NationStates Jolt Archive

Sick of choosing between the two extremes every time elections roll around? The Human Rights Pary is the Party for you. The HRP stands for civil liberties and moderate economics based off of pragmatism, rather than ideology.

The HRP platform is as follows:

1. The HRP beleives that Tarrifs are a futile attempt to protect an industry that has failed. As such it opposes the imposition of tarrifs.

2. The HRP beleives that a social safety net is just that, a net, not a bed. It beleives in helping people get to their feet, but not holding them because they are unwilling to try again.

3. The HRP beleives that the best way to retain a competitive economy is to fund education well. As such, it supports improvements to education, including smaller class sizes, more pay for teachers, and more training for teachers.

4. The HRP beleives that a competitive market is good, as long as it is actually competitive, and as such supports regulation of industry to insure fairness and sustained competition.

5. The HRP beleives that our freedoms are critical. It will support the freedoms of Speech, Privacy, Organization to Protest, The Right to Bear Arms, The Freedom to Practice Religion (or lack thereof), and all Judicial rights.

6. The HRP beleives in a well armed, but rarely used military. As such it will support all options before war, but will have a well funded military that it will use when all other options have been exhausted.

7. The HRP beleives that the death penalty is cruel, inhumane, and uncivilized. As such it supports the use of correction facilities and well defended permanent living facilities.

Ammendment One: The Human Rights Party will oppose any and all racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory laws. They will work to make sure that educational facilities are non-discriminatory, and that merit of work, not race, religion, sexuality, or gender is observed in the workplace.

Ammenment Two: Because communication is a central freedom in both business and private life, the HRP will strive to ensure the privacy of all communications, and the right to freely associate.

Ammendment Three: The Human Rights Party beleives that all education MUST be based on fact and fact alone, and opposes the insertion of political or religious bias into the schools. They will fight to maintain historical and scientific truths.

Party Leader: Kinda Sensible people
Party Members:
Zilam
Unlucky and Unbiddable
Raistlins Apprentice
Andaluciae
Bolol
Vesperia Prime
Vetalia
Taldaar
Pyotr
Ragbralbur
Neo-Undelia
Avaryartha
Malasrion
Cookeland
The Nigerian Republic
Nationis
Brutland and Norden
UN Protectorates
Deus Malum

-snip-

Add me to your party mate

no one else is joining? :mad:

no one else is joining? :mad:

Patience. Besides which, election season just started. Once everyone figures out what's going on, things will pick up.

no one else is joining? :mad:

sign me up, and don't worry, its like 1 am in britain:p

sign me up, and don't worry, its like 1 am in britain:p

Welcome to the party.

Patience. Besides which, election season just started. Once everyone figures out what's going on, things will pick up.


What is going on?

What is going on?

NSG elections!!! Do you agree with the OP? then join the party!!

NSG elections!!! Do you agree with the OP? then join the party!!

I'll join I guess?

I'll join I guess?

You have been added.

I will start working on some sort of ad for when campaign threads go up.

While I don't agree with the economic regulation, I like a lot of what I see.

While I don't agree with the economic regulation, I like a lot of what I see.

As a clarification, by regulation I mean things like anti-trust law, to prevent the formation of abusive monopolies, and some health and safety regulations.

Sick of choosing between the two extremes every time elections roll around? The Human Rights Pary is the Party for you. The HRP stands for civil liberties and moderate economics based off of pragmatism, rather than ideology.

The HRP platform is as follows:

1. The HRP beleives that Tarrifs are a futile attempt to protect an industry that has failed. As such it opposes the imposition of tarrifs.

2. The HRP beleives that a social safety net is just that, a net, not a bed. It beleives in helping people get to their feet, but not holding them because they are unwilling to try again.

3. The HRP beleives that the best way to retain a competitive economy is to fund education well. As such, it supports improvements to education, including smaller class sizes, more pay for teachers, and more training for teachers.

4. The HRP beleives that a competitive market is good, as long as it is actually competitive, and as such supports regulation of industry to insure fairness and sustained competition.

5. The HRP beleives that our freedoms are critical. It will support the freedoms of Speech, Privacy, Organization to Protest, The Right to Bear Arms, The Freedom to Practice Religion (or lack thereof), and all Judicial rights.

6. The HRP beleives in a well armed, but rarely used military. As such it will support all options before war, but will have a well funded military that it will use when all other options have been exhausted.

7. The HRP beleives that the death penalty is cruel, inhumane, and uncivilized. As such it supports the use of correction facilities and well defended permanent living facilities.

Party Leader: Kinda Sensible people
Party Members: Zilam
Pyotr
Unlucky and Unbiddable
...

Heee...this fits me PERFECTLY! Count me in.

While I don't agree with the economic regulation, I like a lot of what I see.

Economy requires some regulation, pure uncut laissez-faire results in competition killing monopolies and oligopolies.

As a clarification, by regulation I mean things like anti-trust law, to prevent the formation of abusive monopolies, and some health and safety regulations.

Oh, so we're talking more along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt, and not Keynesian regulation?

Now I'm really interested...

Oh, so we're talking more along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt, and not Keynesian regulation?

Now I'm really interested...

Yeah. The regulations fall more into the lines of the Progressives than the New Deal Democrats. Similarly, the social safety net is more moderate than the welfare net of modern days, and instead focuses on giving people a chance to fix their issue, rather than a way of avoiding work.

Yeah. The regulations fall more into the lines of the Progressives than the New Deal Democrats. Similarly, the social safety net is more moderate than the welfare net of modern days, and instead focuses on giving people a chance to fix their issue, rather than a way of avoiding work.

Alrighty, I'm in.

Alrighty, I'm in.

You've been added.

So, obviously we'll be putting up a candidate for the Presidency, as well as Parliment/Congress/Whatever we do here members. Question is, who should those people be? Should we decide now, or wait till we have more members before thinking about it?

