NationStates Jolt Archive

The Freedom, Environment and Science Party

-----------------------------------

Free speech
Free speech is considered the right of every citizen. This includes freedom of the press.

Marriage
The term "marriage" will no longer be used in law - they shall henceforth be referred to as civil unions. Two or more adults, regardless of genders, may enter a civil union. Religions may wish to continue use of the term "marriage" for unions that they agree with, but the government shall not be involved in this.

Drugs
It shall be legal to use any drug, but drugs with a high potential for addiction will only be available on prescription.

Death penalty
Due to the irreversibility of the death penalty and the unavoidable fallibility of any trial, no crime shall be punished by death.

Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia will be legal.

Organ donation
Organ donation will not be compulsory, but it will be on an opt-out system.

Nudity
Public nudity shall be legal, except in situations where it could constitute a health hazard. E.g. the pelvic region (front and back) must be covered when using public transportation or seating.

Abortion and embryonic stem cell research
Will be legal.

Freedom of religion
Citizens will be free to practice any religion.

Pornography
It will be illegal to create or possess child pornography. It will be illegal to take pornographic images (inc. video) of any person without their permission.

Age of consent
The age for alcohol and any other drug will be 18.
The age for sex will be 16*.

* In cases where underage sex occurs, the age difference will be taken into account.

Taxes
An income tax will be used to fund public services, however, it will be kept low enough for the private sector to be effective.

Guaranteed Minimum Income/Negative Income Tax.
Read thread for discussion about this issue.

Note: instead of welfare we may have Guaranteed Minimum Income/Negative Income Tax (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11696757&postcount=20)

Education
Education will receive a large proportion of government funding, with the aim that every student can achieve their potential. All citizens will be entitled to free education to the age of 18. Higher education will be funded in science subjects where numbers of students are low.

International relations
Efforts will be made toward establishing good international relations. The nation will trade with others, but not with nations that are guilty of human rights abuses.

Environment
Efforts shall be made toward environmentally friendly industries and sources of energy. Nuclear will be considered preferable to fossil fuels. The more polluting a private enterprise, the more highly taxed it will be.

Law Enforcement
The purpose of imprisonment shall be twofold - to prevent dangerous criminals from harming the public and to rehabilitate criminals. The former shall take priority, but the latter shall also be considered highly important. Inmates should have minimal exposure to each other in order to avoid "contamination". Instead, they shall spend their time improving themselves through community service, education and so on.

Healthcare
All citizens shall have access to government-funded healthcare.

Scientific research
The government shall encourage scientific research, particularly in the field of environmentally-friendly technologies.

Military
A military shall exist for purely defensive purposes.

Compulsory voting
Voting will be compulsory in order to ensure that the average person votes, and not just those with extreme views (who have more desire to see the nation changed).

Religion in government
The government shall be completely secular - neither enforcing nor banning religion. Thus, state-funded schools shall not teach religion.

-----------------------------------

Leader:
Ultraviolent Radiation

Members:
Radical Centrists
Todays Lucky Number - MP Candidate
Chandelier - MP Candidate
Bumboat - MP Candidate
Evil Cantadia

To be added to or removed from the list, post in this thread. If you don't get noticed within 24 hours, contact the Telegram Handler (http://www.nationstates.net/telegram_handler).

You got my support. If I made my own party at this, a lot of my points would be damn near identical to yours. Good job, mate!

I support you, consider me as a member. I support medium funds for science, not large to let it be an area of luxury for scientists researching unimportant things(like creating useless statistics to get funds). To keep it effective you have to hold things thight :D
I have different ideas on military but I will keep them to later. I like a kind of citizenship found in Starship Troopers with people earning their rights by goverment and public service. Perhaps I will create my own party in time but until then this one is fine. Secular part is the best.

Thanks for the support. The party has been submitted to the thread with the list of parties.

Marriage
The term "marriage" will no longer be used in law - they shall henceforth be referred to as civil unions. Two adults, regardless of genders, may enter a civil union.

Why only two ?

Drugs
It shall be legal to use any drug, but drugs with a high potential for addiction will only be available on prescription.

What are the conditions to get a prescription ?

Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia will be legal.
Will there be requirements involved to protect people from "omg, my gf dumped me, life is meaningless" decisions ?

Pornography
It will be illegal to create or possess child pornography. It will be illegal to take pornographic images (inc. video) of any person without their permission.

DO these rules apply to virtual porn (which involves no real humans) ?

Age of consentThe age for alcohol and any other drug will be 18.

Any alcohol ? No exception for wine and beer ?

Why only two ?
Hmmm... an interesting point. How would a multi-person marriage work?

