was meaning to ask that, how would there be a corporation that dealt with the law- how does it get paid, does it provide its own lawyers and jurors, etc, does the victim or accused choose which corporation they'll use?

We do however have to allow parents the right to set the 'moral' standards for their family. To do anything else would be to enforce a community value over an individual value when that community value is really only the values of a few who happen to be in charge.

If a child is capable of really deciding what they should study, which school they should go to etc, then they are capable of becomming adults in our system with the power to so decide. If all they are doing is deciding that they don't want to learn any more math or History because they don't like the teacher or the subject, with no concern for the consequences of this decision then they should not have the power to so decide anyway.

Okay... I guess that's fine. I mean, it's not my IDEAL philosophy, but it's the best here, so I have voted for us, and I think this party is the best one available here. I'm guessing those under 18 have the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc, etc?

Right...

I was meaning to ask that, how would there be a corporation that dealt with the law- how does it get paid, does it provide its own lawyers and jurors, etc, does the victim or accused choose which corporation they'll use?

The accused gets to choose, but the accuser has two vetos to use if necessary. (It is in the thread somewhere.)

The accused has to pay the court costs if convicted, the accuser if aquitted.

I would like to register my dissent towards a private judicial and law enforcement system.

When the justice system is motivated by money, those with money will decide what is justice. There must be a societal level overseeing body to insure this doesn't happen.

I'd like to be tried by a council of peers and a judge who is under 40, not conservative and is from a working class background.... You're screwed now

22, voted for John Kerry, grew up on a farm.

You're guilty.

I would like to register my dissent towards a private judicial and law enforcement system.

When the justice system is motivated by money, those with money will decide what is justice. There must be a societal level overseeing body to insure this doesn't happen.

Fair enough. Law enforcement was always state run. Judicial is simply using the market to create efficiency. They would be standards imposed by inspection and observation with licencing needed.

Would that be OK for you.

Fair enough. Law enforcement was always state run. Judicial is simply using the market to create efficiency. They would be standards imposed by inspection and observation with licencing needed.

Would that be OK for you.

Yes, an overseeing body would be fine, some system of courts that individuals can report to if they feel they have been wronged by private courts.

I just don't want to see justice sacrificed for efficiency. Not a very good trade off.

If you want to appear on the political compass, the leader of this party should post the party's political compass (http://politicalcompass.org) results to this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423366

Looks like we are doing okay in the polls guys. :) (At least until coalitions form.)

Regarding representatives:



I would propose these as our representatives until we have enough for five reps.

Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Texaspunditstan
Wegason

I would swap Wegason for Kervoskia, with Wegason or LGO being the fifth.

Looks like we are doing okay in the polls guys. :) (At least until coalitions form.)

We have some tricks of our own lined up if needed (and they probably will be).

Are there any parties we could ally with? In the Parliament there will still be more socialist representatives than capitalist, at least that is how it is now.

The competition will be fearser as it ends. That's when we will need every supporter we have to help us.

We have been approached by one other party, and it appears a good match. So yes there are. Looking at the party political compass results there is also the possibility of linking up with "Up yours" but this needs to be discussed internally and then approaches made.

Sounds good. :) This is gonna be a heated match.... perhaps even a strike-anywhere match!

I've got an idea for another (non-mudslinging) campaign poster. :D

*opens up Illustrator and goes to work*

Ain't it nice having a graphic designer on board? ;)

I've got an idea for another (non-mudslinging) campaign poster. :D

*opens up Illustrator and goes to work*

Ain't it nice having a graphic designer on board? ;)
You can say that again! ;)
The "Up yours" Party will make a fine ally. Should we send him a formal telegram?

You can if you'd like, but I imagine we'll be voting more or less the same anyway. I won't rule out an alliance to keep out the left.

Incidentally, I could use some help campaigning if you really want to see your agenda through; it'd be a lot easier for me to gain a third seat for the tiebreaker at this point than for you guys to get it. If I can get up to 40 votes, I'll have the third more or less locked up. If all the leftists manage to form some kind of alliance to keep us out, it's deadlocked at 12 seats apiece, seeing as I only have two seats right now. We'd have to band with the MRR and that other one I forget right now to make our bloc a solid twelve anyway.

That said, a lot of this depends on how the next three days worth of votes goes through; though I have a suspicion that most of the voting has already been done.

You can if you'd like, but I imagine we'll be voting more or less the same anyway. I won't rule out an alliance to keep out the left.

Incidentally, I could use some help campaigning if you really want to see your agenda through; it'd be a lot easier for me to gain a third seat for the tiebreaker at this point than for you guys to get it. If I can get up to 40 votes, I'll have the third more or less locked up. If all the leftists manage to form some kind of alliance to keep us out, it's deadlocked at 12 seats apiece, seeing as I only have two seats right now. We'd have to band with the MRR and that other one I forget right now to make our bloc a solid twelve anyway.

That said, a lot of this depends on how the next three days worth of votes goes through; though I have a suspicion that most of the voting has already been done.
Cool. I'm sure there are a couple other parties we can ally with as well (nsMRR, PoWW and possibly MOBRA). If we got those, we could effectively wrest power away from the commies/socialists. Who wants to approach them?

Also, Melkor, do you need some campaign posters? If so, just post what colors/style you want and I'll whip some up tomorrow (as I HAVE to get some sleep now). :)

Cool. I'm sure there are a couple other parties we can ally with as well (nsMRR, PoWW and possibly MOBRA). If we got those, we could effectively wrest power away from the commies/socialists. Who wants to approach them?
The NSMRR needs to be courted now, they will definately be represented; same thing with the PoWW. MOBRA on the other hand, is probably not going to get a seat, provided enough votes roll in.

In my opinion, the presence of the MOBRA and the PoO [heh. PoO.] kind of skew the election; I don't take either of them seriously as parties and I get the impression they're just fucking around. I'd like to see both of them removed from Parliament.

Also, Melkor, do you need some campaign posters? If so, just post what colors/style you want and I'll whip some up tomorrow (as I HAVE to get some sleep now). :)
If you've got the time and motivation, that would be most excellent, as I see you're quite good at at. I generally favor black and white, maybe with some red for emphasis. The more eye-catching the main symbol [like, say, a giant middle finger or an angry looking man shouting through a bullhorn] the better.

I don't really have any slogans, but I suppose if you need some inspiration I could probably have something whipped up. My favorite, at the moment is "From Each According to His Will, To Each According to His Ability."

But I won't be a bother. If you've got more important things to do, then fuck it. I don't want ya bendin' over backwards for little old me.

The NSMRR needs to be courted now, they will definately be represented; same thing with the PoWW. MOBRA on the other hand, is probably not going to get a seat, provided enough votes roll in.
The NSMRR are already on board. It is worth aproaching PoWW, but I agree about ignoring the joke parties. It is going to come down to a right/centre coalition vs the socialist/communist groups and COTP which is just unconsidered gut reaction politics.

I do hope you are not calling my party a joke... I truely do want to be overlord of NS.

http://img228.echo.cx/img228/6298/tnstopus6kg.jpg

I do hope you are not calling my party a joke... I truely do want to be overlord of NS.


Joke I said, joke I meant. Why would you hope that I was not calling your party a joke, have you actually read your own manifesto?

Economic right is rating at 45%.
Economic left is rating at 48% (including CoTP).

If this keeps up the randoms will control the balance.

Well I voted NSCL, I've done my bit (even if I think you guys are closer to neo-anarchists than liberals).

Economic right is rating at 45%.
Economic left is rating at 48% (including CoTP).

If this keeps up the randoms will control the balance.

Well I voted NSCL, I've done my bit (even if I think you guys are closer to neo-anarchists than liberals).

Thank you for the vote.

We are actually quite a long way from neo-anarchism. The government has a definite and positive role to play in our system.

Hmm well, I won't be joining this party - mostly because of the unfortunate choice of name. "Liberal" being such a dirty word these days, it's the same reason I could never join a "Fascist" party no matter how attractive it would actually be. People would then be able to dismiss me using my party label, "ahhh ya liberal" without bothering to understand my actual political views. All the 'brand name' political labels really suffer from that, even if you do mean it in the classical sense.