So, obviously we'll be putting up a candidate for the Presidency, as well as Parliment/Congress/Whatever we do here members. Question is, who should those people be? Should we decide now, or wait till we have more members before thinking about it?

Presidency is up for grabs, as it's never even occured before. However, if anyone wants to run, the party can back them.

I think that it is less serious than the other elections, though.

As to parliament, the party runs in the main election, and we choose representatives after we find out how many seats we have.

Presidency is up for grabs, as it's never even occured before. However, if anyone wants to run, the party can back them.

I think that it is less serious than the other elections, though.

As to parliament, the party runs in the main election, and we choose representatives after we find out how many seats we have.

Well, in that case, I offer up myself as a possible candidate for the Presidency for our party. That is, of course, if no one else wishes to attempt it.

You're going to tell me more about how a Parliamentery system works. I, being the unfortunate result of the American educational system, have absolutely no idea how it works. I only know the system the United States runs on.

Well, in that case, I offer up myself as a possible candidate for the Presidency for our party. That is, of course, if no one else wishes to attempt it.

You're going to tell me more about how a Parliamentery system works. I, being the unfortunate result of the American educational system, have absolutely no idea how it works. I only know the system the United States runs on.

well NSG's parliament works something like this:

1. Someone announces "Hey look! There's supposed to be an election!"
2. Parties form, ads are thrown around.
3. Popular vote, out of X number of seats, each party receives their seats.
4. One or two issues get brought up.
5. The Parliament dies until it's time for elections, when everything starts back up.

issues 3 and 4 are almost guaranteed to include at least one case of voting fraud.

well NSG's parliament works something like this:

1. Someone announces "Hey look! There's supposed to be an election!"
2. Parties form, ads are thrown around.
3. Popular vote, out of X number of seats, each party receives their seats.
4. One or two issues get brought up.
5. The Parliament dies until it's time for elections, when everything starts back up.

issues 3 and 4 are almost guaranteed to include at least one case of voting fraud.
Ah, I see. Sounds like fun. Wish there would be a way to keep the Parliament going for longer, though. Considering the uncanny ability NSG has for keeping certain discussion topics alive, you'd think we'd be able to manage this quite easily.

interesting positions...I'm unable to register as of yet, but you have my interest.

The list of parties has gone up (I'm about to get us added), so hopefully there will be a polling thread set up soon. When there is, it is time to go in there and advertise/discuss.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11663982#post11663982

Count me in.

I'm liking this as well. Where do I sign?

You have both been added.

Welcome to the HRP.

Well, besides the carrying over from last year UDCP, we're the largest new party so far.

I'll join...it fits my political views perfectly.

Yeah, all that manifesto stuff sounds good. Let me in!

Yeah, all that manifesto stuff sounds good. Let me in!

On second reconsideration, I would like to rejoin:cool:

On second reconsideration, I would like to rejoin:cool:

Welcome back.

This would be fine if it werent for the fact you don't have the death penalty. The death penalty is important to health societies.

This would be fine if it werent for the fact you don't have the death penalty. The death penalty is important to health societies.
European societies are the healthiest in the world since abolishing the death penalty.

Welcome back.

Thanks, lets ally ourselves with the Democratic Islamic Party, you may ask why; to this I ask "why not?"

besides their abbrevation is DIP which quite possibly the catchiest ever...the DIP

Updated.

Elections start on October 1st, so we've got some time to campaign.

Is it too late to join?

Is it too late to join?

I don't think so...

Then sign me up!

I'm in.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9784/freedompwnsas4.png

Thanks, lets ally ourselves with the Democratic Islamic Party, you may ask why; to this I ask "why not?"

besides their abbrevation is DIP which quite possibly the catchiest ever...the DIP

Personally, I disagree. While they have some good policies, I think that as the Human Rights Party we should keep our distance from anyone advocating Sharia law and planning to destroy the separation of church and state.

Updated again.

Neo Undelia, that's a cool ad there. :D

Personally, I disagree. While they have some good policies, I think that as the Human Rights Party we should keep our distance from anyone advocating Sharia law and planning to destroy the separation of church and state.Most assuredly. We should not associate ourselves with those who wish to allow the Church--any church--to influance the state.

Why not ban the Church?

Why not ban the Church?

No. Why would we do that? That would interfere with the right to practice religion. All I'm saying is that we should not let religion run the government, is all.

Why not ban the Church?

Because the purpose of the policy is not to prevent worship or beleif, it is to insure that everyone may worship as they beleive. It would be wrong to give any group priority, because that would harm the other groups.

1. The HRP believes that Tarrifs are a futile attempt to protect an industry that has failed. As such it opposes the imposition of tarrifs.
...
4. The HRP believes that a competitive market is good, as long as it is actually competitive, and as such supports regulation of industry to insure fairness and sustained competition.How do you propose regulating trade between countries to insure fairness and sustained competition? Are small countries and small, start-up industries going to have a chance to get established, or will they immediately be undercut by large transnational corporations with limitless pocketbooks that can absorb a loss for as long as it takes to knock compettion out of the market?

How do you propose regulating trade between countries to insure fairness and sustained competition? Are small countries and small, start-up industries going to have a chance to get established, or will they immediately be undercut by large transnational corporations with limitless pocketbooks that can absorb a loss for as long as it takes to knock compettion out of the market?
Anti-trust laws and other regulations can prevent corporations from crushing domestic businesses. As for what a foreign nation does with its tariffs, my opinion is that’s none of another governments business. If it becomes our concern, it can only lead to government getting into bed with big business.

Remember, the NSG parliament runs a hypothetical country, not any existing one and not the world.

How do you propose regulating trade between countries to insure fairness and sustained competition? Are small countries and small, start-up industries going to have a chance to get established, or will they immediately be undercut by large transnational corporations with limitless pocketbooks that can absorb a loss for as long as it takes to knock compettion out of the market?