What are the conditions to get a prescription ?
I'm not a doctor.

Will there be requirements involved to protect people from "omg, my gf dumped me, life is meaningless" decisions ?
Surely that would just be suicide?

Do these rules apply to virtual porn (which involves no real humans) ?
I think I'd take the stance that a drawing doesn't constitute a person.

Any alcohol ? No exception for wine and beer ?
That's an interesting point. Maybe an "in your own home" rule would be useful.

Hmmm... an interesting point. How would a multi-person marriage work?

All persons are registered as dependants of eachother and form a single unit for all givernment purposes (taxes, benefits etc). If decisions are to be made about an incapacitated member of the group marriage, the unit as a whole must make that decision. (for instance by "majority rule").
I think it is unwise to have things like "May is married to Bob, Jane is married to Bob, but Jane and May do not share a relation" for government purposes. A complete unit or nothing.

that would just be suicide?
What is the difference with euthanasia if he asks a doctor to kill him for that reason ?

I'd take the stance that a drawing doesn't constitute a person.
And a photorealistic image ?

Hmmm... an interesting point. How would a multi-person marriage work?

I'd imagine the same way it would work in the countries which have it, the same laws and protections only provided for more people. In the case of 'next of kin' situations, such as control of the dead body and things like that, perhaps when entering the marriage contract they must list the order in which it will go, although this may cause problems as it would say one husband or wife came before the others. Perhaps a vote amongst the spouses?

Science should always be the answer.
Multi marriage would become a problem if there is nothing legally binding thats true and children raising and their mental health would become a problem too. You see it is not just two or more people living together and having sex in marriage, it is atom of the country a union that results in children, the future. You can trust this mission to people with responsibility.
A scientific research should be done and results should be used to guide the path.

As for alcohol and smoking, I believe unless people give trouble to others they are free to consume these. Perhaps health regulations to alcohol and tobacco would help? More natural products and after- use products against ill effects?

All persons are registered as dependants of eachother and form a single unit for all givernment purposes (taxes, benefits etc). If decisions are to be made about an incapacitated member of the group marriage, the unit as a whole must make that decision. (for instance by "majority rule").
I think it is unwise to have things like "May is married to Bob, Jane is married to Bob, but Jane and May do not share a relation" for government purposes. A complete unit or nothing.
OK, I am going for the multi-person marriage.

What is the difference with euthanasia if he asks a doctor to kill him for that reason ?
OK, I see what you mean. I was referring to people who have terminal diseases, etc. I didn't mean anyone going to a doctor and asking to die.

And a photorealistic image ?
I meant to distinguish between the product of imagination and a capture of reality. Anyway, what's your view?

I'd like to join this. I agree with the majority of the positions and the ones I disagree with are ones that I don't personally agree with but that I don't think should be banned.

I'd like to join this. I agree with the majority of the positions and the ones I disagree with are ones that I don't personally agree with but that I don't think should be banned.

OK, added to the list.

Anyone who wants a link in their signature that looks like the one I have should use this code:
The Freedom, Environment and Science Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499248)

EDIT: the code tags don't seem to do what I thought so you'll have to click quote to extract the code

OK, here's my attempt:

-----------------------------------

Free speech
Free speech is considered the right of every citizen. This includes freedom of the press.

Marriage
The term "marriage" will no longer be used in law - they shall henceforth be referred to as civil unions. Two or more adults, regardless of genders, may enter a civil union. Religions may wish to continue use of the term "marriage" for unions that they agree with, but the government shall not be involved in this.

Drugs
It shall be legal to use any drug, but drugs with a high potential for addiction will only be available on prescription.

Death penalty
Due to the irreversibility of the death penalty and the unavoidable fallibility of any trial, no crime shall be punished by death.

Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia will be legal.

Organ donation
Organ donation will not be compulsory, but it will be on an opt-out system.

Nudity
Public nudity shall be legal, except in situations where it could constitute a health hazard. E.g. the pelvic region (front and back) must be covered when using public transportation or seating.

Abortion and embryonic stem cell research
Will be legal.

Freedom of religion
Citizens will be free to practice any religion.

Pornography
It will be illegal to create or possess child pornography. It will be illegal to take pornographic images (inc. video) of any person without their permission.

Age of consent
The age for alcohol and any other drug will be 18.
The age for sex will be 16*.

* In cases where underage sex occurs, the age difference will be taken into account.

Taxes
An income tax will be used to fund public services, however, it will be kept low enough for the private sector to be effective.

Minimum wage
There will be a minimum wage.

