NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you get when you mix Heinlein-style Starship Troopers government and the restraint of my fringe economics views? You get...

The Free Republic Party

Preamble


Every individual has domain over his own person, and over no one else’s. Throughout history, however, governments have violated this dominion and brought individuals into servitude and otherwise destroyed their capacity for freedom. Democracy, while perhaps not as often extreme in these excesses, offers no true prevention to this violation other than the hope that the 51 will be good to the 49. Worse yet, rational ignorance- the act of foregoing knowledge because of the belief that such knowledge will provide little benefit- leaves voters unaware of the truth of the decisions they make. Those powerful will take advantage of this ignorance to bend the democratic state to their own gain, whether it is right or not.
This cannot be allowed. Government must either respect the dominion of each person over himself, or must cease to exist. Voters must take action to know that they are ensuring that government respects this dominion, or must not vote at all. The solution to this is to dissolve democracy, and reform it into a republic, one which will assure the ultimate freedom of all its people.

Freedom, Prosperity, Duty

Government
• All new voters must complete a two year term of service that is aimed towards the protection of the self-ownership of all, and especially to prevent force and fraud. All people, with the exception of minors, those unable to understand the service contract, and convicted felons, must be afforded the opportunity a service that they can reasonably achieve. Those in the service program will be afforded the basic necessities of life, and be provided a salary below minimum wage. Those with dependents who would be otherwise unable to be provided for said dependents will have said dependents taken care of by the state, and the worker will have to perform an extra two years service per dependent taken with no wage provided. Those without dependents taken will be able to opt out with the knowledge of no possibility of retrying service available. Those with dependents are not to be allowed to opt out.
• Through this term of service, the new voters will have provided a reasonable amount of proof that A.) They respect the self-ownership of others, and B.) That they believe that it is worth a sacrifice of their time to have the ability to vote. This will cancel out both tyranny of government as well as rational ignorance of the voting body.
• All people must be afforded the same rights in every condition, whether or not they have taken the service term.

Security and International Relations
• We must be able to provide strong security for all of our inhabitants, without violating their rights. Security must enhance people against the dangers of force and fraud, not subject them to it.
• We will always be willing to aid other countries in crisis, within reasonable means. We do not believe that only our nation’s inhabitants have rights, but all do. We will both shun those who violate human rights and help those who protect rights.

Foreign Economy
• Free trade with free nations, and freer trade with those who make their people freer.
• Reduce foreign debt, along with all other debt.

Domestic Economy
• Minimize regulation.
• Eliminate corporate welfare.
• Replace the income tax with a rebated sales tax, as well as reduce taxes
• Make currency growth targets to accommodate economic growth- no devaluation of currency.
• Eliminate wasteful spending and lower national debt.

Education
• Institute a per-capita voucher program for all schoolchildren.
• Use standardized testing made with the assistance of premier research universities and major businesses, to best evaluate students for the future job market.

Civil Rights
• To have a truly free society, we must have freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, private property rights, equality under the law, freedom of access to firearms, freedom of movement, right to privacy and freedom from force and fraud.
• All other civil rights issues can be resolved through this brief, and not necessarily all-inclusive, list.
• Conscription shall never be allowed.

Law and Order
• All acts of force and fraud must be dealt with decisively and severely. Those who commit these acts must be removed from society so as to never be capable of performing these acts again.
• Those acts which do not perpetrate force and fraud should not be punished, as they are freely chosen.
• There must be a common-law, decentralized, free and independent judicial system with precedent and the powers of jurisprudence, so as to apply the law consistently and carefully.
• There should be appeals courts so as to insure the most proper carriage of justice.

Public Assistance and Healthcare
• Spending on the welfare state must be transferred into a negative tax in the form of a rebate, available to every person. This will put power in the hands of the poor and needy, as opposed to the government’s bureaucrats.
• For government benefits programs, we will maintain any promises made to those currently on the system and not renege on the promised benefits. As a transitional action, we will place incoming funds that would have gone to these programs' future recipients as deposits and investments to provide for old age, and placed at the discretion of the future retiree.

Immigration
• After a background check and medical exam, all immigrants must be allowed into the nation.