We deal with our own policy, not that of other nations. Other nations may take whatever stance they wish to on the issue of Free Trade. However, we beleive that the healthiest, fastest way for less developed countries to advance foward in a global market is to open their borders to new ideas and culture at a lower price, allowing businesses to mix their own knowledge with that of outside technologies, and making startup faster and easier.

In the long run, a creative, clever market can establish itself using the traits of entrepernourship and an origional means of making or distributing a product.

How do you propose regulating trade between countries to insure fairness and sustained competition? Are small countries and small, start-up industries going to have a chance to get established, or will they immediately be undercut by large transnational corporations with limitless pocketbooks that can absorb a loss for as long as it takes to knock compettion out of the market?

Initially, companies are going to be put out of business by foreign competition. That will happen, and it may impact employment negatively in the short run. However, as the economy matures thanks to that foreign investment and trade, the overall development of the economy increases and companies are started that compete successfully with foreign firms. Unemployment will fall and real incomes will rise as a result, and the economy will develop on its own and will be able to compete and invest abroad just like the places that invested in it. Lenovo is a perfect example of this, as is the Haier group and even CNOOC's ill-fated bid for Unocal (which was a perfect example of the US government's populist xenophobia, politics, and economic stupidity all rolled in to one).

In order for this to happen, however, the developing country needs two things: infrastructure and an educational base. In order to develop a country, investment has to be made in these sectors and underperforming ones need to be scaled back at the same time. So, at the same time that foreign investment is building up the economy, the waste needs to be cut in order to keep the economy functioning after the investment shifts to a more stable level. This is confirmed if we examine the economic reform, modernization and development of India, China and the other countries of Asia. The economy begins with labor-intensive unskilled manufacturing and gradually grows in diversity and complexity as workers' incomes rise and their access to education and basic services increases. Eventually, unskilled manufacturing is superseded by skilled manufacturing and basic services, and these are eventually replaced to a degree with value-added manufacturing, IT, and professional/technical services. Simultaneous with this is the rise of these skilled groups are a professional managerial sector that can start businesses and efficiently run other companies, increasing economic efficiency and overall growth potential. Financial services also rise to allocate income, and eventually you have the financial and administrative framework that is perfect for the development of an advanced, globally competitive economy.

If you put up tariffs to protect new industries, you're going to end up with a "Hindustan Motors" situation where the economy's efficiency is crippled by tariffs that are long past their prime. Even China has problems with eliminating state-owned enterprises; the benefits of privatization are clear, but officials within the Communist Party resist it in order to both protect their influence and to keep their population under control because short-term spikes in unemployment are not desirable when the country is facing severe unrest. The nature of politics means these tariffs and subsidies aren't going to be removed by the country even after those industries can stand on their own and so intermediate and long-term economic efficiency is greatly hampered in order to protect these industries in the short term. This might mean keeping unemployment at 5% and GDP growing at 7% for the first decade, but after that seeing it rise to 10% unemployment and 3% GDP growth in the second decade whereas in the full-liberalization scenario you might end up witha brief spike to 10% unemployment and 3% GDP growth in the first decade and then 4% unemployment and 10% GDP growth in the second decade.

-snip-
Haha. The overwhelming intellectual firepower of Vetalia strikes again.

Haha. The overwhelming intellectual firepower of Vetalia strikes again.

Hey, that's what four years of reading about the global economy gives you...once the ball's rolling, I can write a damn good argument about any international or domestic economic issue. Sure, it can get pretty dry but that's what those posts are all about!

And, if by some rare chance I don't really know the answer, I always follow the golden rule of analysis writing:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

If you add in opposition to discrimination on the base of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, ect. (new labels for people's differences are sure to be forthcoming in the future) and a party mission to work towards an acceptable quality of life for all people (meaning food, water, shelter, basic healthcare) as well as an economy in which everyone can, in one way or another, be useful and support themselves. (whether this is done through welfare for work programs or an effective unemployment service working to help find people jobs so they can support themselves and their families.)

Oh, and a dedication to freedom of communication, speech, and expression in all it's forms (excluding fraud and other obvious things.)

And an opposition to attempts by religious groups (or any groups for that matter) to attempt to replace the science and history taught in our schools with their own doctrine.

I think that, with what you've already said (though I really don't much care about tariffs) would about cover my political intentions. If I see these planks on your party platform, I will be quick to add my name.

If you add in opposition to discrimination on the base of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, ect. (new labels for people's differences are sure to be forthcoming in the future)
By opposition, what do you mean? People should have the right to say what they want and associate with whomever they want, no matter how ignorant and self-destructive that is for them personally.
If you mean equal access to public buildings and the banning of segregated faculties, I believe that’s covered due to us not being assholes.
and a party mission to work towards an acceptable quality of life for all people (meaning food, water, shelter, basic healthcare) as well as an economy in which everyone can, in one way or another, be useful and support themselves. (whether this is done through welfare for work programs or an effective unemployment service working to help find people jobs so they can support themselves and their families.)

2. The HRP beleives that a social safety net is just that, a net, not a bed. It beleives in helping people get to their feet, but not holding them because they are unwilling to try again.

3. The HRP beleives that the best way to retain a competitive economy is to fund education well. As such, it supports improvements to education, including smaller class sizes, more pay for teachers, and more training for teachers.
You want to help the poor? Educate them.
Also, I personally wouldn't be opposed to some sort of healthcare "guarantee" being added.
Oh, and a dedication to freedom of communication, speech, and expression in all it's forms (excluding fraud and other obvious things.)

5. The HRP beleives that our freedoms are critical. It will support the freedoms of Speech, Privacy, Organization to Protest, The Right to Bear Arms, The Freedom to Practice Religion (or lack thereof), and all Judicial rights.
And an opposition to attempts by religious groups (or any groups for that matter) to attempt to replace the science and history taught in our schools with their own doctrine.