Welfare
Welfare will be provided to those unable to find work. To discourage abuse of the system, the income provided by welfare will not be as high as the minimum wage.

Education
Education will receive a large proportion of government funding, with the aim that every student can achieve their potential. All citizens will be entitled to free education to the age of 18. Higher education will be funded in science subjects where numbers of students are low.

International relations
Efforts will be made toward establishing good international relations. The nation will trade with others, but not with nations that are guilty of human rights abuses.

Environment
Efforts shall be made toward environmentally friendly industries and sources of energy. Nuclear will be considered preferable to fossil fuels. The more polluting a private enterprise, the more highly taxed it will be.

Law Enforcement
The purpose of imprisonment shall be twofold - to prevent dangerous criminals from harming the public and to rehabilitate criminals. The former shall take priority, but the latter shall also be considered highly important. Inmates should have minimal exposure to each other in order to avoid "contamination". Instead, they shall spend their time improving themselves through community service, education and so on.

Healthcare
All citizens shall have access to government-funded healthcare.

Scientific research
The government shall encourage scientific research, particularly in the field of environmentally-friendly technologies.

Military
A military shall exist for purely defensive purposes.

Compulsory voting
Voting will be compulsory in order to ensure that the average person votes, and not just those with extreme views (who have more desire to see the nation changed).

Religion in government
The government shall be completely secular - neither enforcing nor banning religion. Thus, state-funded schools shall not teach religion.

-----------------------------------

Leader:
Ultraviolent Radiation

Members:
Radical Centrists
Todays Lucky Number
Chandelier

To be added to or removed from the list, post in this thread. If you don't get noticed within 24 hours, contact the Telegram Handler (http://www.nationstates.net/telegram_handler).

I was going to create a party but yours is so close I won't bother. Can I join?
I definitely support you.

Minimum wage
There will be a minimum wage.

Welfare
Welfare will be provided to those unable to find work. To discourage abuse of the system, the income provided by welfare will not be as high as the minimum wage.
I'm confused. If you had a lower minimum wage, people who were normally on your welfare system could make money on their own and save the state money. Let's say your minimum wage is $7.00 and welfare averages out to $5.00. With a lower minimum wage, person X could work for $6.00, make more money than he would under the state welfare program, and the government would not need to pay for him.

International relations
Efforts will be made toward establishing good international relations. The nation will trade with others, but not with nations that are guilty of human rights abuses.
Won't the last clause merely make it seem even more like the West has abandoned these places? I would say it would be better to establish more businesses in these places, as businesses pay employees directly, which means more money and more power in the hands of the average person.

Environment
Efforts shall be made toward environmentally friendly industries and sources of energy. Nuclear will be considered preferable to fossil fuels. The more polluting a private enterprise, the more highly taxed it will be.
If your country is really committed to environmental initiatives, won't the population buy environmentally friendly products without you scaling a tax system into it?

Scientific research
The government shall encourage scientific research, particularly in the field of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Environmentally-friendly technologies are extremely profitable even without government aid in societies that are willing to pay a premium to help the environment. Either your people already care about the environment, in which case your legislation is redundant, or they do not care about the environment, in which case you are not representing the interests of your own people.

Compulsory voting
Voting will be compulsory in order to ensure that the average person votes, and not just those with extreme views (who have more desire to see the nation changed).
I've never understood the push for voter turnout. I'd rather less people vote, and have those that do be well-educated on the issues, personally. I'm not saying we should have IQ tests or anything, but why are we encouraging the uninformed to vote when it serves only to dilute the proportion of those who are informed. My motto is "Don't vote unless you've got a handle on why you're voting."

I was going to create a party but yours is so close I won't bother. Can I join?
I definitely support you.

Added.

I'm confused. If you had a lower minimum wage, people who were normally on your welfare system could make money on their own and save the state money. Let's say your minimum wage is $7.00 and welfare averages out to $5.00. With a lower minimum wage, person X could work for $6.00, make more money than he would under the state welfare program, and the government would not need to pay for him.
How is what you said different to what I said? I was in favour of welfare being less than minimum wage.


Won't the last clause merely make it seem even more like the West has abandoned these places? I would say it would be better to establish more businesses in these places, as businesses pay employees directly, which means more money and more power in the hands of the average person.
The party does not condone human rights abuses.

If your country is really committed to environmental initiatives, won't the population buy environmentally friendly products without you scaling a tax system into it?
In an ideal world. I'm assuming that the imaginary nation we're making a party for does not exist in an ideal world.


Environmentally-friendly technologies are extremely profitable even without government aid in societies that are willing to pay a premium to help the environment. Either your people already care about the environment, in which case your legislation is redundant, or they do not care about the environment, in which case you are not representing the interests of your own people.
If their interests are not represented, they are free to vote for someone else.