Hmm well, I won't be joining this party - mostly because of the unfortunate choice of name. "Liberal" being such a dirty word these days, it's the same reason I could never join a "Fascist" party no matter how attractive it would actually be. People would then be able to dismiss me using my party label, "ahhh ya liberal" without bothering to understand my actual political views. All the 'brand name' political labels really suffer from that, even if you do mean it in the classical sense.

So join one of the other freedom based parties then. Just avoid the loony left please. I know we suffer from an image problem due to the misuse of the name, but we wanted to be honest to our roots and origins.

May I recommend the Party of Whatever Works, (No name problems there I presume).

Hmm well, I won't be joining this party - mostly because of the unfortunate choice of name. "Liberal" being such a dirty word these days, it's the same reason I could never join a "Fascist" party no matter how attractive it would actually be. People would then be able to dismiss me using my party label, "ahhh ya liberal" without bothering to understand my actual political views. All the 'brand name' political labels really suffer from that, even if you do mean it in the classical sense.

I would hope that someone who has been as ardent as you in your capitalistic beliefs would not be intimidated by a title with a bad connotation.

The choice is yours, but to back off from your true beliefs because of a name would be rather spineless.

How about this for a slogan?

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU THE FREEDOM TO SUCCEED

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU POWER OVER YOUR OWN LIFE

I would hope that someone who has been as ardent as you in your capitalistic beliefs would not be intimidated by a title with a bad connotation.

The choice is yours, but to back off from your true beliefs because of a name would be rather spineless.

VO He has the right to do as he sees fit. Insulting him for this is not the best of strategies OK.

How about this for a slogan?

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU THE FREEDOM TO SUCCEED

Excellent my man, excellent.

How about-
NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - IF YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE, YOU'LL LOVE US!

:D

VO He has the right to do as he sees fit. Insulting him for this is not the best of strategies OK.

I mentioned that it was his choice, and I would consider it "challenging" him, not insulting him. Santa Barbara and I have been on the same side of many debates on NS, and I will still be on the same side of those debates, regardless of his decision.

But I will again state that I am surprised that someone who will type out some of the longest and best defenses of the free market on NS General would back away from his beliefs because he is afraid of being labeled.

How about-
NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - IF YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE, YOU'LL LOVE US!

:D

So blatantly untrue

Your party should use this;

Hate the Rich, Jealous of them? Want to screw them over?

Vote for us, we'll take away everyone's freedoms to enforce our will upon them.

How about-
NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - IF YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE, YOU'LL LOVE US!

:D

Better than:

Don't agree with someone? Kill them! - Join the RTP

Ignore him Wegason. There are some that are beyond all redmption.

http://zeus.zeit.de/bilder/orwell/big_brother_250.jpg

"I will elimate inequality and poverty", says Big Brother.

If you want Big Brother to take care of you, look no further:
United Democratic Communists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610)
Revolutionary Trotskyists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422701)

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO DO WHAT YOU WANT

Hate the Rich, Jealous of them? Want to screw them over?

Vote for us, we'll take away everyone's freedoms to enforce our will upon them.
adapted slightly that could work

Hate those who exploit you for monetary gain?
Vote for us and we'll destroy the system that encourages hatred and violence

Hey DHomme, you want minimum wage and such, correct?

Minimum wage laws tend to increase unemployment among low-wage earners by over-pricing their labor and thus decreasing the demand for it. The social benefit of a minimum wage is financed through a hidden and production-distorting tax that falls on only certain goods and services rather than on the general tax base. Unions with monopolistic control over the labor supply in a particular industry enforce artificially high wages that lead to suboptimal levels of production and employment. Rent control prevents the supply of housing from expanding to meet the demand, and transfers income from those unlucky enough to be landlords to those lucky enough to have an (increasingly scarce) lease.

So what's the up side?

Hate those who exploit you for monetary gain?
Vote for us and we'll destroy the system that encourages hatred and violence

....and replace it with one that encourages economic stagnation and even more violence.

Ever fought for position in line waiting for food at a cooperative?

Another point:

While it is good to outline our own party stances and distinguish Classic Liberalism from Modern Liberalism, we should NOT demonize Modern Liberalism in any of our posts.

The tenets of modern liberalism have their roots in classic liberalism and we share many common interests. I can be characterised as a modern liberal just as easily as a classic liberal.

While many modern liberals support some forms of wealth redistribution, most are opposed to communism and socialism, and would probably find our party to be most consistent with their views.

I am concerned that our Libertarianism and Conservatism may be driving them to the left.

Another point:

While it is good to outline our own party stances and distinguish Classic Liberalism from Modern Liberalism, we should NOT demonize Modern Liberalism in any of our posts.

The tenets of modern liberalism have their roots in classic liberalism and we share many common interests. I can be characterised as a modern liberal just as easily as a classic liberal.

While many modern liberals support some forms of wealth redistribution, most are opposed to communism and socialism, and would probably find our party to be most consistent with their views.

I am concerned that our Libertarianism and Conservatism may be driving them to the left.

I agree with you there. Some of us, like me, are more softcore classic liberal (look at my political compass).

Excellent my man, excellent.
Um.. that's *my* slogan, thank you. :)

EDIT: I went back and read it again. It's the same as my slogan except "power" was replaced with "freedom". :p

I agree with you there. Some of us, like me, are more softcore classic liberal (look at my political compass).

I believe that Alien Born falls in that moderate range as well, just right of myself if I am correct.

I believe that Alien Born falls in that moderate range as well, just right of myself if I am correct.

Yep. Seems so. :)

Um.. that's *my* slogan, thank you. :)

EDIT: I went back and read it again. It's the same as my slogan except "power" was replaced with "freedom". :p


Ahhh, i apologise, must have subconciously affected my brain.

How about the second one?

What about this;


NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - WE CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS

Yep. Seems so. :)

True. I am only slightly right of center. Hence my adoption of Classical liberalism rather than Libertarianism. We do have to be tolerant of modern liberals, but there are serious ideological differences with regard to the role of the state, that would preclude, in my opinion, any general alliance. We could work with them in a case by case system.

True. I am only slightly right of center. Hence my adoption of Classical liberalism rather than Libertarianism. We do have to be tolerant of modern liberals, but there are serious ideological differences with regard to the role of the state, that would preclude, in my opinion, any general alliance. We could work with them in a case by case system.

True, they do seem to want to censor a lot (violent video games, etc). That's one of my only ticks with them. That and their economic system.

My real enemy is populism, not liberals. There is a difference.

Well i am very economically liberal, and in the last 6 months i have moved over five points to the right economically. Socially i have stayed about the same, for me the classic liberals stand for freedom, it is why i joined so to speak.

I am economically liberal in trade and most things, however i do believe that some things need providing by the state and i agree with a lot of the manifesto. :D

We are in the lead 83 to 81!!!

WELL DONE EVERYONE, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO BE SLACK.

I would hope that someone who has been as ardent as you in your capitalistic beliefs would not be intimidated by a title with a bad connotation.

The choice is yours, but to back off from your true beliefs because of a name would be rather spineless.

Connotations are everything when one adopts an official Party. Hell, in politics, in general. Even you saying I am "capitalistic" will mean for some people, you are talking to someone who - I dunno - hates the poor. Similarly if I am known as "liberal," I would feel compelled to defend "liberalism" when who knows, maybe I'm just after What Works. (As AB suggested.) Though I like the Up Yours Party, but Melkor isn't terribly serious about that. And come to think of it, reviving the term Liberalism to mean what modern day libertarian capitalists might believe, is a good cause I suppose. But I imagine many "conservatives" might feel like I am somehow less "one of them" when in fact, I'm not any less or more anyone except myself.

I'll think about it, this party seems to be doing well, that's always a plus.

Connotations are everything when one adopts an official Party. Hell, in politics, in general. Even you saying I am "capitalistic" will mean for some people, you are talking to someone who - I dunno - hates the poor. Similarly if I am known as "liberal," I would feel compelled to defend "liberalism" when who knows, maybe I'm just after What Works. (As AB suggested.) Though I like the Up Yours Party, but Melkor isn't terribly serious about that. And come to think of it, reviving the term Liberalism to mean what modern day libertarian capitalists might believe, is a good cause I suppose. But I imagine many "conservatives" might feel like I am somehow less "one of them" when in fact, I'm not any less or more anyone except myself.

I'll think about it, this party seems to be doing well, that's always a plus.

I wasnt too serious about it at first, but then I started getting votes.