Once again, we aren't assholes, but I wouldn't be against adding this either.

Me likes what me sees. Sign me up plz.

If you put up tariffs to protect new industries, you're going to end up with a "Hindustan Motors" situation where the economy's efficiency is crippled by tariffs that are long past their prime.

True. For years this is what passed for cars in India until Manmohan Singh (the current Prime Minister, the then Finance Minister) liberalised the economy in 1991 and removed restrictions for foreign automakers.

http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/200103-d1-delhi/ambassador-car.half.jpg

Aryavartha, could you please make that picture a link or a thumbnail? It's stretching the page.

Replying to Neo Undelia

I know you answer these with "we arn't assholes" but these are rights that the republican's have been fighting, and the democrats have been too scared to defend.

though I did forget one thing, which is that the government should not have a right to regulate what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. This may seem obvious, but you would be surprised.



By opposition, what do you mean? People should have the right to say what they want and associate with whomever they want, no matter how ignorant and self-destructive that is for them personally.
If you mean equal access to public buildings and the banning of segregated faculties, I believe that’s covered due to us not being assholes.
By opposition, I first mean simply taking a stand, in public, against discrimination. A lot of party's are afraid to really do this. I understand that sometimes you don't have the right to do anything else, but to me, that is a minimum.

Sometimes, a political party can have an affect by their behaivior and their endorsements, even if they lack the power to change things themselves.

Also, it would be important to ask the question, if the HRP had been in control of the politics of the USA after sept. 11th, and, let's say, Coka Cola descided that they were going to quit hiring arabic people, what would your response be?

2. The HRP beleives that a social safety net is just that, a net, not a bed. It beleives in helping people get to their feet, but not holding them because they are unwilling to try again.

3. The HRP beleives that the best way to retain a competitive economy is to fund education well. As such, it supports improvements to education, including smaller class sizes, more pay for teachers, and more training for teachers.
You want to help the poor? Educate them.
Also, I personally wouldn't be opposed to some sort of healthcare "guarantee" being added.
What I meant was, that the Human Rights Party isn't going to take those people who are mentally unstable, or just caught in a rut in which they cannot get a job because they are homeless, and leave them to fend for themselves. When I say food, water, and shelter, I'm not talking a house with nice meals, I'm talking of people not having to risk starvation or death from exposure to the elements. Once survival stops becoming a challenge, personal sucess can actually be achieved.

Also, the greatest cause of financial failure among minimum wage earners is health problems. These people live day to day, month to month, and have no extra money to be devoted to healthcare. When they almost inevitably get sick or injured, they suddenly start going into debt.
Also, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, meaning that if we were to primarily fund disease screenings and doctor visits, we would be effectively treating millions of dollars in damage with thousands in expense.
There needs to not only be a safety net at the bottom, but also a nice, dependable staircase rather than a tightrope to try and climb back up.

Once again, we aren't assholes, but I wouldn't be against adding this either.
This is politics. Just because something is common sense doesn't by far mean it is a given. If this is what you stand for, state it and stand by it. The american public wants a party who stands their ground, but also one that has ground to stand on.

The american public wants a party who stands their ground, but also one that has ground to stand on.
Well, this in an international forum. We got a lot of British and Canadians, so watch the "American" talk.

We'll see what Kinda Sensible People has to say. Me, I've got to get some sleep.

Damnit, I knew I did that one other time, too, at the end of the post, and then I thought "Dur, I've got to stop assuming we're talking about americans" but Mozilla's search feature wouldn't work in post, and I didn't want to go through it myself to delete all the times I've said "American."
Though I have to admit a political party not based in any particular country will have a rather hard time. Is the intention to be a transnational party?

In terms of additional planks, do these sound good:

Ammendment One: The Human Rights Party will oppose any and all racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory laws. They will work to make sure that educational facilities are non-discriminatory, and that merit of work, not race, religion, sexuality, or gender is observed in the workplace.

Ammenment Two: Because communication is a central freedom in both business and private life, the HRP will strive to ensure the privacy of all communications, and the right to freely associate.

Ammendment Three: The Human Rights Party beleives that all education MUST be based on fact and fact alone, and opposes the insertion of political or religious bias into the schools. They will fight to maintain historical and scientific truths.

And as to health care... I don't even want to touch that until I get broader opinions.

Feel free to suggest edits, addendums etc and discuss them. I'll add these if people are happy.

In terms of additional planks, do these sound good:

Ammendment One: The Human Rights Party will oppose any and all racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory laws. They will work to make sure that educational facilities are non-discriminatory, and that merit of work, not race, religion, sexuality, or gender is observed in the workplace.
If we're to do this, it must be equal equal. No attempts at affirmative action or anything similar. Otherwise, it'll be inherently hypocritical.

If we're to do this, it must be equal equal. No attempts at affirmative action or anything similar. Otherwise, it'll be inherently hypocritical.

Agreed. If a racial group is underrepresented in the highly educated, the most important step is to reach out to that group and get parents and volunteers involved in the educational community. That is the best way to improve student performance. Afirmative Action has yet to show results anyway.

Will it be our policy to enact laws forcing private organizations not to discriminate based on race, gender, etc, or will such policies only target public institutions like the school system?

Furthermore, who will historical fact declare the winner of the War of 1812?

Agreed. If a racial group is underrepresented in the highly educated, the most important step is to reach out to that group and get parents and volunteers involved in the educational community. That is the best way to improve student performance. Afirmative Action has yet to show results anyway.

Aye. All Affirmative Action and similar such standards happen to be is reverse discrimination. And I refuse to accept that in a party I stand for. Your method is one that makes a damned sight more sense, though I still would tread carefully about worrying whether a "race" is underrepresented. I don't think it matters, methinks, in the scheme of things. It still sounds just a wee bit hypocritical to go "Well we don't care about anything like race and whatnot" and then to say "Oh wait those dudes aren't fully up in there, so let's reach out to their community!" You have to go only one way or the other. Not both.