I've never understood the push for voter turnout. I'd rather less people vote, and have those that do be well-educated on the issues, personally. I'm not saying we should have IQ tests or anything, but why are we encouraging the uninformed to vote when it serves only to dilute the proportion of those who are informed. My motto is "Don't vote unless you've got a handle on why you're voting."
Unfortunately, enthusiasm for voting does not equate to intelligence.

Everyone enjoys a good party.

*bump to make voters aware of what's on offer*

How is what you said different to what I said? I was in favour of welfare being less than minimum wage.


Given that minimum wage is usually not enough to live on, then that would pretty much ensure that welfare would not be enough to live on. Which might kind of defeat the purpose.

I would suggest replacing welfare and other forms of social assistance with a negative income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Income_Tax) or guaranteed minimum income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income). This would ensure that all citizens would have enough to meet their basic needs, but also eliminate the disincentive to work that welfare usually creates (which addresses your concern about minimum wage). You could probably abolish minimum wage, and couple this with a flatter tax structure that would create a stronger incentive to work.

BTW, I am interested in joining the party.

Given that minimum wage is usually not enough to live on, then that would pretty much ensure that welfare would not be enough to live on. Which might kind of defeat the purpose.

I would suggest replacing welfare and other forms of social assistance with a negative income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Income_Tax) or guaranteed minimum income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income). This would ensure that all citizens would have enough to meet their basic needs, but also eliminate the disincentive to work that welfare usually creates (which addresses your concern about minimum wage). You could probably abolish minimum wage, and couple this with a flatter tax structure that would create a stronger incentive to work.
Sounds interesting. I would like this party to be democratic, so I won't implement any policy changes without the support of a majority of other members.

BTW, I am interested in joining the party.
OK, I'll add you to the list.

Sounds interesting. I would like this party to be democratic, so I won't implement any policy changes without the support of a majority of other members.


Who are the other members and how can I go about getting their support?

Who are the other members and how can I go about getting their support?
They're on the list (first post). As for support, telegrams are an option. We could use this thread for policy debate, create a new thread, or (probably excessive) create a forum (on invisionfree for example).

That said, we don't want to be too capricious or people won't know whether the party they're voting for will be the same from one week to the next.

They're on the list (first post). As for support, telegrams are an option. We could use this thread for policy debate, create a new thread, or (probably excessive) create a forum (on invisionfree for example).


I think using this thread to debate should work for now (unless we get a whole bunch of seperate policy debates going). It wouldn't hurt to get our main thread a bit more visibility!

I'm happy to TG everyone. Just let me know how you want them to cast their votes so I can tell them (i.e. do you want them to TG you, post on this thread, etc.)

I think using this thread to debate should work for now (unless we get a whole bunch of seperate policy debates going). It wouldn't heard to get our main thread a bit more visibility!

I'm happy to TG everyone. Just let me know how you want them to cast their votes so I can tell them (i.e. do you want them to TG you, post on this thread, etc.)

I think posting opinions on this thread would be best.

"I would suggest replacing welfare and other forms of social assistance with a negative income tax or guaranteed minimum income. This would ensure that all citizens would have enough to meet their basic needs, but also eliminate the disincentive to work that welfare usually creates (which addresses your concern about minimum wage). You could probably abolish minimum wage, and couple this with a flatter tax structure that would create a stronger incentive to work."

Sounds fairly reasonable to me. Might work better at making sure people can eat and etc. without making it easy for them to sponge off the state. I'm for it.

"I would suggest replacing welfare and other forms of social assistance with a negative income tax or guaranteed minimum income. This would ensure that all citizens would have enough to meet their basic needs, but also eliminate the disincentive to work that welfare usually creates (which addresses your concern about minimum wage). You could probably abolish minimum wage, and couple this with a flatter tax structure that would create a stronger incentive to work."

A sensible solution

I guess we should all decide what we favour, out of:
1. Welfare
2. Negative Income Tax
3. Guaranteed Minimum Income

I haven't done much research on them myself (yet), so I would like to ask Evil Cantadia to give the pro's and con's of each. The same, can of course be done for any other plausible alternatives.

I would suggest replacing welfare and other forms of social assistance with a negative income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Income_Tax) or guaranteed minimum income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income). This would ensure that all citizens would have enough to meet their basic needs, but also eliminate the disincentive to work that welfare usually creates (which addresses your concern about minimum wage). You could probably abolish minimum wage, and couple this with a flatter tax structure that would create a stronger incentive to work.