Melkor is on our side as well, a vote for him is as good as a vote for us it seems.

Well Melkor, with a name like that how can you expect NOT to get votes?

But I'm going for the NS Classic Liberals. That way I can have an argument anytime anyone makes stereotypical argument about 'liberal economics' meaning, authoritarian state capitalists. I can go NO! I am a CLASSIC Liberal, I got style, and am into that whole freedom thing!

Gun control. You need to outlaw hand guns, it's a liberal value and should be included.

Hey guys,

I finally decided to chip in my vote for you. I really wanted to vote for Melkor but unfortunately his platform is a bit too extreme for my tastes. Still, I would like to see Melkor run for the Classical Liberals.

I tend to think of myself of a social liberal anyway. (Call it modern liberalism, as some here did)I hope this doesn't make me far too left wing for this club. I guess I will just see how it works out and I can always switch if I do not like your interpretation of my favourite ideology. ;)

One thing I wanted to know though is where the party stands on Atlanticist issues. (the "American question", if you will. Bush et al.) This tends to be a divisive issue for liberals, yet I still think it is an important issue. I like free trade and all, but I wouldn't be comfortable inbetween GOD LOVES USA stickers and neoconservative ideology of war to promote "Freedom". Maybe some people here could share their views on that.

The social issues I also think are very important but I can only presume that for real liberals that will not be a problem. :p

Hey guys,

I finally decided to chip in my vote for you. I really wanted to vote for Melkor but unfortunately his platform is a bit too extreme for my tastes. Still, I would like to see Melkor run for the Classical Liberals.

I tend to think of myself of a social liberal anyway. (Call it modern liberalism, as some here did)I hope this doesn't make me far too left wing for this club. ;) I guess I will just see how it works out and I can always switch if I do not like your interpretation of my favourite ideology. ;)

One thing I wanted to know though is where the party stands on Atlanticist issues. (the "American question", if you will. Bush et al.) This tends to be a divisive issue for liberals, yet I still think it is an important issue. I like free trade and all, but I wouldn't be comfortable inbetween GOD LOVES USA stickers and neoconservative ideology of war to promote "Freedom". Maybe some people here could share their views on that.

The social issues I also think are very important but I can only presume that for real liberals that will not be a problem. :p


Dont worry, anyone in the positive on the economic scale and negative on the social one is a liberal in my book :p

Gun control. You need to outlaw hand guns, it's a liberal value and should be included.

No. "Liberal" indicates freedom - what you describe, banning something, is the opposite. Go away!

Classic Liberals, Giving you the chance to succeed

How is that? Since we have an alliance I could make a united campaign slogan. (I was deeply involved in the presidential elections)

Gun control. You need to outlaw hand guns, it's a liberal value and should be included.

This is the type of point that would cause contention between the classic liberals and the modern liberals. The modern liberals do have a penchant for censoring the freedom of the individual, whereas that freedom is the central plank of classical liberal thinking.

Can you supply one good reason, and I mean good reason not just a gut reaction, as to why guns should be restricted? I personally do not own a gun, nor do I ever intend to do so, but this does not give me the right to say that others who wish to own a gun should not do so. It is a matter of freedom of choice, which is what liberalism is all about in reality.

Gun control. You need to outlaw hand guns, it's a liberal value and should be included.

While i advocate the banning of guns, it isn't a true liberal philosophy

While i advocate the banning of guns, it isn't a true liberal philosophy
A good Classic liberal argument is that it is a matter of property rights if you rather not use the self-defence argument.

Dont worry, anyone in the positive on the economic scale and negative on the social one is a liberal in my book :p

I noticed indeed that the political compass declarations in the signature were quite similar to my own. :)

Right Oriented Freedom Lovers - ROFL for short :D

A good Classic liberal argument is that it is a matter of property rights if you rather not use the self-defence argument.
I disagree with the self-defence argument, and am rather uncomfortable with the property rights argument. Let me explain why.

Liberalism is first and foremost an economic philosophy and a philosophy of natural (inalienable, if you will) human rights. Gun control is a secondary issue.

However, the liberal idea is that the state does have a role in preventing crime. Therefore the liberal idea in my opinion would be to have a pragmatic approach to gun control. Banning or proliferating guns is not a liberal goal per se but it should be a means for the government to fight crime for the same reasons that we do not allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons.

If the purpose of a minimal government is to enforce property rights (which is in the manifesto if I am not misstaken) then it is not a task for citizens to do this. We delegated that task to the government, remember? The self-defence argument is therefore inherently not liberal.

Living in a country with tight gun control laws and low gun crime, I see absolutely no reason for people to own guns. However, I am willing to discuss the issue and it certainly shouldn't be a party line in my opinion. As long as the discussion is rational and based on factual arguments..

I disagree with the self-defence argument, and am rather uncomfortable with the property rights argument. Let me explain why.

Liberalism is first and foremost an economic philosophy and a philosophy of natural (inalienable, if you will) human rights. Gun control is a secondary issue.

However, the liberal idea is that the state does have a role in preventing crime. Therefore the liberal idea in my opinion would be to have a pragmatic approach to gun control. Banning or proliferating guns is not a liberal goal per se but it should be a means for the government to fight crime for the same reasons that we do not allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons.

If the purpose of a minimal government is to enforce property rights (which is in the manifesto if I am not misstaken) then it is not a task for citizens to do this. We delegated that task to the government, remember? The self-defence argument is therefore inherently not liberal.

Living in a country with tight gun control laws and low gun crime, I see absolutely no reason for people to own guns. However, I am willing to discuss the issue and it certainly shouldn't be a party line in my opinion. As long as the discussion is rational and based on factual arguments..


Gun control depends almost totally on the prevailing conditions. I asked a week or so ago what the prevailing conditions in the state were, and received a reply that this had not been considered and although it could be seen why it would be important they were not going to be defined. This leaves us in the position of trying to guess the existing situation. My approach to this was to model it on the US situation as the majority of voters will be familiar with and thinking in terms of that situation.

Thus I am opposed to gun control, as under the US circumstances gun control is not conducive to increased security. If we were to assume the UK as the model , then I would support gun control on security grounds, but we have to presume some pre-existing circumstances, and I made that choice,, for me, on a pragmatic basis.

If the purpose of a minimal government is to enforce property rights (which is in the manifesto if I am not misstaken) then it is not a task for citizens to do this. We delegated that task to the government, remember? The self-defence argument is therefore inherently not liberal.

Living in a country with tight gun control laws and low gun crime, I see absolutely no reason for people to own guns. However, I am willing to discuss the issue and it certainly shouldn't be a party line in my opinion. As long as the discussion is rational and based on factual arguments..
I see. As Milton Friedman said, the government must have a monopoly over violence, I know that is oddy worded. We must come up with a compromise. How about if non-criminals may own a certain type of gun? Not an AK-47 of course, but something smaller. I never agreed to the self-defence argument and am more attracted to the idea of private property.

Why isn't it an economic argument? You're saying gun manufacturers should only be able to sell their products to police and government. Why not just similarly ban any other product whom we do not personally see a reason for anyone to own? I don't think anyone should own plenty of things, but I support the right of businessmen to sell them and for individuals to own them.

The nuclear weapons analogy is poor. Because of radiation concerns there is no possible way to use a nuclear weapon without causing harm to the environment and to property and living things. Gun use can be used without killing or irradiating anyone - or without destroying cities for that matter.

I see. As Milton Friedman said, the government must have a monopoly over violence, I know that is oddy worded. We must come up with a compromise. How about if non-criminals may own a certain type of gun? Not an AK-47 of course, but something smaller.

An AK-47 would actually be safer. Smaller guns are easier hidden.

An AK-47 would actually be safer. Smaller guns are easier hidden.
Good point, how should we go about this? I am extremely uncomfortable, hwoever, with the govenment telling someone that you don't need a gun or that you can't.

Good point, how should we go about this? I am extremely uncomfortable, hwoever, with the govenment telling someone that you don't need a gun or that you can't.

Hmm. Tricksey it is. The party is focused on personal responsibility. I think that more of an emphasis on putting all people who have killed a person with a gun in prison for life might help.

Hmm. Tricksey it is. The party is focused on personal responsibility. I think that more of an emphasis on putting all people who have killed a person with a gun in prison for life might help.
Deterrence, that may help. Ownership with responsibility is very sensible.