Will it be our policy to enact laws forcing private organizations not to discriminate based on race, gender, etc, or will such policies only target public institutions like the school system?

Furthermore, who will historical fact declare the winner of the War of 1812?

I would have to say that yes, we should pass measures to prevent discrimination in private organizations. That's not to say that they can't have groups of one thing or another. They just won't be able to, say, refuse to hire someone because they're a homosexual, or fire someone because they're black, ect.

I would have to say that yes, we should pass measures to prevent discrimination in private organizations. That's not to say that they can't have groups of one thing or another. They just won't be able to, say, refuse to hire someone because they're a homosexual, or fire someone because they're black, ect.
There would be some exceptions, no? I mean, we can't very well expect a Women's Studies department to hire and equal number of male and female professors, can we?

There would be some exceptions, no? I mean, we can't very well expect a Women's Studies department to hire and equal number of male and female professors, can we?

No. The idea is not to force "equal" representation. That's affirmative action.

We...Oh, I see what you're saying. You're talking about very private organizations, as opposed to businesses and whatnot. Well in that case they can hire whatever they please. Their choice, really.

No. The idea is not to force "equal" representation. That's affirmative action.

We...Oh, I see what you're saying. You're talking about very private organizations, as opposed to businesses and whatnot. Well in that case they can hire whatever they please. Their choice, really.
Okay. That's what I wanted to know.

Aye. All Affirmative Action and similar such standards happen to be is reverse discrimination. And I refuse to accept that in a party I stand for. Your method is one that makes a damned sight more sense, though I still would tread carefully about worrying whether a "race" is underrepresented. I don't think it matters, methinks, in the scheme of things. It still sounds just a wee bit hypocritical to go "Well we don't care about anything like race and whatnot" and then to say "Oh wait those dudes aren't fully up in there, so let's reach out to their community!" You have to go only one way or the other. Not both.

Well if you want to ensure that schools are effective, one of the important steps to take is to acknowledge that when groups begin to fall behind in schools as a group, it is indicative of a trend, and that reaching out to that group will reverse the trend.

It's more statistics and effeciency than it is racial profiling. The best way to cure a disease is to target the cause, not the symptoms.

In terms of additional planks, do these sound good:

Ammendment One: The Human Rights Party will oppose any and all racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory laws. They will work to make sure that educational facilities are non-discriminatory, and that merit of work, not race, religion, sexuality, or gender is observed in the workplace.

Ammenment Two: Because communication is a central freedom in both business and private life, the HRP will strive to ensure the privacy of all communications, and the right to freely associate.

Ammendment Three: The Human Rights Party beleives that all education MUST be based on fact and fact alone, and opposes the insertion of political or religious bias into the schools. They will fight to maintain historical and scientific truths.

And as to health care... I don't even want to touch that until I get broader opinions.

Feel free to suggest edits, addendums etc and discuss them. I'll add these if people are happy.
Those three amendments look great, you'd have my support for adopting those to our platform.

As for healthcare, I'd oppose a State Healthcare Plan.

I
And as to health care... I don't even want to touch that until I get broader opinions.

If we're going by the "safety net" option, perhaps a combination of need-based healthcare insurance coverage and the ability of companies to pool together to buy healthcare for their workers could work. The need-based insurance could either be provided by the government or through a private provider with government acting as a negotiator to partially cover the insurance cost.

You could further refine a healthcare plan by providing additional discounts for patients who meet certain "lifestyle" requirements; namely, if they do not smoke or quite smoking, maintain a healthy weight and diet and avoid things like drugs or heavy drinking (as monitored by their physician on a yearly basis) they could have their healthcare entirely covered by the government.

However, I would leave the actual hospital management and insurance to the private sector but provide government aid and intermediation between HMOs, hospitals, and individuals according to need. The government would provide aid to low-income people and negotiate with the healthcare industry but the overall program would be managed by the private sector.

Will it be our policy to enact laws forcing private organizations not to discriminate based on race, gender, etc, or will such policies only target public institutions like the school system?

Furthermore, who will historical fact declare the winner of the War of 1812?

Noone, because noone accomplished it yet... Wait, I am not in this party. Sorry.

Back to AWSL!

If we're going by the "safety net" option, perhaps a combination of need-based healthcare insurance coverage and the ability of companies to pool together to buy healthcare for their workers could work. The need-based insurance could either be provided by the government or through a private provider with government acting as a negotiator to partially cover the insurance cost.

You could further refine a healthcare plan by providing additional discounts for patients who meet certain "lifestyle" requirements; namely, if they do not smoke or quite smoking, maintain a healthy weight and diet and avoid things like drugs or heavy drinking (as monitored by their physician on a yearly basis) they could have their healthcare entirely covered by the government.

However, I would leave the actual hospital management and insurance to the private sector but provide government aid and intermediation between HMOs, hospitals, and individuals according to need. The government would provide aid to low-income people and negotiate with the healthcare industry but the overall program would be managed by the private sector.
Vetalia, as always, you make perfect sense. I swear, with your economic knowledge, I really should be asking you to help me with investments.

If we're going by the "safety net" option, perhaps a combination of need-based healthcare insurance coverage and the ability of companies to pool together to buy healthcare for their workers could work. The need-based insurance could either be provided by the government or through a private provider with government acting as a negotiator to partially cover the insurance cost.

You could further refine a healthcare plan by providing additional discounts for patients who meet certain "lifestyle" requirements; namely, if they do not smoke or quite smoking, maintain a healthy weight and diet and avoid things like drugs or heavy drinking (as monitored by their physician on a yearly basis) they could have their healthcare entirely covered by the government.

However, I would leave the actual hospital management and insurance to the private sector but provide government aid and intermediation between HMOs, hospitals, and individuals according to need. The government would provide aid to low-income people and negotiate with the healthcare industry but the overall program would be managed by the private sector.