That makes sense. I'm for it.

I'm not joining up, I just wanted to point out that public nudity might not be such a great idea in the real world. For example Norway had to ban certain kinds of advertising, because a particular clothing chain's posters caused a massive increase in traffic accidents.

Free speech
Free speech is considered the right of every citizen. This includes freedom of the press.

Ok… and what does this mean? Are there any provisions against slander? How about shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded room? Free speech as an ideal is all well and good, but as a political platform it needs to be expressed in a more thorough manner.
Elimination of censorship, while retaining personal liability for your speech, is probably a better way to phrase such freedoms. Someone else could probably explore this and formulate a proper platform statement.

Marriage
The term "marriage" will no longer be used in law - they shall henceforth be referred to as civil unions. Two or more adults, regardless of genders, may enter a civil union. Religions may wish to continue use of the term "marriage" for unions that they agree with, but the government shall not be involved in this.
I believe more in the elimination of such unions – ‘marriage’ is a religious idea and has nothing to do with governments. People should be free to enter into whatever contracts they desire with whomever and however many people they desire. A simple contract granting limited power of attorney and common ownership should suffice.

Drugs
It shall be legal to use any drug, but drugs with a high potential for addiction will only be available on prescription.[/drugs]
I am opposed to the whole ‘prescription’ requirement. If I know I need something, I should just be able to walk into a pharmacy and get it (like I can in many countries in the world) rather than having to try to find a local doctor, find a time when I can go in (which appropriate appointment times may not be available for weeks), have to explain what I need and why, then go to the pharmacy. Doctors should be there to advise you – like a lawyer. You should not need to have a doctor fill out a form to make it permissible to wipe your nose. People can be responsible for their own health – do not treat everyone like little children.

Death penalty
Due to the irreversibility of the death penalty and the unavoidable fallibility of any trial, no crime shall be punished by death.
Chronic offenders who show no sign of potential for rehabilitation should be executed. People make mistakes, but if an inmate is going to be a constant danger to anyone around them they should be executed.

Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia will be legal.
Voluntary anything should pretty much be legal. A man should be free to choose how he lives; part of that is choosing how he dies.

Organ donation
Organ donation will not be compulsory, but it will be on an opt-out system.
I agree with this – it is in my view a good balance between providing for property rights over your own body yet not allowing ignorance and apathy to prevent a substantial benefit to society. However, there will be many instances of mistakes being made as organ harvesting has to be done fast, so establishing the identity of an unknown person in an accident would cause complications.

Nudity
Public nudity shall be legal, except in situations where it could constitute a health hazard. E.g. the pelvic region (front and back) must be covered when using public transportation or seating.
A public sanitation provision on public property, such as mass transit, is reasonable.

Abortion and embryonic stem cell research
Will be legal.
I believe that something should not be illegal unless it causes direct provable harm to others. Perhaps you should rephrase and ‘will not be prohibited’.

Freedom of religion
Citizens will be free to practice any religion.
Religion should be treated just like any other social activity – much like how some football(American) fans are completely free to cheer for the Redskins (though why anyone would be that silly and illogical is beyond me).

Pornography
It will be illegal to create or possess child pornography. It will be illegal to take pornographic images (inc. video) of any person without their permission.
I am opposed to censorship – creating separate rules for one type of medium over another is irrelevant. Before people start yelling about it; raping a child is still rape and is the important part, not that you were filming such an incident. If someone abuses a child the important thing is that they abused that child – bitching that they recorded the incidence is myopic and shows a grossly distorted sense of priorities.

Also, if we are going there, how do you define pornographic? Especially if everyone is walking around naked, you could potentially ban all photography. Throw in a ‘sexual act’ description and you make public displays of affection illegal.

Age of consent
The age for alcohol and any other drug will be 18.
The age for sex will be 16*.
Why? These are purely arbitrary numbers without any justification whatsoever.

I have had open access to alcohol since before I can remember. If you cannot control yourself, that is your problem. My freedoms should not be restricted because you have a problem. Besides, if you think drinking ages actually prevent young people from ever drinking you are foolishly naïve. Drugs are likewise, they are illegal no matter what your age, yet people still seem to do them. These restrictions only serve to inconvenience law-abiding people and provide economically lucrative opportunities for criminal elements.

(the war on drugs is a waste of resources, youre never going to stop a product with a 3000% profit margin).

Taxes
An income tax will be used to fund public services, however, it will be kept low enough for the private sector to be effective.
Meaningless platitude. How low is low enough, and how are you going to pay for all the social goods you want to provide? Free education, healthcare, guaranteed minimum standard of living, etc are all incredibly expensive programs.