I think Alien Born is on to something here. I didn't say so explicitly, but that is what I meant. Kervoskia rightly quotes Milton Friedman on the government monopoly over violence. Other Liberal thinkers have argued likewise, and I think it is a good principle.

Forcing an end to 'gun control' in continental Europe would have very negative effects on crime and it would, simply put, be a bad policy. Forcing a gun ban on the United States would create a prohibition-like situation because Americans will not give up their guns.

That is why I think a Liberal policy towards guns should be pragmatic and not ideological. Given the fact that the people in NS General come from vastly different backgrounds and very different countries, setting a single policy for gun control would in my opinion not be wise. Instead, citing the government monopoly over violence (in principle) and practical considerations over self-defense as a 'migitating circumstance', if you will, would be a good solution in my opinion.

Santa Barbara: you missed my point. It is not a matter of a government deciding that people should not be allowed to own guns because the government should decide what people buy. The thing with guns is that they can only be used to kill or wound. (With the possible exception of hunter rifles or amateur sports, but I am assuming we aren't speaking about those here anyway.)

The discussion of gun control, from a liberal perspective, is therefore in my opinion a discussion of "how far does the state monopoly on violence go?"

That is the problem, where do you tell the government to stop.

Since the UDCP is all about the 'altruism' of their fellow man...I decided to help them out and make a campaign poster for them. :D

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/udcp1.gif

Since the UDCP is all about the 'altruism' of their fellow man...I decided to help them out and make a campaign poster for them. :D

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/udcp1.gif
Your fingers are magic.

That is the problem, where do you tell the government to stop.
Well, that is different for each country I figure. And up to what the people want, democratically. So I would tend to go with "whatever gives the Liberal party more votes" ;)

EDIT: Brilliant poster by the way!

Well, that is different for each country I figure. And up to what the people want, democratically. So I would tend to go with "whatever gives the Liberal party more votes" ;)

EDIT: Brilliant poster by the way!
Heh, play politics you mean? ;)

Heh, play politics you mean? ;)
Exactly. Liberals have some important issues that unite us: especially the right of every individual to do whatever the heck they want as long as it does not harm others. (Socially and economically.)

How far the monopoly of the state over violence goes is an interesting philosophical discussion, but it isn't a core issue. With different liberal principles you can come to different liberal positions on gun control which are all equally legitimate. Different situations will therefore require different policies.

Deterrence, that may help. Ownership with responsibility is very sensible.

That is the aproach that is embodied in the manifesto. Guns are restricted items, in that they can only be sold to or bougfht by adults. Adults are defined by responsibility, so it becomes responsible gun ownership.

We would certainly impose very heavy penalties (I prefer death, but this would have to be voted on) on any felonies committed using firearms. By this I mean any where a firearm was shown to be present, not used. i.e. robbery when you merely threaten with a firearm is a serious as murder without a firearm. I would be all for an automatic death penalty for any use of a firearm by a criminal, but as I said, this needs discussion still, and is a negotiable point with our allies as well.

That is the aproach that is embodied in the manifesto. Guns are restricted items, in that they can only be sold to or bougfht by adults. Adults are defined by responsibility, so it becomes responsible gun ownership.

We would certainly impose very heavy penalties (I prefer death, but this would have to be voted on) on any felonies committed using firearms. By this I mean any where a firearm was shown to be present, not used. i.e. robbery when you merely threaten with a firearm is a serious as murder without a firearm. I would be all for an automatic death penalty for any use of a firearm by a criminal, but as I said, this needs discussion still, and is a negotiable point with our allies as well.

Well, the problem with using the death penalty in all cases is that the person could have been framed, and simply sending him to death would not give a chance for exoneration. If it's beyond a reasonable doubt, I can see the death penalty as a good thing to use. I also don't get what you are getting at with saying that all that you need to be sentenced to death is having the gun present. That's going too far, IMO.

I am in favor of the death penalty, but for the opposite reason of most people. I find it to be more humane than life in prison, as you don't have to go through years of being ass-raped and being bored of your mind. Perhaps a choice can be given to those convicted? We can't just go zapping everyone though. That's irresponsible of the government, I think. Should be a case by case basis.

Well, the problem with using the death penalty in all cases is that the person could have been framed, and simply sending him to death would not give a chance for exoneration. If it's beyond a reasonable doubt, I can see the death penalty as a good thing to use. I also don't get what you are getting at with saying that all that you need to be sentenced to death is having the gun present. That's going too far, IMO.

I am in favor of the death penalty, but for the opposite reason of most people. I find it to be more humane than life in prison, as you don't have to go through years of being ass-raped and being bored of your mind. Perhaps a choice can be given to those convicted? We can't just go zapping everyone though. That's irresponsible of the government, I think. Should be a case by case basis.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. All accused individuals have a right to a fair and open trial. They may even select which private court system they wish to be tried in. If they lose then they pay the court costs, if they win then the accuser, often the state, has to pay the court costs. If convicted of using a firearm, then the penalty should be severe, if convicted of killing with a firearm then it should be death. There are many reasons behind my support of the death penalty, one of them being that it is more humane than life imprisonment, another being that life imprisonmnet is a heavy burden on the state, another being its deterrent value.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. All accused individuals have a right to a fair and open trial. They may even select which private court system they wish to be tried in. If they lose then they pay the court costs, if they win then the accuser, often the state, has to pay the court costs. If convicted of using a firearm, then the penalty should be severe, if convicted of killing with a firearm then it should be death. There are many reasons behind my support of the death penalty, one of them being that it is more humane than life imprisonment, another being that life imprisonmnet is a heavy burden on the state, another being its deterrent value.

Okay. Seems like we were in agreement. Glad to see someone else who thinks it's more humane. :)

Your fingers are magic.

EDIT: Brilliant poster by the way!
Danke schon.

BTW, I think we're focusing too much on the Communists when the Democratic Socialists are our biggest problem. I've decided to be nice and work on a poster for them, too. ;)

Okay. Seems like we were in agreement. Glad to see someone else who thinks it's more humane. :)
I'm not a fan of state-sponsored executions. It could be a choice if the prisoner wanted death eventually. I agree with what you're saying though.

The DSP is down by a few percentage points, if we can hold it throughout the night we will have something to fall back on, but we still have to campaign to the last minute.

Texaspunitstan, who says capitalist never help anybody? ;)

Perhaps the anti socialist party campaign poster should be something along the lines of

"Hate the nanny state"

With a picture of a adult with a dummy in their mouth or something?

True. I am only slightly right of center. Hence my adoption of Classical liberalism rather than Libertarianism. We do have to be tolerant of modern liberals, but there are serious ideological differences with regard to the role of the state, that would preclude, in my opinion, any general alliance. We could work with them in a case by case system.

I am not proposing an alliance, just to be on a friendly basis with them. If I am correct only the Cult of Tink or whatever they are has a very liberal stance without being truly socialist or communist. Maybe we could court some voters away from them.

But I'm going for the NS Classic Liberals. That way I can have an argument anytime anyone makes stereotypical argument about 'liberal economics' meaning, authoritarian state capitalists. I can go NO! I am a CLASSIC Liberal, I got style, and am into that whole freedom thing!

Good deal, welcome aboard.

I figured that you would come around, after all labels are so much fun to break out of. You can really blindside people in an argument when they assign an incorrect label to you.

Perhaps the anti socialist party campaign poster should be something along the lines of

"Hate the nanny state"

With a picture of a adult with a dummy in their mouth or something?
Actually, I'm doing more of a "definition" poster. I think y'all are going to love it. :D

For gun control, could they not be treated like cars? They have much the same nature as cars, whereas they offer a very unique utility but are very dangerous. Could we have strict licensing and possibly mandatory insurance?

I don't really know where I stand on the issue. I would not support the banning of any gun, however, I recognize the leverage that guns provide, and the coersive force they have. Seeing as I wish to respect all property rights but oppose any forms of coersion, I am in a bit of a pickle.

For gun control, could they not be treated like cars? They have much the same nature as cars, whereas they offer a very unique utility but are very dangerous. Could we have strict licensing and possibly mandatory insurance?

I don't really know where I stand on the issue. I would not support the banning of any gun, however, I recognize the leverage that guns provide, and the coersive force they have. Seeing as I wish to respect all property rights but oppose any forms of coersion, I am in a bit of a pickle.