Drugs
• So long as someone’s use of substances does not violate another person’s rights, it is not an act of force or fraud and should not be prosecuted.

Environment
• In place of regulation, there should be a subsidy for the preservation of wildlife and nature, and a trading scheme for emissions rights. This will be much less costly and allow people to actively help the environment through their own actions.

Science and Technology

• Before a sales tax, there should be large tax breaks on scientific research and development.
• Government research should be contracted to private entities to allow for the cheapest and most effective work available.

Members
Greill- Founder
The South Islands
Terran Tribes
Holyawesomeness
M3rcenaries
StinkyDooDoo
Deep Kimchi

Count me in.

Count me in.

I most certainly will. :D

Sounds good to me.

Anyone have any suggestions to elaborate on the platform?

bump

I am in.

We haven't addressed social security which would either need to be abolished or privatised based on how far we feel is necessary. We might have addressed the minimum wage depending on how you read the domestic economy statement. Also, should the environmental issue be a subsidy or a tax?

I am in.

We haven't addressed social security which would either need to be abolished or privatised based on how far we feel is necessary. We might have addressed the minimum wage depending on how you read the domestic economy statement. Also, should the environmental issue be a subsidy or a tax?

We shouldn't completely renege on promises made by the government, no matter how bad, as this is a breach of contract. Instead, we could simply increase the tax rebate by a set amount for those who have are not about to retire but have contributed to Social Security, and work from there.

Edit: The environmental issue is a subsidy, to encourage people to take care of the environment instead of trying to avoid taxes and dislike the program.

We need a motto. It should be like "To lead, one must serve" or sumtin.

We need a motto. It should be like "To lead, one must serve" or sumtin.

How about "Freedom, Prosperity, Duty"?

We shouldn't completely renege on promises made by the government, no matter how bad, as this is a breach of contract. Instead, we could simply increase the tax rebate by a set amount for those who have are not about to retire but have contributed to Social Security, and work from there.

Edit: The environmental issue is a subsidy, to encourage people to take care of the environment instead of trying to avoid taxes and dislike the program.
Well, I am not arguing that we should end it cold turkey, we can phase it out like giving these people rebates like you said above. Private control of social security money in one form or another should be a goal even if long-run for this party.

True, people do dislike taxes, however, it just doesn't seem like subsidies would be a good idea to deal with externalities. You are increasing the taxes of every individual to prevent somebody from not indirectly taxing us, it is like potential polluters are extorting us more than anything else. If they are the ones polluting then they should pay society the money for the additional cost, to work otherwise seems ridiculous.

Well, I am not arguing that we should end it cold turkey, we can phase it out like giving these people rebates like you said above. Private control of social security money in one form or another should be a goal even if long-run for this party.

True, people do dislike taxes, however, it just doesn't seem like subsidies would be a good idea to deal with externalities. You are increasing the taxes of every individual to prevent somebody from not indirectly taxing us, it is like potential polluters are extorting us more than anything else. If they are the ones polluting then they should pay society the money for the additional cost, to work otherwise seems ridiculous.

For emissions taxes, I agree, we should charge polluters instead of subsidizing them. However, with wildlife and endangered species, I would prefer a subsidy to encourage people to tend to these aspects of the environment, so as to encourage them to find the endangered species and biosphere so as to gain the subsidy.

Bumpity bump.

Added in the manifesto a passage on common law justice.

Sign me up.

Sign me up.

Sure thing, welcome aboard. :D

Any more suggestions?

Free tacos?

Free tacos?

Yes! Free the tacos from statist oppression!

... oh wait, you mean give them out free. Meh, I don't have any money to buy them. Sorry. :D

We need a logo- I was thinking a phoenix (rebirth of government) or lion (defender of the helpless and true leader) would be good. I would have the official party color be red, but that's a communist color, so I propose orange instead. Orange for red- sacrifice, and yellow/gold- prosperity. I suppose I could do it if no one else wants to, but then we'd have to parade around an MSPaint butchery that looks like it just came out of Ms. Wilson's 1st grade art class, which I doubt many of us would like.

I am interested in this party.

I am interested in this party.

I'm assuming you want to be a member. Welcome aboard. :)

Sign me up.