Minimum wage
There will be a minimum wage.
Why and how high? Why do you prefer no work over low-paying work?
Suddenly saying ever employer has to pay a minimum of $100/hr doesn’t make everyone have a great standard of living, it just makes everyone loose their jobs.

Welfare
Welfare will be provided to those unable to find work. To discourage abuse of the system, the income provided by welfare will not be as high as the minimum wage.
You really need to be a little more specific about what you are talking about. Presuming wealth transfers: how much money do you give? Enough to meet the poverty level?
I much prefer a system of government provided jobs – there are always really crappy jobs that need to be done (like cleaning up a neighborhood or trash-strewn road). Everyone has something useful they can do – maybe not efficiently, but better put them to work a few hours for miniscule pay (thus encouraging finding productive work) than to just give people money.

Education
Education will receive a large proportion of government funding, with the aim that every student can achieve their potential. All citizens will be entitled to free education to the age of 18. Higher education will be funded in science subjects where numbers of students are low.
Education in the US receives huge amounts of money already – more money is not the solution. The structure is far more important. ‘More money’ is not a solution to education problems. All students achieving their potential is a great ideal, so long as you hold the individual’s potential in mind, not hold the politically correct idea that everyone is a smart and everyone should go to college.
Additional funding for certain areas is not necessary – if a particular area has enough demand (laboratory work for example), it will become a reasonably attractive career and smart people will pursue it. I really dislike shoving students through some science degree simply because there is a perceived shortage. The shortage is in people mentally qualified to pursue science, people who can thing constructively and creatively in the lab, not in people who managed to sit through a biology lecture.

International relations
Efforts will be made toward establishing good international relations. The nation will trade with others, but not with nations that are guilty of human rights abuses.
First half is a meaningless platitude; it is a dish truly devoid of any meat.
The discussion of trade is suspect – are you proposing economic isolationism? Trade barriers do nothing but hurt your own people, or the very people you are supposedly trying to help. Dictators and tyrants who brutalize their own people do not care if you cause economic hardship on the very people they are brutalizing – you merely add to their misery.

Environment
Efforts shall be made toward environmentally friendly industries and sources of energy. Nuclear will be considered preferable to fossil fuels. The more polluting a private enterprise, the more highly taxed it will be.
Industry in developed nations is advancing rapidly towards reducing pollution. Government regulations only serve to increase compliance costs and possibly inhibit creative solutions to pollution. Information is the key here – much like the shift toward organic produce, non-sweatshop products, non-conflict diamonds, etc. the consumer is shown to shift their spending patterns toward companies they perceive as being better. Many people take that company’s reputation into account and are willing to pay a little more to support better corporate practices. Information about just how polluting a company is will change the economy much better than some bureaucrats. Companies are already catching on and advertising how green they can be (remember back in the day when Tuna wasn’t ‘dolphin friendly’? An informed consumer goes a long way).

Law Enforcement
The purpose of imprisonment shall be twofold - to prevent dangerous criminals from harming the public and to rehabilitate criminals. The former shall take priority, but the latter shall also be considered highly important. Inmates should have minimal exposure to each other in order to avoid "contamination". Instead, they shall spend their time improving themselves through community service, education and so on.
I don’t even know where to begin…

Healthcare
All citizens shall have access to government-funded healthcare.
This gets to be very expensive; there goes your ‘low tax’ idea but a reasonable goal nonetheless. A basic level of care (preventative especially – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure) is good, but nothing elective and an emphasis on keeping things at a reasonable cost. Compared to the US system this can simply be done with a combination of tort reform and keeping better tabs on doctor competence. The risk of multimillion dollar lawsuits drastically drives up costs, imposes horrific bureaucracy, and scares doctors into ordering lots of unnecessary tests just in case.

Scientific research
The government shall encourage scientific research, particularly in the field of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Government should stay as far away from directing science as possible. Nuff said.

Military
A military shall exist for purely defensive purposes.
Where do you draw the line? How do you define what is defensive? What about humanitarian missions? How about assisting in the defense of a friend? It is nice to say, but the world is not nearly as simple as you want to paint it.

Compulsory voting
Voting will be compulsory in order to ensure that the average person votes, and not just those with extreme views (who have more desire to see the nation changed).
Oh dear god no – there are too many idiots voting already. Having 30% of the votes based on nothing more than ‘I liked the sound of his name’ is the last thing a country needs. In an ideal world where all the voters are well informed and understand the issues this would be great, in reality where most voters hardly have more than the most cursory understanding it is a recipe for disaster.