Manditory insurance goes against personal responsibility. I'm not sure even cars would have manditory insurance. Have to ask either one of the boss men..

Manditory insurance goes against personal responsibility. I'm not sure even cars would have manditory insurance. Have to ask either one of the boss men..

I think mandatory insurance can be an easy way to settle traffic incident disputes. Without insurance, even in the event of an accident there would need to be an arbitration process that would determine who was in the wrong and what reparations need to be paid. I think mandatory insurance shortens this process and maintains that reparations will be made. Insurance companies will still be private with floating rates, and no one will be forced to drive, so it will still have a private aspect to it.

How that applies to guns really, I don't know, I was just searching for ideas. I guess that registration would be the only necessary tactic. Tracking guns so that in the event of violence, justice can be easily served. We would definitely need to maintain that gun records were entirely confidential until probable cause is established.

And I am the boss man. ;)

And I am the boss man. ;)


I thought there were several boss men. Oh well.

Anyways, there could always be a law that states that guns have internal tracking devices.... If they are put in while manufacturing, it would be hard to take them out....

Registration and probably licencing of the gun owner. (Training and testing both theoretical and practical, paid for by the prospective owner. Rather like a driving licence. A good little earner for the government as it can charge for accreditation of licencing agencies.) Insurance should be voluntary, for both cars and guns, but liabilities incurred that can not be paid and are unisured would result in indentureship.
This means you dont have to be insured but it would be stupid to not be insured. Insurance is to be private, no state insurance please.

I think mandatory insurance can be an easy way to settle traffic incident disputes. Without insurance, even in the event of an accident there would need to be an arbitration process that would determine who was in the wrong and what reparations need to be paid. I think mandatory insurance shortens this process and maintains that reparations will be made. Insurance companies will still be private with floating rates, and no one will be forced to drive, so it will still have a private aspect to it.

How that applies to guns really, I don't know, I was just searching for ideas. I guess that registration would be the only necessary tactic. Tracking guns so that in the event of violence, justice can be easily served. We would definitely need to maintain that gun records were entirely confidential until probable cause is established.

And I am the boss man. ;)
Unless the consumer could not afford it, would they purchase insurance for their own benefit? Is mandatory insurance really necessary, it does have a level of coercion.

I think that you're on the right track. The next best thing is to registration. It would be property rights but with responsibility, which if I am not mistaken is one if this party's virtues.

Registration and probably licencing of the gun owner. (Training and testing both theoretical and practical, paid for by the prospective owner. Rather like a driving licence. A good little earner for the government as it can charge for accreditation of licencing agencies.) Insurance should be voluntary, for both cars and guns, but liabilities incurred that can not be paid and are unisured would result in indentureship.
This means you dont have to be insured but it would be stupid to not be insured. Insurance is to be private, no state insurance please.
The indentureship would be until the damage is paid and no longer.However, the indentured servant would have to enter the contract voluntarily. If it the contract is broken, then that's when he state comes in to play.

Here's my bit of 'altruism' towards the Democratic Socialist Party. ;)

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/dsp1.gif

I thought there were several boss men. Oh well.

I was only joking. There are no boss men here, you just listen and agree with whoever you please.

Anyways, there could always be a law that states that guns have internal tracking devices.... If they are put in while manufacturing, it would be hard to take them out....

I don't know. This would monitor what guns are used for, and I don't believe that there should be any active monitoring of personal behavior unless the need has been established.

As long as no active monitoring goes on, and it is only used to find guns that are unaccounted for, I would have no problem with it.

I was only joking. There are no boss men here, you just listen and agree with whoever you please.



I don't know. This would monitor what guns are used for, and I don't believe that there should be any active monitoring of personal behavior unless the need has been established.
Why would we need to monitor what the guns of law-abiding citizens are used for? Remember that the criminals that use guns for crime, for the most part, do not use legally purchased guns.

I am VERY against any kind of "gun monitoring". If I wanted that, I'd vote for the Democratic Socialists. :headbang:

Aww somebody make a poster dissing the RTP, I feel left out

I thought there were several boss men. Oh well.

Anyways, there could always be a law that states that guns have internal tracking devices.... If they are put in while manufacturing, it would be hard to take them out....

Just one boss man, VO.

Too much regulation of industry. How do you deal with imports? I think licencing the user and registration of the weapon with severe penalties for the misuse od a weapon licenced to you are sufficient. Having a weapon stolen is no excuse for its misuse, you should have protected it better. If however it is stored at a licensed security firm then if it is stolen, no penalty accrues to you.

Why would we need to monitor what the guns of law-abiding citizens are used for? Remember that the criminals that use guns for crime, for the most part, do not use legally purchased guns.

I am VERY against any kind of "gun monitoring". If I wanted that, I'd vote for the Democratic Socialists. :headbang:

You will see that from second post, I meant to state that gun tracking should only be used to determine the innocence of the individual and to track down lost or stolen guns.

The monitoring of guns should not be active and should only be called for by the individual owner.

Aww somebody make a poster dissing the RTP, I feel left out
I can just take the UDCP poster and switch names....because you commies are all the same anyway.

:p

Registration and probably licencing of the gun owner. (Training and testing both theoretical and practical, paid for by the prospective owner. Rather like a driving licence. A good little earner for the government as it can charge for accreditation of licencing agencies.) Insurance should be voluntary, for both cars and guns, but liabilities incurred that can not be paid and are unisured would result in indentureship.
This means you dont have to be insured but it would be stupid to not be insured. Insurance is to be private, no state insurance please.

Indentureship would be a tough sell, and I don't think it would be feasible to expect society to accept it. I even have problems accepting it, it's fair, but I cringe at the idea of forced labor.

Having a weapon stolen is no excuse for its misuse, you should have protected it better. If however it is stored at a licensed security firm then if it is stolen, no penalty accrues to you.

So let me get this straight.... We are now gonna punish people for getting burglarized? Sorry, I can't go along with that.

Just one boss man, VO.

Too much regulation of industry. How do you deal with imports? I think licencing the user and registration of the weapon with severe penalties for the misuse od a weapon licenced to you are sufficient. Having a weapon stolen is no excuse for its misuse, you should have protected it better. If however it is stored at a licensed security firm then if it is stolen, no penalty accrues to you.

Firstly im against guns but why would you store a gun at a licensed security firm?? Surely you want it in your house for protection if you want one? How on earth does owning a gun but storing it with a security firm make sense?

I can just take the UDCP poster and switch names....because you commies are all the same anyway.

:p
Wrong. They're reformist, we're revolutionary. bastards.

Firstly im against guns but why would you store a gun at a licensed security firm?? Surely you want it in your house for protection if you want one? How on earth does owning a gun but storing it with a security firm make sense?
There are many people who own guns to go hunting, or for competition shooting, and not for defence of their property. It is these that would be advised to store these at such points where the risk of them entering criminal hands is severely reduced.

Unless the consumer could not afford it, would they purchase insurance for their own benefit? Is mandatory insurance really necessary, it does have a level of coercion.

I think that you're on the right track. The next best thing is to registration. It would be property rights but with responsibility, which if I am not mistaken is one if this party's virtues.

As for insurance, I think it is either mandatory insurance, or a system of required repayment that could include indentureship, as AB pointed out.

Either way it is a system of forced responsibility, the only difference is the instance that responsibility is enforced. I think that people would be much more inclined to accept mandatory insurance than indentureship.

But I do agree that mandatory insurance is counter to our policy, and accept the reasoning behind forced repayment rather than forced insurance.

So let me get this straight.... We are now gonna punish people for getting burglarized? Sorry, I can't go along with that.

No, we are punishing people for owning a gun irresponsibly. If you own a gun to deter burglury, then use it if someone tries to steal it and always carry it with you, do not leave it in your home unattended. If you do not own it for this, then do not keep it at home. Guns are too dangerous in the wrong hands for you to not know where yours is. If you lose it you are placing the lives of others at risk, that is unacceptable.

As for insurance, I think it is either mandatory insurance, or a system of required repayment that could include indentureship, as AB pointed out.

Either way it is a system of forced responsibility, the only difference is the instance that responsibility is enforced. I think that people would be much more inclined to accept mandatory insurance than indentureship.

But I do agree that mandatory insurance is counter to our policy, and accept the reasoning behind forced repayment rather than forced insurance.