That sounds like a good way of handling the issues.

4th Ammendment: The HRP will institute a flat tax on personal income and corporate profits based on a starting point for taxation above 0 dollars for personal taxes and at 0 for corporate taxes. Welfare shall be expressed as a function of the tax rate and the starting point of taxation.

Commentary: Let's say the tax rate is 20% and starts getting counted at 20,000. Here's how the taxes would work on various incomes: (Income on the left, taxes paid on the left)

0 = -4000
10000 = -2000
20000 = 0
30000 = 2000
50000 = 6000
100000 = 18000
200000 = 38000
1000000 = 198000

Basically, the system is mathematically unbreakable. Depressing your income by putting it in a fund of some sort will not change the amount it is taxed.

4th Ammendment: The HRP will institute a flat tax on personal income and corporate profits based on a starting point for taxation above 0 dollars for personal taxes and at 0 for corporate taxes. Welfare shall be expressed as a function of the tax rate and the starting point of taxation.

Commentary: Let's say the tax rate is 20% and starts getting counted at 20,000. Here's how the taxes would work on various incomes: (Income on the left, taxes paid on the left)

0 = -4000
10000 = -2000
20000 = 0
30000 = 2000
50000 = 6000
100000 = 18000
200000 = 38000
1000000 = 198000

Basically, the system is mathematically unbreakable. Depressing your income by putting it in a fund of some sort will not change the amount it is taxed.

Not bad, although I certainly hope that it goes per job.

Not bad, although I certainly hope that it goes per job.
I think I'll wait to see what my other party members think.

If we're going by the "safety net" option, perhaps a combination of need-based healthcare insurance coverage and the ability of companies to pool together to buy healthcare for their workers could work. The need-based insurance could either be provided by the government or through a private provider with government acting as a negotiator to partially cover the insurance cost.

I find this acceptable, and would support adoption of this bit.

You could further refine a healthcare plan by providing additional discounts for patients who meet certain "lifestyle" requirements; namely, if they do not smoke or quite smoking, maintain a healthy weight and diet and avoid things like drugs or heavy drinking (as monitored by their physician on a yearly basis) they could have their healthcare entirely covered by the government.
While I disagree with having their healthcare entirely covered by the government on these matters, what I would support is a situation in which the government offered incentives to insurers to give people health based discounts. Things like tax breaks, low interest loans, guarantees of credit and such similar types of things.

However, I would leave the actual hospital management and insurance to the private sector but provide government aid and intermediation between HMOs, hospitals, and individuals according to need. The government would provide aid to low-income people and negotiate with the healthcare industry but the overall program would be managed by the private sector.
Eh, I'm leary on this bit. I'll need to turn it over in my brain for a while, but I'll have my two cents to add.

since the choose wisely party has commited treason against the order of spam, i have decided to leave it, and join this party.

4th Ammendment: The HRP will institute a flat tax on personal income and corporate profits based on a starting point for taxation above 0 dollars for personal taxes and at 0 for corporate taxes. Welfare shall be expressed as a function of the tax rate and the starting point of taxation.

Commentary: Let's say the tax rate is 20% and starts getting counted at 20,000. Here's how the taxes would work on various incomes: (Income on the left, taxes paid on the left)

0 = -4000
10000 = -2000
20000 = 0
30000 = 2000
50000 = 6000
100000 = 18000
200000 = 38000
1000000 = 198000

Basically, the system is mathematically unbreakable. Depressing your income by putting it in a fund of some sort will not change the amount it is taxed.
i oppose this. we are not a communist party.

i have xhanged my mind about enteering, will found new party.

i oppose this. we are not a communist party.
Nor are we completely capitalist, from what I've seen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we recognize the value of the free market system in sorting out almost every exchange that occurs in a society. We do, however, make exceptions, like for the military and education. These exceptions need to be funded. I didn't offer a set rate in the ammendment, but I did offer a system I had devised that would prevent tax evasion and income hiding, something to which I believe we should be committed.

I'm still waiting for other party members to weigh in on this. From what I've read, if we were completely anti-tax we would all join Greill's party. I think this is a party that favours low taxation, and I suggested an ammendment that would enable us to collect those taxes efficiently and effectively. I'm not leaving if it gets shot down, because this party is easily the closest to my views, but I thought I'd participate.

So, I was at work earlier, and this incredibly awesome advertisement for the HRP just hit me all of a sudden. While on break, I scripted it out:


INT. EMPTY WHITE SPACE (Time irrelevant.)

Narrator(V-O): Human: it brings to mind different images to all of us.

(Narrator walks onscreen. As he speaks and mentions appearances, his appearence changes to reflect what he says.)

Narrator: Some see a white teen male, Others, a black man. Or Asian, or Arabic, Latino, or even--(Voice changes to female)--a woman.

(Narrator returns to initial appearance.)

Narrator: Fact is, we're all human, each and every one of us.

(Narrator starts walking across the screen to the right. As he speaks, people appear in sequence in conjunction with his words.)

Narrator: Whether we preach the love of Jesus, or sing the praises of Allah. Whether we're gay, straight, or even bi. Whether we're old, young, or any age inbetween.

(Narrator stops walking. As he speaks these words, he gestures, and images appear in his hands to reflect the words.)

Narrator: We're all human, and we all deserve the same rights. We deserve the ability to live in freedom to pursue whatever makes us happy. To believe in whatever gods we wish, or not at all. To love whom we wish, treat ourselves as we wish, speak as we wish, read what we wish. We're all human.

(As he says these last words, the picture fades out to the Nationstates banner.)

Narrator: We're all human. And we all deserve to be free.

Message Approved Voice: This message approved by the Human Rights Party.

What do you think? Neat, eh? It's a wee bit complicated visually, and we'll need a Flash artist, as I have no such skills, but I think it could be done. (And when I visualized it, it looked amazing. But, that's me being me.) I can do the voices myself, so, as I said, all we really need is a Flash artist willing and able to spend the time making this. Seem like a good idea?