Sign me up.

Done. Welcome aboard. :D

Hi-diddly-ho, BUMPerino!

I want a song.

I want a song.

We are FRP
Making us all free,
Though I shouldn't say free
It's in the acronym you see,
But nevermind
The rhyme's just fine,
Just vote for us,
Don't throw a fuss,
And then you'll see,
In verity,
We'll bring peace
and prosperity!

Ya viene el señor Bump!

Songs a little to rhymy. or idont no.

Songs a little to rhymy. or idont no.

I was going to do a version of James Blunt's "You're Beautiful", but I wasn't sure it would help to be associated with a guy who has a really freaky voice.

It seems we need to take a position on abortion. I am pro-life, but if you all are pro-choice I will make the party format to pro-choice (Not like any abortions will actually be performed as a result of any legislation). If you all are otherwise, we could put in a pro-life plank. If we're split, we'll take no position and stay out of the muddy quagmire that is this issue.

Personal Choice. We're about freedom. If you don't like abortion, dont have one.

But secretly, we can take the aborted featus and make them into our secret police wing...mmmm...secret police *drools*.

Through this term of service, the new voters will have provided a reasonable amount of proof that A.) They respect the self-ownership of others, and B.) That they believe that it is worth a sacrifice of their time to have the ability to vote. This will cancel out both tyranny of government as well as rational ignorance of the voting body.

Hows does serving proove that people respect the respect the self-ownership of others? They might just want to vote, not suffer social stigma suffered by nonservers, prestige, ect. How does it cancel rational ignorance or tyranny of government? Voters can still be ignorant and the government can tyranize all it wants if it get the votes for it.

All people must be afforded the same rights in every condition, whether or not they have taken the service term.

How can this be maintained if nonservers can't vote? Current rights can easily seen as privelages earned by service. Almost any right can be perceived as privelage earned by service.

Make currency growth targets to accommodate economic growth- no devaluation of currency.

Are you advocating monetarism? Even Milton Friedman, the founder of monetarism doesnt have much faith in it anymore. In an interview with Milton Friedman (published in the Financial Times 6 Jun 2003) Milton Friedman even seems to repudiate the monetary policy of monetarism and is quoted as saying "The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success," ... "I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did."

In place of regulation, there should be a subsidy for the preservation of wildlife and nature, and a trading scheme for emissions rights. This will be much less costly and allow people to actively help the environment through their own actions

How exactly is an emissions rights trading scheme not regulation? It might be relativly light but its stilll regulation.

Before a sales tax, there should be large tax breaks on scientific research and development.

Isn't this corporate welfare? Basically you're subsidizing their research.

Hows does serving proove that people respect the respect the self-ownership of others? They might just want to vote, not suffer social stigma suffered by nonservers, prestige, ect. How does it cancel rational ignorance or tyranny of government? Voters can still be ignorant and the government can tyranize all it wants if it get the votes for it.

Possibly, they may want to gain other things through suffrage, I would not deny this. But regardless, they are pursuing a path that helps other people- they must find this a worthwhile pursuit. Rational ignorance is cured because they have to work for their vote- you do not waste that which you highly value. They will be more careful in their selection, rationally.

How can this be maintained if nonservers can't vote? Current rights can easily seen as privelages earned by service. Almost any right can be perceived as privelage earned by service.

No, because voting powers give people power over others. Other rights, such as freedom of speech etc., do not impose on others- no one needs to listen to you if they disagree with what you say. Voting power, however, must have its effects followed by everyone, without exception. I doubt that servicers will tyrannize non-servicers- the former is not hereditary, and will likely have most of their acquaintances, family and friends of the latter. It's rather unlikely that they will tyrannize those who they are close to.

Are you advocating monetarism? Even Milton Friedman, the founder of monetarism doesnt have much faith in it anymore. In an interview with Milton Friedman (published in the Financial Times 6 Jun 2003) Milton Friedman even seems to repudiate the monetary policy of monetarism and is quoted as saying "The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success," ... "I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did."

I chose the monetarist approach because I thought that demanding specie currency would be too radical, but I feel that interest rate manipulation and the inflation it causes only creates problems. It's more a rejection of Keynesianism than an advocation of Friedman.