Let us be clear about what is being paid. If you cause damage to someone elses property by firing a gun, then you will be responsible for making good that damage. This derives from the basic principle of freedom up to the point where it impinges on others freedoms. This could be agreed directly between the parties or it could be an arbitration (court) decision. Either way there is a contract to make good damages suffered. Now this, being a contract is enforcable by the state and it is here that indentureship comes in. If arbitration awards damages beyond the means of the uninsured party to pay, then this shortfall can be covered by indentured labour.

Let us be clear about what is being paid. If you cause damage to someone elses property by firing a gun, then you will be responsible for making good that damage. This derives from the basic principle of freedom up to the point where it impinges on others freedoms. This could be agreed directly between the parties or it could be an arbitration (court) decision. Either way there is a contract to make good damages suffered. Now this, being a contract is enforcable by the state and it is here that indentureship comes in. If arbitration awards damages beyond the means of the uninsured party to pay, then this shortfall can be covered by indentured labour.

I do not support insurance on firearms, that would be unnecessary and punitive to firearm owners. I was just tossing around ideas at that point.

And like I said, I understand the argument against mandatory insurance on cars, I just don't think society would accept forcing people into indentureship because they cannot afford to pay for the damages caused by a traffic accident.

With indentureship, you also run into the problem of accurately judging the value of indentureship in some situations.

No, we are punishing people for owning a gun irresponsibly. If you own a gun to deter burglury, then use it if someone tries to steal it and always carry it with you, do not leave it in your home unattended. If you do not own it for this, then do not keep it at home. Guns are too dangerous in the wrong hands for you to not know where yours is. If you lose it you are placing the lives of others at risk, that is unacceptable.

I don't agree with you on this.

Would you punish an individual if their car was stolen and the thief used the car to run from the police?

We must separate property from the crimes committed if we are respect property rights.

I don't agree with you on this.

Would you punish an individual if their car was stolen and the thief used the car to run from the police?

We must separate property from the crimes committed if we are respect property rights.

A car is not something that you can carry on you at all times, a gun is.
While there are legitimate reasons for wanting to own a gun, these reasons allow that either you store it somewhere safe, or require thqat you carry it with you. There is no legitimate reason for owning a gun and leaving it in your home.

I am just thinking out loud here and trying to find a compromise between the pro and anti gun lobbies.

I don't agree with you on this.

Would you punish an individual if their car was stolen and the thief used the car to run from the police?

We must separate property from the crimes committed if we are respect property rights.
Exactly, then we would be punishing law abiding citizens for circumstances.

Why not make indentureship and insurance voluntary? Allow the consumer to choose if they want insurance and if there is an accident they could either work it or become indentured servants based on a voluntarily entered contract?

I do not support insurance on firearms, that would be unnecessary and punitive to firearm owners. I was just tossing around ideas at that point.

And like I said, I understand the argument against mandatory insurance on cars, I just don't think society would accept forcing people into indentureship because they cannot afford to pay for the damages caused by a traffic accident.

With indentureship, you also run into the problem of accurately judging the value of indentureship in some situations.

The insurance would be optional, not mandatory. If an insurance company wants to offer this, then it can I presume.

Judging the value of the indentureship would be a negotiation between the indentured and the beneficiary. (Free market after all). The person committed to indenture could opt for indenture to the state at fixed rates depending upon their profession with the state paying the damages. This wouldd prevent abuse of the system, provide the state with a reduced price workforce, and be equitable for all concerned.

May I make a forum for the party? After the election we will need some place to congregate.

Exactly, then we would be punishing law abiding citizens for circumstances.
Already replied to.

Why not make indentureship and insurance voluntary? Allow the consumer to choose if they want insurance and if there is an accident they could either work it or become indentured servants based on a voluntarily entered contract?

Where there is an accident that is the fault of one individual and another suffers a loss due to this accident, then the victim has to be compensated for their loss. Agreed?

This being the case the person responsible for the accident has to make this compensation. Now there are three possibilities:
1. He is insured and the insurance company covers the payments.
2. He is uninsured but he covers the payments in cash.
3. He is uninsured and can not cover the payments in which case he is liable to indentured service to thie value that is unpaid.

There is free choice in all of this, except that anyone judged (in a court, or by agreement) to be responsible for some damages must make good those damages one way or another. Just allowing it to be made good over time is an option if the victim accepts, and the victim has the right to waive any reparations whatsoever. There is nothing compulsory in any of this.

No, we are punishing people for owning a gun irresponsibly. If you own a gun to deter burglury, then use it if someone tries to steal it and always carry it with you, do not leave it in your home unattended. If you do not own it for this, then do not keep it at home. Guns are too dangerous in the wrong hands for you to not know where yours is. If you lose it you are placing the lives of others at risk, that is unacceptable.

Ya know, guns aren't just used for self defense. Some are used for hunting. I don't see people bringing their guns with them whenever they leave the house. Imagine a theme park full of gun-toters.... Doesn't sounds plausable.

If they get burglarized while they are out on vacation, and someone steals and uses their gun, and the gov. blames them for it, I call that a sucky government. Even if it's under lock and key, a burglar CAN get in.

May I make a forum for the party? After the election we will need some place to congregate.

Individual freedom here boys, do as you will.

A car is not something that you can carry on you at all times, a gun is.
No, but a car is something you use much more often than a gun. Also, as stated before, would we punish a car owner if someone stole their car and used it to run someone down on purpose. I mean, they should have KNOWN that someone could use their vehicle for a criminal purpose.

Like I said before, I'm staunchly against the overregulation, monitoring or criminalization of aspects of gun ownership. If I wanted a nanny state, I'd have voted DSP or UDCP.

If you want to cut down on gun crime, get draconian about it...but get draconian on the CRIMINALS.

How about if it were law that ANY crime committed with a gun, even if it wasn't fired, was punishable by the death penalty? You murder someone with a gun, you die. You hold up a liquor store with a gun, you die. You mug someone with a gun, you die. You get drunk and shoot your friend to death because you were playing with a gun irresponsibly, you die.

Don't punish law-abiding gun owners. Punish the CRIMINALS.

A car is not something that you can carry on you at all times, a gun is.

You seem to think guns can be carried anywhere. What if a business makes a rule against carrying in guns? Under our system of gov. they'd be able to make that rule. It's ludicrous to think that people will carry guns to weddings, funerals, theme parks, scuba diving, using the crapper at the local Wal-Mart. That's crazy.

Santa Barbara: you missed my point. It is not a matter of a government deciding that people should not be allowed to own guns because the government should decide what people buy. The thing with guns is that they can only be used to kill or wound. (With the possible exception of hunter rifles or amateur sports, but I am assuming we aren't speaking about those here anyway.)

The discussion of gun control, from a liberal perspective, is therefore in my opinion a discussion of "how far does the state monopoly on violence go?"

I so disagree on guns. I know plenty of gun owners and I know no one who has used them to kill or wound. So I would say they are not the exception, but the rule and the exceptions are the gun criminals who all pro-gun-control people like to point at and shout.

Anyway, I don't think the state should get any monopoly on violence, or would even if it was put into law by banning guns and taking other measures to ensure said monopoly. They would only have the 'legal' monopoly on violence. If said monopoly is legislated then it is indeed a question of government deciding what people are allowed to possess, distribute or acquire.

How about if it were law that ANY crime committed with a gun, even if it wasn't fired, was punishable by the death penalty? You murder someone with a gun, you die. You hold up a liquor store with a gun, you die. You mug someone with a gun, you die. You get drunk and shoot your friend to death because you were playing with a gun irresponsibly, you die.


Then I'd say that whoever made that rule was a homocidal maniac.

Perhaps we should cease this arguing at the moment and leave it for later as it may be putting off potential voters and we need to appeal to what they want by talking about the issues we are united on and why other parties (socialists and communists) have bad policies.

Then I'd say that whoever made that rule was a homocidal maniac.
*squints*

It was just an example. :headbang:

Ya know, guns aren't just used for self defense. Some are used for hunting. I don't see people bringing their guns with them whenever they leave the house. Imagine a theme park full of gun-toters.... Doesn't sounds plausable.

If they get burglarized while they are out on vacation, and someone steals and uses their gun, and the gov. blames them for it, I call that a sucky government. Even if it's under lock and key, a burglar CAN get in.

