NationStates Jolt Archive

I had originally held no intentions of restarting the NSCL, but there seems to be little representation for our past supporters.

I cannot find any past threads from the NSCL, nor do I remember the location of the forum, so its seems that the party be started anew.

So anyone interested, help me get started on a new manifesto.

I'm down with that. The commies and the pretentiously silly party are at it again and something must be done!

Lemme just see if I can brainstorm a bit about what our principles were. Economics... free the market. Personal liberty... paramount. Welfare checks, high income tax, negatory. Drugs... legalize. Am I right so far?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418625

Isn't that your old thread?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418625

Isn't that your old thread?

Oh, hey, there it is. A lot less work for us then. Thanks to you and your family!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418625

Isn't that your old thread?

Damnit, so who is Igor?

Damnit, so who is Igor?
Igor (http://www.google.com)

Constitutional Principles

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

a) The foremost role of government is to assure the autonomy of the individual.
b) Regulation of society shall be maintained through the fair enforcement of contracts and competitive forces of the free market.
2. Policies shall be directed toward equal utility for and equal freedom of all individuals within society. If there is conflict between these two principles then freedom shall be given priority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) Abortion shall be at the discretion of the woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Here are our constitutional principles that begin the manifesto, any suggested changes?

Here are our constitutional principles that begin the manifesto, any suggested changes?

On the 8th item. I take it people would have to pass an adequacy test to vote?

On the 8th item. I take it people would have to pass an adequacy test to vote?

That appears to be the case.

On the 8th item. I take it people would have to pass an adequacy test to vote?

It clearly says "or" at the age of 18. So you only are needed to take the test if you're below the age of 18.

That appears to be the case.

It clearly says "or" at the age of 18. So you only are needed to take the test if you're below the age of 18.

Well since I got two different replies it seems its not that clear. So which is it folks?

Well since I got two different replies it seems its not that clear. So which is it folks?

Santa Barbara is correct.

I was confused as we do have a mention of limited suffrage.

Well, see for yourself.

The age of majority. This shall be 18 or on the successful completion of a test of judgment capability. Whichever shall occur first.

So if the age of 18 comes first you can vote. No?

I would think there would need to be an additional principle or other clarification if we mean to specify that there's gotta be a test to take no matter what age you are, if you want to vote.

I didn't write any of this so perhaps I'm wrong on the "spirit" of this particular law, but the "letter" doesn't seem to specify to a reasonable degree that tests are always required in order to vote.

Well, see for yourself.



So if the age of 18 comes first you can vote. No?

I would think there would need to be an additional principle or other clarification if we mean to specify that there's gotta be a test to take no matter what age you are, if you want to vote.

I didn't write any of this so perhaps I'm wrong on the "spirit" of this particular law, but the "letter" doesn't seem to specify to a reasonable degree that tests are always required in order to vote.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. You might want to be a little more specific in that you don't need to take a test to vote, just if you're younger than 18.

Here are our constitutional principles that begin the manifesto, any suggested changes?


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

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


The dangers presented by the professional military should be seriously considered here. Presumably, the purpose of the military is to act in a function of defense; professional militaries instead will encourage action in the function of offense. The dedication and motovation described above, combined with the desire to exercise one's sole profession, could indeed lead to a bias that actively encourages the use of military force.

This is especially so where there is a disconnect between the military institution and the civilian political body in general, a disconnect which occurs where some are "professional" military and some are not. There is a tendency, well observed in the United States, for the civilian political institution to advocate the use of force, while the military institution opposes as the military institution will have to carry most of the cost in blood, sweat, and lives. Observe the current fiasco in Iraq; the record shows that government leadership with military experience, like Colin Powell, had serious reservations about the current war (as well as the first Gulf War in 1991 in the case of Mr. Powell) while the civilian leadership with essentially no meaningful military experience couldn't wait to start dropping bombs.

