NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: The last part is not intended to be taken seriously. It does not reflect my real views. I'm anti-communist, yes, but would do such things IRL


--Abortion--
Should be up to the states to decide.


--Gay marriage--
See above ^


--Drugs--
See above ^


--Economy--
Businesses should be 100% unregulated, all anti-trust laws repealed, corporate welfare abolished, minimum wage laws abolished, all tariffs and other protectionist measures eliminated. A national bank (i.e., Federal Reserve) and income tax are also big no-no's.


--Death penalty--
Support it.


--Law and order--
More police, stricter punishments for criminals, more prisons, shoot to kill when dealing with scum


--Foreign policy--
A non-aligned, non-interventionist foreign policy (for the most part). We will pull out of the UN and all entangling alliances, NATO, WTO, et. al. We will trade and establish embassies with all nations except communist ones, which we will sever relations with, impose crippling economic sanctions upon, and covertly sponsor military coups in. We will break off relations and end trade with, socialist nations, but we won't interfere in their affairs, nor will we sponsor coups in those nations, unless we have a LOT of free time on our hands... :P


--Healthcare--
Not the government job's to provide.


--Social welfare--
See "Healthcare"


--Gun control--
Oppose it vehemently. Gun control only sets the stage for tyranny.


--Stem cell research--
Yawn. Science, who cares? Let funding for it come from the private sector. We won't outlaw it, but nor will we support it.


--Education--
Let states and local governments pay for it, and let parents have a say in what their kids are taught (for the most part). School should be optional!


--Immigration--
Surround our national borders with 50-feet-tall fences with 2-inch thick titanium bars and 10,000 volts of electricity, with excrement-coated barbed wire at the top. Scatter billions upon billions of landmines on both sides of the border. The only way to get into the country will be via a special helicopter. All unauthorized vehicles will be shot down with SAMs. No more than 250,000 immigrants may enter the country per year. All will have to undergo background checks to ensure they have no criminal record.


--Military--
We will return ALL our troops from abroad, and allocate 80% of the budget to the military.


--Communism--
The Communist Party will be outlawed. All communist, pro-communist, and/or otherwise leftist literature, films, propaganda, etc. will be outlawed. Violation of these laws will result in being banned for five years. A second violation will result in exile. If the offender returns from exile, scaphism will be their punishment.

You're a bit late - the voting has already started. I wonder when the next election will be? Your party could be a candidate in the next one.

You're a bit late - the voting has already started. I wonder when the next election will be? Your party could be a candidate in the next one.

I know, I just thought I'd make a party anyway! :D

You Thatcherite/Reaganites had your time in the 1980s...and fucked it up for everyone. Now just roll up and die. :sniper:

Yes, Workers Militia, and haven't the communists throughout history and the world done such a fantastic job as well? Didn't actually see Reagan and Thatcher intentionally having people killed myself, but presumably that's simply because they have invaded my mind and are now controlling my every move or something, right?

Good grief. :rolleyes:

You Thatcherite/Reaganites had your time in the 1980s...and fucked it up for everyone. Now just roll up and die. :sniper:


Erm....may i be the first so say that your views of the world are rather distorted......


Thats all

Yes, Workers Militia, and haven't the communists throughout history and the world done such a fantastic job as well? Didn't actually see Reagan and Thatcher intentionally having people killed myself, but presumably that's simply because they have invaded my mind and are now controlling my every move or something, right?

Good grief. :rolleyes:
So Thatcher met with Pinochet to condemn him, yes?

Businesses should be 100% unregulated, all anti-trust laws repealed... A national bank (i.e., Federal Reserve) and income tax are also big no-no's.

I don't mean to flame here, but I think you may possibly be criminally insane.

your party sucks.

Why? Because he believes in pure competition?

No regulation is a bit too much, since customers and investors need some protection, but I like the idea of letting business remain free of unnecessary/inhibiting taxation/regulation.

For the idiot who ripped on Reagan and Thatcher, the US economy was incredibly strong under Reagan and during his stint the USSR began to give way to our military spending... you see, that weak-ass Communist economy just couldn't keep up. Communism sucks.

Why? Because he believes in pure competition?

No. Because pure competition is an incredibly fragile state in a market and requires a great deal of monitoring and action to maintain. Monopolies are not competative.

And I have yet to see a reasonable system for implementing privately owned and controlled currency. I have no idea how you would run, not control but actually put into motion, an economy without a central bank.

Why? Because he believes in pure competition?

No regulation is a bit too much, since customers and investors need some protection, but I like the idea of letting business remain free of unnecessary/inhibiting taxation/regulation.

For the idiot who ripped on Reagan and Thatcher, the US economy was incredibly strong under Reagan and during his stint the USSR began to give way to our military spending... you see, that weak-ass Communist economy just couldn't keep up. Communism sucks.
You dont think the unnatural pressures of the arms race may have been what destroyed it?