I specifically said that guns stored at licenced security firms would not be subject to this problem. If you are a hunter and are not hunting, or you are going to a place where you can not take your gun, then deposit it at such a location (no problem in that is there.)

All I am trying to do is make people responsible for the gun they own. If they do not wish to be responsible for it 24/7 then do not buy it, or store it securely.

All I am trying to do is make people responsible for the gun they own. If they do not wish to be responsible for it 24/7 then do not buy it, or store it securely.
You're assuming (falsely) that the vast majority of people would NOT be responsible or safe about their guns unless we put some kind of draconian law on them. I know, from personal experience, that the majority of LEGAL, non-criminal gun owners already take steps to ensure that their guns are stored properly and safely.

Like I said: Punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Perhaps we should cease this arguing at the moment and leave it for later as it may be putting off potential voters and we need to appeal to what they want by talking about the issues we are united on and why other parties (socialists and communists) have bad policies.

That might be a good idea, however, having an active discussion could have positive benefits in getting outsiders involved in our party. If people that don't necessarily completely agree with our stances feel like they can be involved they may be more likely to join.

As you can see with the popularity of NS General, open discussion can be a very good way to draw in new members.

Guns are very important

HIT AND RUN
*hits*
http://img154.echo.cx/img154/5192/arms4pc.jpg

*runs*

All I am trying to do is make people responsible for the gun they own. If they do not wish to be responsible for it 24/7 then do not buy it, or store it securely.

I agree that people should be responsible for their gun, but I don't think that that leaving a gun at home unattended is reasonable negligence for prosecution.

Forum is up! I will make it better once more people join and etc.

http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/index.php?mforum=classicliberal

I agree that people should be responsible for their gun, but I don't think that that leaving a gun at home unattended is reasonable negligence for prosecution.

Somone breaks into a home, takes a gun and shoots your son with it, is it still not negligence on the part of the gun owner. It is a tragedy that was avoidable. This is not a draconian law, in that it allows guns to be owned and used by those that want them. It does not even say that you must not leave the gun at home. It just says that you are responsible for what is done with the gun that you introduced into society. How is that wrong?

It introduces a means by which your responsibility can be assuaged when necessary, but it demands that you really think about it before buying a gun.

Somone breaks into a home, takes a gun and shoots your son with it, is it still not negligence on the part of the gun owner. It is a tragedy that was avoidable. This is not a draconian law, in that it allows guns to be owned and used by those that want them. It does not even say that you must not leave the gun at home. It just says that you are responsible for what is done with the gun that you introduced into society. How is that wrong?

It introduces a means by which your responsibility can be assuaged when necessary, but it demands that you really think about it before buying a gun.
So, if I buy a large, heavy gun safe and store all my guns in it. It's locked and even fireproof. I go on vacation. Someone breaks into my house (getting by the alarm system, multiple deadbolts and security bars on my windows), drills the lock out of the gun safe and steals my guns and then uses one to murder someone... *I* am responsible?

Sorry man.. THAT's draconian.

You're assuming (falsely) that the vast majority of people would NOT be responsible or safe about their guns unless we put some kind of draconian law on them. I know, from personal experience, that the majority of LEGAL, non-criminal gun owners already take steps to ensure that their guns are stored properly and safely.

Like I said: Punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Storing a gun in an unattended location, relying on just lock and key and alarms to protect it is your option. Just if it gets stolen, you are responsible. How is that draconian? If people take proper measures, which I assume the majority will, then this will not affect them. It will affect those few who don't act responsibly, and rightly so.

It is rather draconian. They are responsible, but not completely 24/7/365. Then they would be punished if a crime was committed with it, and that is unfair to the owner if they did not willing give it to the criminal.

So, if I buy a large, heavy gun safe and store all my guns in it. It's locked and even fireproof. I go on vacation. Someone breaks into my house (getting by the alarm system, multiple deadbolts and security bars on my windows), drills the lock out of the gun safe and steals my guns and then uses one to murder someone... *I* am responsible?

Sorry man.. THAT's draconian.

When you could much more easily have left the guns with a registered security firm, and there would be many of them, and not be responsible for the time you are awya doing what you suggest is stupid and acting irresponsibly. You can not trust locks and keys to keep things out of the hands of criminals. If you do trust them and they fail, then yes, you are responsible, it was your decision.

It is not draconian as there is an alternative, cheaply and easily available.

It just says that you are responsible for what is done with the gun that you introduced into society. How is that wrong?

It introduces a means by which your responsibility can be assuaged when necessary, but it demands that you really think about it before buying a gun.

I am still not sold on this, as I don't believe guns should be treated any differently than any other form of property.

However, if the charges are for negligence only, and in no way related to the crime that is committed, I could bend. The fact is that guns are a tool that has two uses, to kill animals, and for violence against humans. If a gun is allowed into society unchecked, it can be assumed that it will be used for the latter. This would be a crime against the safety of the members of society and should be attoned for. (I'm kind of stretching away from my own principles of property rights, but I am trying to see different angles.)

I also suppose that security companies will begin to introduce home packages that insure the safety of the gun.

It is rather draconian. They are responsible, but not completely 24/7/365. Then they would be punished if a crime was committed with it, and that is unfair to the owner if they did not willing give it to the criminal.

If they alow it to enter into the hands of the criminal by negligence, then effectively they did willingly give it to the criminal. This is all about personal responsability for ones own actions. The action I am concerned with here is introducing a gun into society. You do this, then you are responsible for what is done with that gun. Ways and means have been provided for this responsibility to be delegated to professionals, but this apparently is not enough.

What do you want. That I buy a gun, I leave it in my car, my car is stolen and the gun used, but I am not responsible for putting that gun in the hands of the criminal? You will answer that in that case I am, but if so, why not if I had the gun at home, someone broke in and stole it and used it. Either I am always responsible for how the gun is used, or I am never responsible for what someone else does with it regardless. I am offering an out tfor the 24/7/365 responsibility, without entering on the slippery slope.

It is however, only an idea, and it appears that I am outvoted. I ask, when does your responsibility for your gun stop?

So who are we gonna have on the "seats" after the election? You know after we win, cuz we're so freaking awesome. :)

Look at this, we can debate gun control reasonably, without calling the other side a bunch of murdering violent rednecks! This proves our awesomeness.

So who are we gonna have on the "seats" after the election? You know after we win, cuz we're so freaking awesome. :)

Look at this, we can debate gun control reasonably, without calling the other side a bunch of murdering violent rednecks! This proves our awesomeness.
:eek: :eek: Whaaaaaaaaa?! :eek: :eek:
By god your right!
I think we discussed that yesterday, I think it ma have changed since we have more seats at the moment.

I'll be bowing out of discussion and campaigning for the remainder of today and possibly tomorrow.

I just got a call that a fellow local blogger (with whom I have collaborated on multiple projects/websites) died today at work. :(

Talk to you guys when I get back.

I'll be bowing out of discussion and campaigning for the remainder of today and possibly tomorrow.

I just got a call that a fellow local blogger (with whom I have collaborated on multiple projects/websites) died today at work. :(

Talk to you guys when I get back.
I'm sorry to hear that Texaspunditstan. I hope you are alright and I wish you the best. :(

Regarding representatives:



I would propose these as our representatives until we have enough for five reps.

Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Texaspunditstan
Wegason

I would swap Wegason for Kervoskia, with Wegason or LGO being the fifth.

I now clearly nominate Wegason for the fifth seat.

So
Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Texaspunditstan
Kervoskia
Wegason
?
?

Is my current suggestion.

EDIT: I just noticed that I am a Cabbage Patch Girl? How long will that last I wonder.

I'll be bowing out of discussion and campaigning for the remainder of today and possibly tomorrow.

I just got a call that a fellow local blogger (with whom I have collaborated on multiple projects/websites) died today at work. :(

Talk to you guys when I get back.

Commiserations, take all the time you need.

While I am most definately a liberal, their are some points in this that i cannot condone.

In section 6, the idea of sufferage being limited by ones education comes up. I find this a horrid idea. If you insist on doing this, then education should be changed so that the government will pay grades pre-k through the first 4 years of the college or university of their choice.

This policy is very close to class warfare since it is harder for working and lower middle class to go to college than it is for the wealthy and so a lower percent make it all the way through high school let alone to college.