Of course, this disconnect goes to the very heart of the concept of TANSTAAFL described by Robert A. Heinlein (a Navy veteran himself). So long as the civilian political leadership does not have to pay the same price in the same way as the military establishment (blood, limbs, lives), the civilian political leadership will accept what appears to be a "free" lunch and be far less discouraged about the use of military force. Not only does this threaten the security of the state, but it can (i.e. will) lead to the unnecessary risk of the safety and lives of those who volunteer to defend that state. To continue in the literature vein, one of Heinlein's major themes is the idea that those who claim power over society should first be made to accept the ultimate responsibility for that society, lest they not understand what are the very real consequences of the exercise of that power. In fact, read in this way, one of his most controversial works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) actually presents an anti-war theme, regardless of hollywood's best efforts to offer as shallow and distorted an analysis as possible (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/).

So, the NSCL should seriously consider the potential anti-war influence that is presented by military service by citizens. Citizens who have lives and professions outside of the military, and who can see the concequences of military force first hand, are less likely to desire the exercise of that force. By having a direct connection to the military institution, they will also recognize that they have the most to lose by not exercising that force when it is genuinely needed. The NSCL should also consider ways in which this military service can be administered in non-coersive ways. Instead of granting citizenship and then requiring service after the fact, military (or even civilian national service) could be required as a step in gaining citizenship (presumably in the absense of birthright citizenship in order to prevent inequity against immigrants) or as gaining levels of franchise (the NSCL platform already seems comfortable limiting certain aspects of the franchise to those who attain a particular level of education). In this way, the benefit is bought by service (TANSTAAFL...) instead of having the service forced upon the individual after the fact.

And at any rate, there are certain situations where compulsion/drafting are necessary, where the continued existance of the state, community, and individual are in direct and real danger.


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


The platform should more explicitly state that certain rights are inalienable and not dependent on one's ability to conciously comprehend them, i.e. the right to life, etc. What is the fate of the "mentally handicapped" individual described above if no "guardian" is willing to accept responsibility for him or her?

Alright, the NSCL is back...sign me up for it. However, there needs to be one qualification in the "trade" section; does that free-trade clause apply to international as well as national trade (not that it technically matters, but it's important in regard to the platform)?

The dangers presented by the professional military should be seriously considered here. Presumably, the purpose of the military is to act in a function of defense; professional militaries instead will encourage action in the function of offense. The dedication and motovation described above, combined with the desire to exercise one's sole profession, could indeed lead to a bias that actively encourages the use of military force.

This is especially so where there is a disconnect between the military institution and the civilian political body in general, a disconnect which occurs where some are "professional" military and some are not. There is a tendency, well observed in the United States, for the civilian political institution to advocate the use of force, while the military institution opposes as the military institution will have to carry most of the cost in blood, sweat, and lives. Observe the current fiasco in Iraq; the record shows that government leadership with military experience, like Colin Powell, had serious reservations about the current war (as well as the first Gulf War in 1991 in the case of Mr. Powell) while the civilian leadership with essentially no meaningful military experience couldn't wait to start dropping bombs.

Of course, this disconnect goes to the very heart of the concept of TANSTAAFL described by Robert A. Heinlein (a Navy veteran himself). So long as the civilian political leadership does not have to pay the same price in the same way as the military establishment (blood, limbs, lives), the civilian political leadership will accept what appears to be a "free" lunch and be far less discouraged about the use of military force. Not only does this threaten the security of the state, but it can (i.e. will) lead to the unnecessary risk of the safety and lives of those who volunteer to defend that state. To continue in the literature vein, one of Heinlein's major themes is the idea that those who claim power over society should first be made to accept the ultimate responsibility for that society, lest they not understand what are the very real consequences of the exercise of that power. In fact, read in this way, one of his most controversial works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) actually presents an anti-war theme, regardless of hollywood's best efforts to offer as shallow and distorted an analysis as possible (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/).

So, the NSCL should seriously consider the potential anti-war influence that is presented by military service by citizens. Citizens who have lives and professions outside of the military, and who can see the concequences of military force first hand, are less likely to desire the exercise of that force. By having a direct connection to the military institution, they will also recognize that they have the most to lose by not exercising that force when it is genuinely needed. The NSCL should also consider ways in which this military service can be administered in non-coersive ways. Instead of granting citizenship and then requiring service after the fact, military (or even civilian national service) could be required as a step in gaining citizenship (presumably in the absense of birthright citizenship in order to prevent inequity against immigrants) or as gaining levels of franchise (the NSCL platform already seems comfortable limiting certain aspects of the franchise to those who attain a particular level of education). In this way, the benefit is bought by service (TANSTAAFL...) instead of having the service forced upon the individual after the fact.