How exactly is an emissions rights trading scheme not regulation? It might be relativly light but its stilll regulation.

Minimize regulation, not eliminate it. We still need something to prevent pollution- it is a trespassing on the people's property and lives. We just feel that industry should be given a free hand when it doesn't violate people's rights.

Isn't this corporate welfare? Basically you're subsidizing their research.

We're just not taking the fruits of their labors and redistributing them- a subsidy is taking from others to give to them. This is a temporary fix to alleviate the possible shortfall in R&D that elimination of corporate welfare would cause, until we can implement a consumption tax that will leave capital formation alone.

Personal Choice. We're about freedom. If you don't like abortion, dont have one.

I guess that's two votes that way, if I assume that DK is pro-choice. If there's a third, I'll put in a pro-choice plank.

We might remove the threat of some rational ignorance through requiring a standardized voting license test or something of that nature. That way more people could vote with less personal cost and we would still have a selective measure as the rationally ignorant people are not going to bother with a test and if they do then they won't pass.

Could we swing neutral on abortion?

Possibly, they may want to gain other things through suffrage, I would not deny this. But regardless, they are pursuing a path that helps other people- they must find this a worthwhile pursuit.

They are pursuing a path that helps themselves, not others. They get the right to vote. They just need to find getting power over others worthwile.
Rational ignorance is cured because they have to work for theirvote- you do not waste that which you highly value. They will be more careful in their selection, rationally.

People already highly value the the right to vote and still waste it. If we took
everyone's right to vote in democratic nations there'd be riots. They still waste them. Also it does nothing to cure irrational ignorance

No, because voting powers give people power over others. Other rights, such as freedom of speech etc., do not impose on others- no one needs to listen to you if they disagree with what you say. Voting power, however, must have its effects followed by everyone, without exception. I doubt that servicers will tyrannize non-servicers- the former is not hereditary, and will likely have most of their acquaintances, family and friends of the latter. It's rather unlikely that they will tyrannize those who they are close to.

Most people would like to pay fewer taxes. The consumption tax you proposed could be lowered if an income tax was imposed on nonservers. That's a big incentive for voters to choose to have nonserver taxed. Its a voluntary tax after all. If they didn't want to pay it they could have served. Plus if severs are a vast majority then nonservers could easily be viewed as an immoral ignorant backward underclass. Perfect scapegoats if anything goes wrong.

I chose the monetarist approach because I thought that demanding specie currency would be too radical, but I feel that interest rate manipulation and the inflation it causes only creates problems. It's more a rejection of Keynesianism than an advocation of Friedman.

The only way to make monetarism work would be to give the central bank far more power over the economy. Control over short-term interest rates is much lighter than absolute control over the money supply.

Minimize regulation, not eliminate it. We still need something to prevent pollution- it is a trespassing on the people's property and lives. We just feel that industry should be given a free hand when it doesn't violate people's rights.

In your manifesto it says you will replace regulation with subsidies for wild life, nature and an emissions trading rights scheme. IE not minimizing

We're just not taking the fruits of their labors and redistributing them- a subsidy is taking from others to give to them. This is a temporary fix to alleviate the possible shortfall in R&D that elimination of corporate welfare would cause, until we can implement a consumption tax that will leave capital formation alone.

You are redistributing the fruits of people's labor and giving them to others. Taxes on income or consumption are taking of the fruits of people's labor. Can a person buy anything that doesn't have a sales or VAT tax added to them? No. Its not voluntary. All stores, sellers of goods, and such have the consumption tax imposed on them. If I dont want to starve I have to buy food. If I buy food I'm taxed. I buy food with money that I earned from my labor. The tax takes away from the fruits of my labor. You're giving away some of that tax money to subsidize R&D. In other words coporate welfare. If its before a consumption tax is imposed then that leaves income taxes and/or payroll taxes to pay for the subsidies. Still corporate welfare.

We might remove the threat of some rational ignorance through requiring a standardized voting license test or something of that nature. That way more people could vote with less personal cost and we would still have a selective measure as the rationally ignorant people are not going to bother with a test and if they do then they won't pass.