So Thatcher met with Pinochet to condemn him, yes?She didn't actually meet him according to any news sources I saw about it. However, yes, she did defend him, I grant you that. I have no idea on what grounds, but I was making the point that Thatcher et al have not actually (intentionally, at the very least) commanded the deaths of their people during peace time. Communists very definitely have, and 9 times out of 10 seem to end up as authoritarian as the kind of governments they claim to despise. It's a nice system in theory, but completely unworkable in practice.

I'm no fan of Thatcher or Reagan or Bush or Blair or whoever lies to the right of the political spectrum necessarily. I just don't think that these people can be blamed for all the atrocities of the world like some on the far left seem to think they can.

This sounds like a light form of fascism combined with Objectivist economics. I listen to music with a socialist bent everyday. Why should I die painfully because I give a shit about the poor? Somehow, I thought you were better than this.

She didn't actually meet him according to any news sources I saw about it. However, yes, she did defend him, I grant you that. I have no idea on what grounds, but I was making the point that Thatcher et al have not actually (intentionally, at the very least) commanded the deaths of their people during peace time. Communists very definitely have, and 9 times out of 10 seem to end up as authoritarian as the kind of governments they claim to despise. It's a nice system in theory, but completely unworkable in practice.

I'm no fan of Thatcher or Reagan or Bush or Blair or whoever lies to the right of the political spectrum necessarily. I just don't think that these people can be blamed for all the atrocities of the world like some on the far left seem to think they can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pinochet-Thatcher.jpg

Those "communists" were selfish people but the main problem was that they were so isolated from the people that they ceased to be a people's government. They also disarmed the workers and followed a stalinist path until their downfall.

Reagan and Thatcher are not above blame. Reagan refused to deal with the AIDS crisis meaning millions are still dieing (sic?) thanks to him. Thatcher also launched a pointless war which led to numerous deaths. Both leaders are also responsible for continuing this neo-liberal capitalism. Maggie's destruction of the organised left wing also still damages the country to the day and she also failed to deal with the Northern Ireland situation properly

Erm....may i be the first so say that your views of the world are rather distorted......


Thats all
depends on your point of view :rolleyes:
i mean i kinda agree with the dude.

and why would anyone be anti- dear, sweet, old communists like myself?
*waits for deluge of mistaken posts pertainig to totalitarianism, and a few decent ones about restrictions of liberties*


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/UDCPbanner.jpg

*runs*

You Thatcherite/Reaganites had your time in the 1980s...and fucked it up for everyone. Now just roll up and die. :sniper:
Workers Militias, read the link to the rules in my signature. Concentrate on the flaming, flamebait, and trolling section.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

-snip-
*runs*

You call that a hit and run? watch this
http://img155.echo.cx/img155/6043/catrtp7pr.jpg
http://img141.echo.cx/img141/4038/capitalcrime4ge.jpg
http://img69.echo.cx/img69/9509/slavery3xw.jpg

*flees*

"--Gun control--
Oppose it vehemently. Gun control only sets the stage for tyranny."

That's not giving people freedom to decide their own lives... Slightly communist

"--Education--
Let states and local governments pay for it, and let parents have a say in what their kids are taught (for the most part). School should be optional!
--Law and order--
More police, stricter punishments for criminals, more prisons, shoot to kill when dealing with scum"

How can you afford this if you are anti communist. If you don't want to share everyone needs their own police.

"--Military--
We will return ALL our troops from abroad, and allocate 80% of the budget to the military."

What budget? How can you tax people if businesses are unregulated...

You dont think the unnatural pressures of the arms race may have been what destroyed it?

That was precisely the device that destroyed the Soviet Union... they could not keep up... because in a Communist economy that inhibits private enterprise, punishes entrepreneurialism (etc.)... it's tough for such economies to prosper.

--Economy--
Businesses should be 100% unregulated, all anti-trust laws repealed, corporate welfare abolished, minimum wage laws abolished.
This worked perfectly back during the Industrial Revolution.

That was precisely the device that destroyed the Soviet Union... they could not keep up... because in a Communist economy that inhibits private enterprise, punishes entrepreneurialism (etc.)... it's tough for such economies to prosper.
How dare they punish those who exploit people to make money for themselves!

Scaphism as a punishment? I thought the 8th amendment prohibited such things. 80% of the budget to military? What, are you planning on building mobile suits?

How dare they punish those who exploit people to make money for themselves!

ahhh, yes, the uberCommunist thought process: the rich exploit the poor. Those poor people who cannot do a thing for themselves...