Religion in government
The government shall be completely secular - neither enforcing nor banning religion. Thus, state-funded schools shall not teach religion.
Agree wholeheartedly with this – religion should be separate from government.

Chronic offenders who show no sign of potential for rehabilitation should be executed. People make mistakes, but if an inmate is going to be a constant danger to anyone around them they should be executed.


People who show no potential for rehabilitation should be locked up for life due to their inability to function in the adopted society. However, they should be permitted life. I am not willing to accept that it is our responsibility to find the accused unfit for life. I am not stating that a God of some sort should hold that responsibility, however, if we ourselves are to kill, then maybe we should be rehabilitated. If you see it fit to kill those who cannot be rehabilitated and you, yourself cannot be rehabilitated... maybe you should be killed. For thinking such a thing, maybe I should be killed.

Also, it is for the interest of peace that I adopt this view, for we cannot be called civilized people if we slaughter people.

Organ donation will not be compulsory, but it will be on an opt-out system.

Interesting idea. I don't know which other countries might have this policy, but I know Canada does not. The only flaw I see is that the government would have to assume control of the deceased, and they would not be the family's property. Could that problem be dismissed by saying that if it is not written anywhere by the deceased that he wishes his remains to belong to his family, then it, like his undistributed assets, should automatically belong to the government? That is my question!

I haven't done much research on them myself (yet), so I would like to ask Evil Cantadia to give the pro's and con's of each. The same, can of course be done for any other plausible alternatives.

I think we have a majority for Guaranteed Minimum Income/Negative Income Tax. I guess I should have been clearer that GMI and NIT are pretty much the same thing. It is just that the left usually calls it GMI, and the right usually calls it NIT. Call it what you will ... it is all a matter of optics.

Is anyone alive on here?

Woot ... my 1111th post!

I'm here.

People who show no potential for rehabilitation should be locked up for life due to their inability to function in the adopted society. However, they should be permitted life. I am not willing to accept that it is our responsibility to find the accused unfit for life. I am not stating that a God of some sort should hold that responsibility, however, if we ourselves are to kill, then maybe we should be rehabilitated. If you see it fit to kill those who cannot be rehabilitated and you, yourself cannot be rehabilitated... maybe you should be killed. For thinking such a thing, maybe I should be killed.

Also, it is for the interest of peace that I adopt this view, for we cannot be called civilized people if we slaughter people.

Those who are beyond rehabilitation are of no benefit to society, except perhaps as organ donors. While we keep them imprisoned they consume the resources of society, resources better spent elsewhere. Housing an inmate in relative isolation (lest they make the rehabilitation of redeemable inmates more difficult, not to mention the physical danger they pose to other inmates, guards, nurses, etc) is exceedingly expensive. This money would be far better spent helping society. When someone passes the point of being irredeemably violent, someone who will be a danger to the safety of others, they must not be allowed to endanger the lives and wellbeing of those around them. Euthanizing this individual and harvesting their organs (to make some small restitution for their life of crime) confers the greatest benefit to society. Spending enough money to hire another 3 or 4 teachers just to care for this criminal is a waste of resources.

Interesting idea. I don't know which other countries might have this policy, but I know Canada does not. The only flaw I see is that the government would have to assume control of the deceased, and they would not be the family's property. Could that problem be dismissed by saying that if it is not written anywhere by the deceased that he wishes his remains to belong to his family, then it, like his undistributed assets, should automatically belong to the government? That is my question!
Those who die and are candidates for organ donation die in the hospital (you must harvest the organs immediately). The simple process is that upon death, the hospital harvests your organs. The exception to this would be someone who opts out of the organ donation program (a small tattoo on the chest or something to ensure that in the case of unknown identity they will still not harvest your organs). Basically, unless you have otherwise specified, ownership of your body reverts to the state upon death. They harvest your organs or as much as is possible to recover in a useable state, then attempt to contact the family for burial of the remains (or disposal if identity is still unknown).

Honestly, my personal view is that holding onto the remains after someone died is a silly religious notion. Once someone is dead, they are gone. The body is just a lump of flesh, so if one single body has the potential to save 5 lives and drastically improve the lives of a couple more, letting it just rot away is rather silly and wasteful.

I think we have a majority for Guaranteed Minimum Income/Negative Income Tax. I guess I should have been clearer that GMI and NIT are pretty much the same thing. It is just that the left usually calls it GMI, and the right usually calls it NIT. Call it what you will ... it is all a matter of optics.


Can we update our platform to reflect this?

My party is almost exactly alike yours.

The manifesto, whilst not showing a full connection, is here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11705166#post11705166

(Please note that the manifesto is an oath... see the debate thread/ask me to claarify specifics.)