Could we swing neutral on abortion?

I don't like the idea of any kind of test. It's the same thing that happened in the American South with literacy tests to keep certain people from voting. Plus, doing service is much more involved than taking a test.

And yes, I think we'll swing neutral on abortion, for now.

They are pursuing a path that helps themselves, not others. They get the right to vote. They just need to find getting power over others worthwile.

Uh? Their service helps protect others, without question, because that's what they have to do. Plus, the power granted by service is infinitesmally small- one vote in a sea of millions is the only guaranteed outcome. It is far more likely that the service will be done largely for the good of others, with voting being a nice additive.

People already highly value the the right to vote and still waste it. If we took
everyone's right to vote in democratic nations there'd be riots. They still waste them. Also it does nothing to cure irrational ignorance

Rational ignorance, not irrational. Also, the idea that people both waste and value their right to vote is nonsensical- if they valued their right to vote, they would vote. But obviously they do not vote because they do not value it. I can't think of a single thing that I value that I have wasted before. The service does remove rational ignorance because it makes the voting rights more difficult to attain, and something that is difficult to attain is valued and will not be wasted. It's common sense.

Most people would like to pay fewer taxes. The consumption tax you proposed could be lowered if an income tax was imposed on nonservers. That's a big incentive for voters to choose to have nonserver taxed. Its a voluntary tax after all. If they didn't want to pay it they could have served. Plus if severs are a vast majority then nonservers could easily be viewed as an immoral ignorant backward underclass. Perfect scapegoats if anything goes wrong.

We made it a clear point that everyone should be treated equally before the law. We also insinuated that any government that does otherwise should be overthrown, as well as guaranteeing a right to firearms. If this system fails, there is a contingency plan. And, seeing as how half of Americans do not vote, I doubt that there will be a super-majority of servers in society.

The only way to make monetarism work would be to give the central bank far more power over the economy. Control over short-term interest rates is much lighter than absolute control over the money supply.

We would have a legislatively mandated increase in money supply each year. This would make a very weak central bank that could only follow orders.

In your manifesto it says you will replace regulation with subsidies for wild life, nature and an emissions trading rights scheme. IE not minimizing

There are more regulations than that, you know. I don't think it would be wise to completely allow people to do whatever they want concerning the environment, so we have to allow for some kind of control. But the subsidies and trading scheme would be less intrusive than regulation etc.

You are redistributing the fruits of people's labor and giving them to others. Taxes on income or consumption are taking of the fruits of people's labor. Can a person buy anything that doesn't have a sales or VAT tax added to them? No. Its not voluntary. All stores, sellers of goods, and such have the consumption tax imposed on them. If I dont want to starve I have to buy food. If I buy food I'm taxed. I buy food with money that I earned from my labor. The tax takes away from the fruits of my labor. You're giving away some of that tax money to subsidize R&D. In other words coporate welfare. If its before a consumption tax is imposed then that leaves income taxes and/or payroll taxes to pay for the subsidies. Still corporate welfare.

No, the R&D does not get any money. We tax them less. Suppose you are a strawberry grower and I am your feudal lord. You make 100 strawberries a day, and I take 20 away from you. The next day, you make 100 strawberries, and I take 10 away from you. Am I redistributing other people's labor on your behalf? No. I am letting you keep what you produce. The subsidy would be you making 100 strawberries and I give you 10 more. This is a subsidy, and not what we're doing.

Uh? Their service helps protect others, without question, because that's what they have to do. Plus, the power granted by service is infinitesmally small- one vote in a sea of millions is the only guaranteed outcome. It is far more likely that the service will be done largely for the good of others, with voting being a nice additive.

Their service helps others, but only indirectly. People do not work primarilyout of altruism even though their labor benefits many. They work out of self interest. It is far more likely service will be done out of self-interest rather than altruism. Such is human nature. I think service will be socially expected and nonservers will be socially stigmatized. Eventually this social stigmatization will probably become political stigmatization. The incentive to serve will thus increase.

Rational ignorance, not irrational. Also, the idea that people both waste and value their right to vote is nonsensical- if they valued their right to vote, they would vote. But obviously they do not vote because they do not value it. I can't think of a single thing that I value that I have wasted before. The service does remove rational ignorance because it makes the voting rights more difficult to attain, and something that is difficult to attain is valued and will not be wasted. It's common sense.