My retort:

Without the rich, the poor would lack:

-Jobs (unless they wanted to be farmers... or grew a sack and decided to go into business for themselves)

-Someone to rip on when they're feeling sorry for themselves


The country would lack:

-Successful corporations... which would lead to:
a)Lower tax revenue with which to run socialist programs for the poor
b)A real job shortage (which means your poor dude would be on the street or a farmer or a sole proprietor if he grew a pair)
c)Based on "a" and "b"... a really crappy economy.


et al. (too late to hit every point)


Democrats would lack:
-A model through which to pander to poor people in hopes that the poor people will actually believe that the rich man's demise can bring about the poor man's rise

ahhh, yes, the uberCommunist thought process: the rich exploit the poor. Those poor people who cannot do a thing for themselves...

My retort:

Without the rich, the poor would lack:

-Jobs (unless they wanted to be farmers... or grew a sack and decided to go into business for themselves)

-Someone to rip on when they're feeling sorry for themselves

1)Well in your society they ultimately have no political representation. Direct action is required.
2)We don't need the rich to appoint people to do jobs when they can be distributed amongst the people and shared so that we can end unemployment

The country would lack:

-Successful corporations... which would lead to:
a)Lower tax revenue with which to run socialist programs for the poor
b)A real job shortage (which means your poor dude would be on the street or a farmer or a sole proprietor if he grew a pair)
c)Based on "a" and "b"... a really crappy economy.


et al. (too late to hit every point)

a)We don't need taxes or programs- what do you think we are? LIBERALS?
b)No- in many places there is massive unemployment due to rich individuals being unwilling to hire. We can find enough for jobs people under socialism. We need more consumer goods, food and water about the entire world. If we get the unemployed working on that we can sort that out.
c)See, when right-wingers talk about the "economy", they essentially mean how the rich people are getting on.

Democrats would lack:
-A model through which to pander to poor people in hopes that the poor people will actually believe that the rich man's demise can bring about the poor man's rise

Are you actually calling those capitalist shits in the Democrat party Marxists? If you think they're left wing then I must be off the scale

How dare they punish those who exploit people to make money for themselves!
hiring someone to work for a legitimate business with a wage based on usefullness is exploitation?

Without the rich, the poor would lack:

-Jobs (unless they wanted to be farmers... or grew a sack and decided to go into business for themselves)

-Someone to rip on when they're feeling sorry for themselves

Just like without owners, slaves would have no one to provide jobs or scapegoats.

The fact that unemployment exists at all despite millions of people willing to work says a lot about capitalist effeciency.

Just like without owners, slaves would have no one to provide jobs or scapegoats.

The fact that unemployment exists at all despite millions of people willing to work says a lot about capitalist effeciency.
1. strawman, you compare legitimate corporations to slave owners. slave owners force slaves to work against their will (much like in communism). Corporations do nothing of the kind.
2. Not really. immigrants coming across the borders basically dispels the entire premise for your argument. you say "despite millions of people willing to work," yet somehow immigrants are willing to come across the border to work. the real reason there is unemployment is a combination of
a. people are lazy
b. they dont want a shitty job which looks great to an immigrant. For instance, minimum wage on a farm out in texas doesnt look so good to a single mother of two, but is a gold mine for an immigrant with a starving family back in Mexico.

1. strawman, you compare legitimate corporations to slave owners. slave owners force slaves to work against their will (much like in communism). Corporations do nothing of the kind.

To a socialist, there is no such thing as a legitimate corporation. Outside the first world, capitalism basically is just a nicer form of slavery.

b. they dont want a shitty job which looks great to an immigrant. For instance, minimum wage on a farm out in texas doesnt look so good to a single mother of two, but is a gold mine for an immigrant with a starving family back in Mexico.

Yes, but a single mother of two doesn't have an easy time holding a job and raising two children. You can't blame her for not wanting to take a shitty job.

strawman, you compare legitimate corporations to slave owners. slave owners force slaves to work against their will (much like in communism). Corporations do nothing of the kind.

That isn't strawman because Letila wasn't qualifying your arguement. At worst it's a false analogy. But I happen to think it's spot on. Not that corporations = slave-owners, but that slave-owners are not the only sources of jobs and likewise the rich/corporations are not the only sources of jobs.

Honestly have we forgotten the very essense of free-market capitalism?

Not really. immigrants coming across the borders basically dispels the entire premise for your argument. you say "despite millions of people willing to work," yet somehow immigrants are willing to come across the border to work.

Premise: There is unemployement.

Arguement: Given that there is unemployement capitalism isn't as efficient as is advertised.

Now that we got that out of the way. How the heck does immigration disprove the existance of unemployement?

I don't mean to flame here, but I think you may possibly be criminally insane.

Insane, yes. Criminally...not quite yet. ;)

This sounds like a light form of fascism combined with Objectivist economics. I listen to music with a socialist bent everyday. Why should I die painfully because I give a shit about the poor? Somehow, I thought you were better than this.