And at any rate, there are certain situations where compulsion/drafting are necessary, where the continued existance of the state, community, and individual are in direct and real danger.

I understand your point, but there is no way that I could support mandatory military service, other than situations of dire need. Compulsory military service prior to or upon citizenship would fly directly in the face of everything this party stands for. (At least in my opinion)

I would not, however, be opposed to having an appointed or elected committee of qualified individuals (current/past servicemen) that could serve as a commander in chief of the armed forces.

The platform should more explicitly state that certain rights are inalienable and not dependent on one's ability to conciously comprehend them, i.e. the right to life, etc. What is the fate of the "mentally handicapped" individual described above if no "guardian" is willing to accept responsibility for him or her?

This is true.

However, I would consider mentally handicapped capable of understanding their own existence. We run into trouble with Terri Shiavo situations when we say that the right to life is inalienable.

Perhaps a more detailed discription as to what constitutes comprehension?

Alright, the NSCL is back...sign me up for it. However, there needs to be one qualification in the "trade" section; does that free-trade clause apply to international as well as national trade (not that it technically matters, but it's important in regard to the platform)?

Yes, international trade is also free.

Yes, international trade is also free.

Alright, sign me up then. I'm fully behind this party's platform.

Compulsory military service prior to or upon citizenship would fly directly in the face of everything this party stands for. (At least in my opinion)


Present the case.


I would not, however, be opposed to having an appointed or elected committee of qualified individuals (current/past servicemen) that could serve as a commander in chief of the armed forces.


If I recall correctly, this is what is done in Switzerland except that the commander in chief is a single individual and is only selected in times of actual war. (Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland - notice how this highly democratic and free state employs compulsory military service while also having a very strong anti-war tradition) I have the following objection to the committee approach:

It has long been the practice in, for example, the United States to streamline and centralize the foreign policy process. Large organizations and bureaucracies, like the State Department, are alienated in favor of small groups centered around the president. In such a situation, knowledgable and qualified individuals (like, again, Colin Powell) are ignored because the organizations they are involved in (The Joint Chiefs, State Department) are viewed as taking too long to make decisions or do not come to the "correct" decisions often enough. Probably the entire reason Powell was made Secretary of State was because 1) he has consistantly voiced reservations or outright opposition to civilian military plans, and 2) the State Department has been steadly losing voice in the overall foreign policymaking process thus making it easier to ignore any possible objections raised by it.

Committees and bureaucracies are easy to sidestep and ignore. One possible advantage of military/civilian national service for citizens(hip) is that it essentially makes the entire citizen and electoral population into the committee of qualified individuals. It is much more difficult for the civilian leadership to sidestep and ignore the entire citizen and voting populace. Especially when that populace holds all the guns; control of the government by holding the monopoly on coercive capital is an advantage presented by the citizen militia.

Even explicitly making the committee into the "commander in chief" does not necessarily solve any problems, as the gulf between the civilian political institution and military institution still remains. In fact, to some degree, it has been made worse.


Perhaps a more detailed discription as to what constitutes comprehension?


Unfortunately, this is likely to result in a debate/flamewar with no end. Thus my preference for simply erring on the side of caution and instituting general principle regardless (inalienable right to life). Of course, this does result in certain implications for parts (a) and (b) under the section "Health."

Oh, hey look. Our forums still exist.

http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal.html

I wish you all the best of luck. Caught me at a bad time, out campaigning for the MLP. I could make an ad for you if you want.

As a reminder, you haven't yet confirmed whether or not you'll be taking part in the upcoming election. Please do so (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472095&page=28) within the next ten hours, before the election begins.

I had originally held no intentions of restarting the NSCL, but there seems to be little representation for our past supporters.

I cannot find any past threads from the NSCL, nor do I remember the location of the forum, so its seems that the party be started anew.

So anyone interested, help me get started on a new manifesto.


The NationStates Champions League? Cool!