If the right to vote isn't valued then if the President proposed to take it away then there should be little controversy, but if that happened I think there'd be a public uproar. I've known some people who wasted their lives but wouldn't commit suicide. Their lives had some value to them. The government wastes a lot of money but values it. It doesn't generally want to spend less money. Difficult to attain things aren't always valued either. The Pope's shit is probably hard to attain but probably, hopefully :p, isn't valued.



We made it a clear point that everyone should be treated equally before the law. We also insinuated that any government that does otherwise should be overthrown, as well as guaranteeing a right to firearms. If this system fails, there is a contingency plan. And, seeing as how half of Americans do not vote, I doubt that there will be a super-majority of servers in society.

You did make a clear point, but voting system you propose gives all voting power to servers. They have the incentive to put their interests before those of the nonservers. There are also other incentives than just voting rights that make serving appealing. Prestige, the low skill required to sign-up, social status, ect. As it becomes more common non-servers will probably become stigmatized. Eventually the nonservers might lose the right to bear arms. They aren't responsible enough to bear arms. If so then your contigency plan fails.

We would have a legislatively mandated increase in money supply each year. This would make a very weak central bank that could only follow orders.

The central bank described above would have little independance but would have to be very strong to control the money supply.

There are more regulations than that, you know. I don't think it would be wise to completely allow people to do whatever they want concerning the environment, so we have to allow for some kind of control. But the subsidies and trading scheme would be less intrusive than regulation etc.

You wrote, "But subisidies and trading scheme would be less intrusive than regulation", when trading schemes are a kind of regulation.

No, the R&D does not get any money. We tax them less. Suppose you are a strawberry grower and I am your feudal lord. You make 100 strawberries a day, and I take 20 away from you. The next day, you make 100 strawberries, and I take 10 away from you. Am I redistributing other people's labor on your behalf? No. I am letting you keep what you produce. The subsidy would be you making 100 strawberries and I give you 10 more. This is a subsidy, and not what we're doing.

In economics, a subsidy is generally a monetary grant given by a government to lower the price faced by producers or consumers of a good. A tax break is a kind of subsidy. It lowers the price of R&D in this situation. It shifts some of the tax burden from firms who invest in R&D to those who don't. You're redistributing the tax burden and therefore redistributing other peoples labor.

Their service helps others, but only indirectly. People do not work primarilyout of altruism even though their labor benefits many. They work out of self interest. It is far more likely service will be done out of self-interest rather than altruism. Such is human nature. I think service will be socially expected and nonservers will be socially stigmatized. Eventually this social stigmatization will probably become political stigmatization. The incentive to serve will thus increase.

How does being a police officer help people indirectly, instead of directly? Taking criminals off the streets keeps them from causing any more damage to the innocent. Also, you misinterpret the meaning of self-interest. Self-interest means that people are goal-oriented, as opposed to meaning selfish or self-centered. Someone can help others and still be self-interested, because that person is pursuing a goal which he feels is worthwhile- helping other people. I would imagine that there would be some social benefit to having served, but I doubt it will be a stigma to those who haven't. For example, I respect veterans and the police, but I don't hold anything against people who have not served in these professions.

If the right to vote isn't valued then if the President proposed to take it away then there should be little controversy, but if that happened I think there'd be a public uproar. I've known some people who wasted their lives but wouldn't commit suicide. Their lives had some value to them. The government wastes a lot of money but values it. It doesn't generally want to spend less money. Difficult to attain things aren't always valued either. The Pope's shit is probably hard to attain but probably, hopefully :p, isn't valued.

I would imagine that there would be a public uproar, but not because people value voting. It would be moreso like a child wanting to keep a toy that he never plays with. He does not value the toy, but he values the possession of a thing. Your friends seem to not value their health, but value their lives, which are two separate, although closely related, things. I do not think the government values money, seeing as how they've been steadily devaluing it in order to finance their spending orgies. It's really just a mean to an ends for them.