The last part 'Communism' was only semi-serious. ;)

Right, so I'll make a note never to visit a country that you're in charge of.

Scaphism as a punishment? I thought the 8th amendment prohibited such things. 80% of the budget to military? What, are you planning on building mobile suits?

Letila, this isn't completely serious. I noticed how silly some of the other parties were, so I decided not to make mine 100% serious, either. ;)

Hehehehe!
A free economy without a central bank?
Who provides the currency? Just printing it isn't enough people.

The people who say such things usually have no bloody idea what they're talking about (ie in this case) or their fellow economists put them into an ideological mental health facility (that kind almost doesn't exist anymore)

All your great heroes,all your free market economists that developed theories that obviously have big flaws in them (prices and wages will never be perfectly flexible, how could they?)*, all of those guys were monetarists to some extent. They were against the Government, yes, but against the Central Bank??? Give me a break.

Whithout government involvement:
a) who provides the rule of law? I can show you a simple mixed-strategy Nash Equilibrium that explains to you that without it, there's gonna be no economy...
b) who provides public goods? Are you willing to live in a world without streets, without streetlights etc just so you can sit back and say "my ideology has won".

Also you'll probably be a poor bastard, as an unregulated market system like yours is just as inefficient as a planned economy. Just think of all the dead weight losses that hundreds of monopolies create...1 for every good and service.

*obviously some left-wing theories also have flaws in them, albeit not quite as dramatic as declaring prices to be perfectly flexible (if all else fails, there is still a menu-changing cost associated with changing a price)

--Abortion--
Should be up to the states to decide.


--Gay marriage--
See above ^


--Drugs--
See above ^

Taking niether side on those issues. Why should the states decide?

--Economy--
Businesses should be 100% unregulated, all anti-trust laws repealed, corporate welfare abolished, minimum wage laws abolished, all tariffs and other protectionist measures eliminated. A national bank (i.e., Federal Reserve) and income tax are also big no-no's.

Where will the state derive the money to pay for measures you list below?

--Death penalty--
Support it.

And I thought you were a libertarian. Evidently I was wrong.

--Law and order--
More police, stricter punishments for criminals, more prisons, shoot to kill when dealing with scum

Where will you get the money for this?


--Gun control--
Oppose it vehemently. Gun control only sets the stage for tyranny.

Yet you support other measures that could set the stage for tyranny.

Odd, no?

--Immigration--
Surround our national borders with 50-feet-tall fences with 2-inch thick titanium bars and 10,000 volts of electricity, with excrement-coated barbed wire at the top. Scatter billions upon billions of landmines on both sides of the border. The only way to get into the country will be via a special helicopter. All unauthorized vehicles will be shot down with SAMs. No more than 250,000 immigrants may enter the country per year. All will have to undergo background checks to ensure they have no criminal record.

Umm, money?

--Military--
We will return ALL our troops from abroad, and allocate 80% of the budget to the military.

Why?

Or is Canada amassing troops along the north border?


--Communism--
The Communist Party will be outlawed. All communist, pro-communist, and/or otherwise leftist literature, films, propaganda, etc. will be outlawed. Violation of these laws will result in being banned for five years. A second violation will result in exile. If the offender returns from exile, scaphism will be their punishment.

Yay!

Give them martyrdom status. It'll help build converts.

Though I have seen what some Americans define as "leftist" which worries me a bit.

NOTE: The reason the right to bear arms is guaranteed is in case the party becomes too tyrannical. If that happens, the people could overthrow us and start a new government.

Where will the state derive the money to pay for measures you list below?

If they want an income tax, they can have one. I should have made that clearer. There would be no federal income tax. We wouldn't tax citizens directly, we would tax the states themselves in proportion to their populations.

Letila, this isn't completely serious. I noticed how silly some of the other parties were, so I decided not to make mine 100% serious, either.

In that case you aren't insane, your a comic genious :D

Here have a cookie, sort of

* * *
* * * *
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *

/tear

The forum killed my cookie

In that case you aren't insane, your a comic genious :D

Here have a cookie, sort of

* * *
* * * *
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *

Actually, I am insane. :p

NOTE: The reason the right to bear arms is guaranteed is in case the party becomes too tyrannical. If that happens, the people could overthrow us and start a new government.

If the government is executing people for listening to the Internationale three times, then it is already beyond help.

If the government is executing people for listening to the Internationale three times, then it is already beyond help.

As I said, not all of it was serious.

Roach, your party's manifesto is perfect if your aim is to turn (NS, I guess?) into a third-world country.

Also, isn't it a bit sad to define yourself soely by what you are against?

Roach-Busters, I have a suggestion for you. Instead of forming your own party, why not join the NS Meritocratic Represenative Republicans? We have many of the same idead in common, though some of your ideas are a bit... extreme.