So, no one likes my idea? Or no one saw it? :confused:

So, I was at work earlier, and this incredibly awesome advertisement for the HRP just hit me all of a sudden. While on break, I scripted it out:



What do you think? Neat, eh? It's a wee bit complicated visually, and we'll need a Flash artist, as I have no such skills, but I think it could be done. (And when I visualized it, it looked amazing. But, that's me being me.) I can do the voices myself, so, as I said, all we really need is a Flash artist willing and able to spend the time making this. Seem like a good idea?

I rather like it. Unfortunately, I know nothing of flash. :p

Sorry about forgetting about this. The start of classes has slowed me down considerably.

I like Rag's tax idea as well, but I'll wait and see what everyone else thinks.

I'm trying to word Vet's idea into a coherant ammendmant, but I may just have to use what he wrote. :p

This may be a silly question, but do we actually do anything? Are there elections or something we can win?

This may be a silly question, but do we actually do anything? Are there elections or something we can win?
There were supposed to be...

There were supposed to be...
If there are, I'll join your party.

Well if nothing else, at least my question was a free bump.

*shifty eyes*

Elections are in three days, IIRC. That is assuming, of course, that PM's system is working for voting.

I say, good chaps.

Are any of you finding your comrades too... extreme? Platform too liberal? Leadership inconsistent? Maybe just hankering for a good cup of English tea? Well, have I got the party for you!

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c95/Spoat/BritImperialistposterfin.png

Just click on this link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499781), and you'll be treated to the finest of British culture, society and teas! We have lordships! Ladyships! Lady-Lordships! Battleships! All this, just for your vote! You may be a Damned Colonial, but we at the New British Imperial Party don't discriminate!

THE ELECTION HAS BEGUN! Get out the party spirit, and let's win us some seats!

The Election thread can be found here: http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501675

I voted.

Bump. Please Get the vote out. Right now we will have the lowest representation in parliament. Joke parties are going to win a convincing majority.

In the meantime, we may want to look into a coalition to provide "serious business" to parliament. MOBRA, NBP, CypsWP, and their ilk are not what we want in parliament.

While we're tinkering around with the election itself, I'm of the opinion we might also have an interest in taking a look at the other parties for potential post-election coalitions. The one that immediately comes to mind is the Freedom, Environment and Science Party, as, while our platforms are not the same, we share several key similarities that could be very helpful for a governing coaltion.

Freedom, Science, and Environment would be fine. However, I would suggest creating two Coalitions.

One should be a coalition aimed at establishing a serious government based on parties which aren't jokes.

The other should be a political coalition with similar beleifs.

While we're tinkering around with the election itself, I'm of the opinion we might also have an interest in taking a look at the other parties for potential post-election coalitions.

There appears to be excellent reason to begin creating coalitions now, before the election is over.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11764071&postcount=109

Edit: Join the NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11765635#post11765635)

Twelve votes so far. Let's see how many more we can get.

Out of curiosity, how will we decide our MPs once the election is over? It is possible that we will only have one, and with the way the election is proceeding, two at maximum. Will we run our own little election, or is there another method we should use?

Party Leader chooses?

Or we could have nominations and then an election...

EDIT: Out of curiosity, do we have a stance on global warming? I live in Canada, and for the last 20 years the government has been setting goals to reduce emissions and missing every single one of them. Meanwhile, the Canadian people have been lulled into the sense that the government is taking care of the problem and have done very little to change their consumption patterns, which are the problem in the first place. I am in favour of us giving a series of speeches, not just on the dangers of global warming, but on everyday products that people can easily avoid to help cut back on consumption of damaging products. The government can't help a populace that is not committed to the change it is bringing about, and while the numbers say the people are committed, their buying habits indicate otherwise. This is an issue where I think we should talk tough with the people. Anything we do, in terms of regulations, will raise prices that will hurt those in society least capable of helping themselves. However, if those who can afford it change their buying patterns to a more environmentally friendly pattern, those who cannot afford will be supported by others. If those people don't change their buying patterns, then it's their own fault for claiming to support environmental causes but being too apathetic to actually stand by that claim.

Your party has won 2 seats in Parliament. The results can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11772706&postcount=140).

Please decide upon 2 MPs, and announce them here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502218) as soon as possible.

Party Leader chooses?

Or we could have nominations and then an election...

EDIT: Out of curiosity, do we have a stance on global warming? I live in Canada, and for the last 20 years the government has been setting goals to reduce emissions and missing every single one of them. Meanwhile, the Canadian people have been lulled into the sense that the government is taking care of the problem and have done very little to change their consumption patterns, which are the problem in the first place. I am in favour of us giving a series of speeches, not just on the dangers of global warming, but on everyday products that people can easily avoid to help cut back on consumption of damaging products. The government can't help a populace that is not committed to the change it is bringing about, and while the numbers say the people are committed, their buying habits indicate otherwise. This is an issue where I think we should talk tough with the people. Anything we do, in terms of regulations, will raise prices that will hurt those in society least capable of helping themselves. However, if those who can afford it change their buying patterns to a more environmentally friendly pattern, those who cannot afford will be supported by others. If those people don't change their buying patterns, then it's their own fault for claiming to support environmental causes but being too apathetic to actually stand by that claim.
Sounds like a good idea to me. The global warming stance, I mean.

As for choosing MPs, we should probably leave that up to Kinda Sensible People.

Kinda Sensible People -

The Coalition for Electoral Reform has its first problem/issue:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11773876&postcount=33

The HRP will try to keep dialogue open with other parties on the issue, especially as legislation is introduced in the next few weeks. There are parts of the NBIP constitution which are rational, and parts that need to be tossed out on their ear.

Please appoint seat holders democratically.