Just sayin' that a similar party is in the midst.

Members of the Freedom, Environment, and Science Party:

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.

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.

OK, who wants to be an MP. As leader, I will take one seat, but the other is open. The obvious criterion is "who wants it?" but if there are more than one person, we will have to take a vote.

I want it.

I also want it.

I want it too.

I want it too.

*Puts on scientist disguise*

Seconded!

Sorry VH, but if the party you in doesn't want you why should we?:p

I have already been made MP, thank you very much. I was only supporting you whilst practising my disguises. Maybe one day I will be a part of Her Majesty's secret service, wot! :)

I have already been made MP, thank you very much. I was only supporting you whilst practising my disguises. Maybe one day I will be a part of Her Majesty's secret service, wot! :)

I'm sorry. That was a mean and untrue thing to say and I deleted it.
I apologize unreservedly if it hurt you.

OK, here's what I think for voting. Everyone votes for who they would want to be an MP - NOT INCLUDING THEMSELF.

I'm sorry. That was a mean and untrue thing to say and I deleted it.
I apologize unreservedly if it hurt you.

I actually took that earlier post as jest, judging by the :p at the end of your sentence. Anyway, my feelings are not so delicate as to get hurt over silly things that that. No hard feelings, wot?

OK, here's what I think for voting. Everyone votes for who they would want to be an MP - NOT INCLUDING THEMSELF.

I'll vote for Bumboat, then.

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.

A reminder to ask you to please decide on your MPs quickly. We are waiting on you and the Religious Conservative Party in order to open Parliament. Thank you.

Have we selected our second MP yet? I would like to be considered.

Hmm... I agree with every policy this party has! :eek:

On second thought ... we appear to have enough candidates. I will throw my support behind Bumboat.

I also support joining the Coalition on Electoral Reform. That election was a gong show.

Thanks to both Evil Cantadia and Chandelier!
My vote goes to Chan.

I actually took that earlier post as jest, judging by the :p at the end of your sentence. Anyway, my feelings are not so delicate as to get hurt over silly things that that. No hard feelings, wot?

No hard feelings. It was supposed to be a joke but I worried you had taken me seriously. Glad you didn't.

What do the FE&SP think about the issue of electoral reform, especially New Burmesia's proposal in post #3 of this thread?:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504017

OK, it seems Bumboat is our second MP.

Also, you may assume based on the existence of this post that I am not dead and simply lacked access to the Internet for a period of time.

OK, it seems Bumboat is our second MP.

Also, you may assume based on the existence of this post that I am not dead and simply lacked access to the Internet for a period of time.

Huzzah!

BTW, Bumboat, I totally agree with the position you took on that "Queen's Own English" issue. Well stated.

What do the FE&SP think about the issue of electoral reform, especially New Burmesia's proposal in post #3 of this thread?:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504017

I'm for it!

Huzzah!

BTW, Bumboat, I totally agree with the position you took on that "Queen's Own English" issue. Well stated.

Thank you! VH has qualified it and promised support to one our proposals as a Quid Pro Quo if we support proper grammar and either proper Anerican or British spellings of words. That seems fair to me and gets us some NBIP support for at least one of the planks in our Manifesto, the nudity one.
What do you all think? I'm personally in favor of it as it stands but willing to listen to adverse opinions.

Thank you! VH has qualified it and promised support to one our proposals as a Quid Pro Quo if we support proper grammar and either proper Anerican or British spellings of words. That seems fair to me and gets us some NBIP support for at least one of the planks in our Manifesto, the nudity one.
What do you all think? I'm personally in favor of it as it stands but willing to listen to adverse opinions.

I'm opposed. Firstly, on ground of freedom of speech. Secondly, on grounds of cultural diversity. As you stated so eloquently in Parliament, what would the English language be without the various uses made of it? Is Robert Burns' poetry any less poetic because it is expressed in Scots brogue rather than proper English?

Also, I don't see the nudity plank as being important enough to agree to their proposal.

I'm opposed. Firstly, on ground of freedom of speech. Secondly, on grounds of cultural diversity. As you stated so eloquently in Parliament, what would the English language be without the various uses made of it? Is Robert Burns' poetry any less poetic because it is expressed in Scots brogue rather than proper English?

Also, I don't see the nudity plank as being important enough to agree to their proposal.

Ok, Thank you for the feedback. They have actually gone back on their concessions anyway so I'll go back to my original stance and remember this during any future negotiations. My votes on the poll is registered as a no on the thread for it and UVR should vote on it as well.
Thanks again for the reply.