You did make a clear point, but voting system you propose gives all voting power to servers. They have the incentive to put their interests before those of the nonservers. There are also other incentives than just voting rights that make serving appealing. Prestige, the low skill required to sign-up, social status, ect. As it becomes more common non-servers will probably become stigmatized. Eventually the nonservers might lose the right to bear arms. They aren't responsible enough to bear arms. If so then your contigency plan fails.

These benefits also appear in being a veteran, but not everyone becomes a veteran. I would not doubt that these perks would not be looked down upon, but I think that two years of one's life for a little popularity at the cost of much leisure and wealth would hardly be a popular choice for the selfish. There are easier ways of gaining popularity. Ultimately the most valuable part of the service would be the ability to help others, which is the greatest component of the service. It would stand to reason that most people who join the service would be those who feel that the goal of helping others is worthwhile. This is the most rational outcome.

The central bank described above would have little independance but would have to be very strong to control the money supply.

Unfortunately, yes. But it would have very little discretion and have to follow a very strict path.

You wrote, "But subisidies and trading scheme would be less intrusive than regulation", when trading schemes are a kind of regulation.

I suppose, but not a very conventional one. Ultimately, the trading scheme boils down to "Don't make more than X of Y unless you can pay for it." It's much clearer than other regulations and works more towards ending pollution, as opposed to forcing people to try and look like they're complying with ten thousand different rules which may or may not lead them to reduce emissions.

In economics, a subsidy is generally a monetary grant given by a government to lower the price faced by producers or consumers of a good. A tax break is a kind of subsidy. It lowers the price of R&D in this situation. It shifts some of the tax burden from firms who invest in R&D to those who don't. You're redistributing the tax burden and therefore redistributing other peoples labor.

You don't need to reiterate yourself- I'm an economics major, you know. :P Again, strawberry example. First day, you make 100 strawberries and I take 20. Next day, you make 100 strawberries and I take 10. This doesn't affect the blueberry grower, because I'm not taxing blueberry growing the same as strawberries. He may decide to grow strawberries because of the lower tax, or he may not. Whether he does or not is voluntary, I do not force him to do it. Whereas, if I took his blueberries and gave them to you, it would be a redistribution. Also, keep in mind that this is a temporary measure that will be phased out when the income tax is replaced with a sales tax- it's not permanent.

Vote for the Free Republic! (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/election/)

Bump. Come on, let's stick it to tyranny by majority!

Members of the Free Republic Party:

Citing support for the assertion that questionable practices have tainted the results of the current NS General elections (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11763716&postcount=104), it is vital that you join the Human Rights, Autonomist, Defenderist, and Libertarian parties in the NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11765635#post11765635), and help draw attention to irregularities and other issues that have plagued the current NS General elections, while promoting increased representation for all parties and all voters.

Indeed, stick it to tyranny by majority -- the large parties who benefit from voting irregularities by being projected to win the majority of parliament seats, that is.

Members of the Free Republic Party:

Citing support for the assertion that questionable practices have tainted the results of the current NS General elections (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11763716&postcount=104), it is vital that you join the Human Rights, Autonomist, Defenderist, and Libertarian parties in the NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11765635#post11765635), and help draw attention to irregularities and other issues that have plagued the current NS General elections, while promoting increased representation for all parties and all voters.

Indeed, stick it to tyranny by majority -- the large parties who benefit from voting irregularities by being projected to win the majority of parliament seats, that is.

You know you've got my support, bro. ;)

Indeed, stick it to tyranny by majority -- the large parties who benefit from voting irregularities by being projected to win the majority of parliament seats, that is.

I would be supremely interested to hear what you mean by "voting irregularities".

I would be supremely interested to hear what you mean by "voting irregularities".

I've been pointing them out almost constantly for the past couple of days in the "UNOFFICIAL poll" thread, mainly having to do with placing an unofficial poll in the same thread as that which links to the official vote. Such placement serving the purpose of confusing new voters, or those not well familiar with the NS General electoral processes (including myself, as I assumed momentarily that the "unofficial" poll represented the official vote in multiple stages), while more experienced voters (who are likely to be members of older, more established parties) are less likely to make such a mistake. There are additional links to other issues raised in the Coalition thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502011).