The HRP will try to keep dialogue open with other parties on the issue, especially as legislation is introduced in the next few weeks. There are parts of the NBIP constitution which are rational, and parts that need to be tossed out on their ear.

Please appoint seat holders democratically.
I'd like to be an MP, as I'm around fairly often.

The HRP will try to keep dialogue open with other parties on the issue, especially as legislation is introduced in the next few weeks. There are parts of the NBIP constitution which are rational, and parts that need to be tossed out on their ear.

Please appoint seat holders democratically.

I am interested in the MP position, if the party feels that I would be a quality MP.

Bump. I'm not choosing these myself (after all, we're working on improving democracy), so others need to get involved.

Bump. I'm not choosing these myself (after all, we're working on improving democracy), so others need to get involved.

Alright, the way I see it, we have two options:

1. Make a thread for a new poll, placing the names of the potential MPers into the poll to be voted upon by members of the party. (We may need to do this on a separate forum where we can ensure no one not of the party will vote.)

2. If possible, we just add a poll to this thread, though that might be unwise seeing as this thread will no doubt continue to live as the Party headquarters for some time to come.

Either way, if only I and Ragbralbur are running for the position, we might as well just accept the two of us. I would, however, caution against any rash decision making.

Fuck. I'll do it. The MP thing. I've been in parliament every time before now. Not that that means much.

Fuck. I'll do it. The MP thing. I've been in parliament every time before now. Not that that means much.
And there goes the whole running unopposed idea...

So close too.

I'ma nominate myself, because I'd like to be in parliament as well.

I have two options for how we run the elections:

1. We run a thread here on NSG with an open poll to insure fairness and honesty.

2. We create a seperate site, and PM it's location to members to vote there.

1 is easier, but it will make votes public.

I'ma nominate myself, because I'd like to be in parliament as well.

I have two options for how we run the elections:

1. We run a thread here on NSG with an open poll to insure fairness and honesty.

2. We create a seperate site, and PM it's location to members to vote there.

1 is easier, but it will make votes public.
I am in favor of option one, as it will allow us to monitor who votes, and prevent anyone not in the party from influancing the election. It also saves us the tedium of going to another forum for the same benifit.

I think option one would be fine.

Option one sounds good.

As I said on the poll page, I'm dropping out of the seat race.

I'm going to work on hammering out some more solid policy for our party and then maybe apply again next year.

Well, since clearly I'm not going to make it, I shall henceforth drop out of the running as well.

First in, first out, it would appear.

What does the HRP think about the issue of electoral reform? Especially New Burmesia's proposal, post #3 of this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504017

What does the HRP think about the issue of electoral reform? Especially New Burmesia's proposal, post #3 of this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504017

While I am not fit to speak for the party on issues that the party as a whole have not offered opinions on, I, personally, beleive that excepting the mandatory re-elect clause, it is a well crafted proposal. If one examines his graphs a few posts later, the nearness of the results to the vote's reality is telling. It is a vast improvement in terms of balance.

The mandatory re-elect is likely to go over poorly with established parties, since it undermines their power. However, I beleive that he spoke of making it a seperate bill, if the first bill passed.

The tenets of the HRP provides a feasible and effective "fix-er-up" as opposed to more extreme plans for reformation.

Count me in.

I like what I see. Count me in.

I want to join!

(If it's not too late.)

I want to join!

(If it's not too late.)

ditto

I'd like to join too.

Alas, I am more of a green liberal than anything, but this party does have its benefits for someone pro-peace like me, it seems. :)

Bringning this back up for all HRP members. I added those who asked to be added. I need our MPs to get over to the parliament thread and help us break the deadlock. We may (hopefully) be able to have a new election and get less of a lame-duck parliament put into place.

Let's get a check-in from everyone who is in for a second round of elections for the HRP.

This party rocks. :fluffle:

Do you folks still accept new members?

Do you folks still accept new members?

The Parliamentary System is dead, and so there isn't much reason for us to. If it comes back again, I'll add names, but I hold no hopes.

As Per this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12763132&posted=1#post12763132) post, we are back in the game for campaigning. Who's still with us?

I shall join your ranks, fellow HR advocates!

I shall join your ranks, fellow HR advocates!

Consider yourself welcomed.

/in

The Parliamentary System is dead, and so there isn't much reason for us to. If it comes back again, I'll add names, but I hold no hopes.

What did the Parliament do, anyway? It didn't strike me as serving much of a purpose when it was around.

What did the Parliament do, anyway? It didn't strike me as serving much of a purpose when it was around.

We can always dream? I think that we'll be putting together an action agenda for the Parliament this time. That way we can at least get things started for the parliament.

We can always dream? I think that we'll be putting together an action agenda for the Parliament this time. That way we can at least get things started for the parliament.

Yes...but what does it DO? I mean...it's not as if the Parliament can actually make rules that have to be obeyed on NSG, or some such.

Though that would be cool.

They'd have to be really strange, really arbitrary rules, and we'd have to have some amusing way of enforcing them.

Hmm.....

Yes...but what does it DO? I mean...it's not as if the Parliament can actually make rules that have to be obeyed on NSG, or some such.

Though that would be cool.

They'd have to be really strange, really arbitrary rules, and we'd have to have some amusing way of enforcing them.

Hmm.....

Mostly, we argue and make loud noises. Really. I'd like to change that, though. Passing legislation doesn't mean implimenting it (on NSG, practically impossible). This is a game, too, so it's all about trying to get your platform passed (and we need to work to create some laws to debate).

*joins*

:)

I resign my membership in the Human Rights Party, mainly because I want to go an Indepedent streak.

I propose we draw up some sort of Declaration of Human Rights for the new parliament to vote on when (if) the new parliament is formed.

What do ya'll think?

I propose we draw up some sort of Declaration of Human Rights for the new parliament to vote on when (if) the new parliament is formed.

What do ya'll think?

I like this idea.

Kyronea and Raistlins, I've updates your statuses.