I now clearly nominate Wegason for the fifth seat.

So
Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Texaspunditstan
Kervoskia
Wegason
?
?

Is my current suggestion.

EDIT: I just noticed that I am a Cabbage Patch Girl? How long will that last I wonder.
I second Wegason's nominations.

I would guess Cabbage Patch Girl would last untill you hit 4,000.

We are actually quite a long way from neo-anarchism. The government has a definite and positive role to play in our system.

Doesn't neo-anarchism have a (very minimal) role for government, that being the difference between neo-anarchism and anarchism.

Perhaps its one of those things where terminology varies from country to country, book to book.

In my country Liberal means Conservative.

While I am most definately a liberal, their are some points in this that i cannot condone.

In section 6, the idea of sufferage being limited by ones education comes up. I find this a horrid idea. If you insist on doing this, then education should be changed so that the government will pay grades pre-k through the first 4 years of the college or university of their choice.

This policy is very close to class warfare since it is harder for working and lower middle class to go to college than it is for the wealthy and so a lower percent make it all the way through high school let alone to college.

That point is not general sufferage. It is sufferage to elect members of the consultative body only. i.e. selecting experts. Only those qualified to judge should be involved in selecting a panel of experts. If some one were to ask me to select an expert in military technology, I would not have a clue. If they want an expert in analytical philosophy however, I could make a few reasonable suggestions.

Why is it harder for working and lower middle classes to get through a complete education. This is funded through vouchers where needed and low interest loans where applicable. Those with better educations will have better employment prospects and can easily repay the loans, those that don't want or dont care about education don't have to bother, and the state does not end up paying for an education for a kid that does not want it.

Doesn't neo-anarchism have a (very minimal) role for government, that being the difference between neo-anarchism and anarchism.

Perhaps its one of those things where terminology varies from country to country, book to book.

In my country Liberal means Conservative.

neo- as a prefix just means new. It is used to separate anarchism today from the revolutionary anarchism of the end of the 19th scentury, as far as I understand anyway. Regardless of this, no anarchism wants a state or a government, if they do, they are not anarchists.

On to liberal. We are classic liberals, which means we pretty much follow the open free market policies laid out by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Now whether we are conservatives or not, depends very much on what is being conserved. Certainly we are right of centre, but not very much so. So in opposition to a socialist or labour group, as in Australia for example, we could be described as conservative. But then when compared to American politics we are to the left (even though we are right of center) so we are not the conservatives. This is one of the problems with labels. We are Lioberals which means to some that we are right and others that we are left. We our selves see us more as defenders of liberty and the individual as opposed to conformity and the state. Put that way we are not particulalrly conservative.

The 8 points of liberalism makes just about every modern political philosphy a form of liberalism. All liberals are liberal just some liberals are more liberal than others.

Just one thing I noticed. There is a clearly stated government money supply, but there is no mention of what monetary rule will be used to regulate this. Or is there no monetary rule for a good reason?

I believe I previously mentioned on this thread that I prefer inflation targeting via interest rates.

There is not one mention of property rights in the manifesto (I realise it is implicit, but I like explicit).

I also have some more ideas with regard to economic policy, but another time.


I know I am poking my nose in a little late, but I've had things to do.

The 8 points of liberalism makes just about every modern political philosphy a form of liberalism. All liberals are liberal just some liberals are more liberal than others.

Just one thing I noticed. There is a clearly stated government money supply, but there is no mention of what monetary rule will be used to regulate this. Or is there no monetary rule for a good reason?

I believe I previously mentioned on this thread that I prefer inflation targeting via interest rates.

There is not one mention of property rights in the manifesto (I realise it is implicit, but I like explicit).

I also have some more ideas with regard to economic policy, but another time.


I know I am poking my nose in a little late, but I've had things to do.
We have a forum you may go to. It's a page or so back.
Here it is: http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/index.php?mforum=classicliberal

I now clearly nominate Wegason for the fifth seat.

So
Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Texaspunditstan
Kervoskia
Wegason
?
?
Is my current suggestion.



I am honoured to be nominated and seconded for the fifth seat. I thank you all, as it is now 3.30am here, i shall go to bed and mix revision for a maths exam with campaigning tomorrow. Lets hope we win a sixth seat and maintain five at least. :p

Doesn't neo-anarchism have a (very minimal) role for government, that being the difference between neo-anarchism and anarchism.

Any form of anarchism, neo- or other wise is anti-government as an entity. We are not opposed to government at all, we just recognize the autonomy of the individual over the protection of the whole.

I now clearly nominate Wegason for the fifth seat.

So
Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Texaspunditstan
Kervoskia
Wegason
?
?

Is my current suggestion.


I agree with all of these choices, if there is much dissent amongst the party, it would make sense to hold an election to fill the seats. I doubt there will be much disagreement.

I am honoured to be nominated and seconded for the fifth seat. I thank you all, as it is now 3.30am here, i shall go to bed and mix revision for a maths exam with campaigning tomorrow. Lets hope we win a sixth seat and maintain five at least. :p
So far we have 20% and th DSP has a little less than 20%, so it's close. As long as we keep it that way we can maintain five seats at least.

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - WE CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU POWER OVER YOUR OWN LIFE

Good morning Gentlemen and Ladies.

We battle on, holding a narrow lead.

We must step up our campaigning, appeal to the voters and get those we know who would like our views to vote for us. I will get nations in my region to vote for us. Plus my other region.

Melkor is doing better than the communists now and we maintain a narrow lead.
May the battle continue!!

I am going to post this in the election thread

THE NS CLASSIC LIBERAL PARTY STANDS FOR:

That the fundamental principle of society shall be the preservation of the rights and responsibilities of the individual

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

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

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

We Advocate

FREE TRADE, FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM AND PROSPERITY FOR ALL

PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM
Vote NS Classic Liberals

Guys, if you want to use any of the posters I created for campaigning, here are the links. I made them for all of us to use.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal1.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal2.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal3.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal4.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal5.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal6.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal7.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal8.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal9.jpg

Im using them now, they are rather excellent, i'm glad your on our side.

You said you are a professional graphics designer did you not?

Yep. Freelance web and print designer. :D

Here's the new one. :D

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal9.jpg

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal9.jpg

My favourite is the Socialist 'Nanny State' and the communist one in the same poster. I like that one.

It might be useful to know a little more about the talents or areas of interest of our membership. Tex is obviously into and good at graphic design.

I am that most useless of professions, a philosopher (moral and political), but also have a reasonably good command of written english, logic, programming!, and economics.

It might be useful to know a little more about the talents or areas of interest of our membership. Tex is obviously into and good at graphic design.

I am that most useless of professions, a philosopher (moral and political), but also have a reasonably good command of written english, logic, programming!, and economics.

Well i'm at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) studying accounting and finance with some economics thrown in. So economics and number crunching is one of my strong points. I am more socially conservative than most of the others here but i still consider myself a social liberal.

Hmmm.... talent.... not sure of anything else, cannot think of anything at the moment. English is one of my specialities as i am a spelling freak and have to edit my posts if i make one that i see.

I'm in web design/Flash/SEO.

And a card-carrying member of the LP, ACLU and thinking of adding the NRA to the list.
I'm also suprised at the number of freedom-lovers on the board these days. What the hell happened while I was gone? Whatever it was... 'bout fuckin' time! :D

And no... I won't create any cute party graphics.

I come on here to get away from work. :p

The dude above has enough talent for the whole party, though! Makin' everyone else's bullshit look more like what it really is. :D

I paused my Stalk-Mode to vote for you guys, given that I haven't posted in at least four months you must be good! :p

*makes mental note to get more involved with this next time round*

Best of luck!

And no... I won't create any cute party graphics.

I come on here to get away from work. :p

The dude above has enough talent for the whole party, though! Makin' everyone else's bullshit look more like what it really is. :D
If you're referring to my posters, thank you very much. :D

I'm in freelance web and print design. More of a static graphics geek, but I do flash as well. Spent some time in advertising, too. (I'm the sloganeer from hell. ;))

I paused my Stalk-Mode to vote for you guys, given that I haven't posted in at least four months you must be good! :p

*makes mental note to get more involved with this next time round*

Best of luck!

Thank you. We are doing our best to set people free.

Thank you. We are doing our best to set people free.
We will continue our fight and for me, we are doing better than i thought we would do.