NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would you vote for? Poll Incoming.

I'd vote for the HRP. :D

Vote Democratic Islamic Party and give Muslims a voice. :)

The totaltarian one.

Free Republic forever!

It is appaulling that my party is not on the list.

UDWIOOENABEKEHEANI Inc.

Human Rights Party all the way!

I'm still trying to find out if the DSP is still around.

I would not vote in the election because NS is a benevolent dictatorship with violet as our beloved dictator. If I vote and my party wins they would still be powerless. However if violet sees me vote violet might take that as a sign that I do not properly love our fearless leader and wish to remove some of violets power. If this happened then I could simply disappear without a trace . Or rumours might surface that Im in the AOL Salt Mines. No thank you. I enjoy my health and freedom too much to vote. All praise to our benevolent benefactor violet.

We have elections?:eek:

It is appaulling that my party is not on the list.

Technically it is...

... just not specifically enumerated. ;)

The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288), of course :D

Or, unless we can get more members, "none of the above."

Who would you vote for? Poll Incoming.
You poor sod!
Vote MOBRA!
----------------------------
POSI
We need to chat on Cybernations.:cool:

I probably won't vote...these NS elections don't hold my interest like they did a couple years ago. It's the same debates over and over again, but with half-assed propaganda thrown in for good measure.

But I might vote for a joke party...

I am glad that the FRP is strongly showing in this poll.

I'd vote for me.

I'd vote for me.
An Undergrounder aye?;)

I probably won't vote...these NS elections don't hold my interest like they did a couple years ago. It's the same debates over and over again, but with half-assed propaganda thrown in for good measure.

But I might vote for a joke party...
No!
Don't waste your vote like that!
Vote MOBRA!

No!
Don't waste your vote like that!
Vote MOBRA!

A vote for MOBRA is a vote for fascism!

Vote FRP for competent leadership and freedom.

Looking for the best party for smiles and laughter? Are YOU a spammer at heart? Now you too can be a sexy person!
In the upcoming elections you must Choose sensibly - You must Choose smartly

You must Vote for the Choose wisely party - we promise a great PARTY.

Vote CWP - as soon as possible, and more then once.

Brought to the world by the wonderful Peechland, this ad paid for by the International League of Spammers for Spam

No!
Don't waste your vote like that!
Vote MOBRA!

Are you saying that MOBRA isn't a joke party?? :p

Are you saying that MOBRA isn't a joke party?? :p
WHAT?:eek:
Rodent Supperiority is a very serious bussiness.

A vote for MOBRA is a vote for fascism!

Vote FRP for competent leadership and freedom.
This 'Surfacer' knows not what he says!
MOBRA is not Fascist!
The FRP, will make you pay Inheritence Tax!

This 'Surfacer' knows not what he says!
MOBRA is not Fascist!
The FRP, will make you pay Inheritence Tax!

The FRP will bring you something that none of the other parties can. Leaders that have served. One cannot lead until one has be lead. We will bring you honest, competent leaders, which will make decisions on what is best for the people.

Vote FRP for Freedom, leadership, and future.

The FRP will bring you something that none of the other parties can. Leaders that have served. One cannot lead until one has be lead. We will bring you honest, competent leaders, which will make decisions on what is best for the people.

Vote FRP for Freedom, leadership, and future.
MOBRA has had 3 terms!
It would appear the FRP( More Commonly known as the Fascist Republican Party) will also bring poor spelling and sentence structure equal to the lowest levels of the state of Missisippi.
I suppose you'd take Dictionaries, as one of your first steps when you try (and fail miserably) to gain power?

*ahem*

The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) won't bring you anything. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Because a vote for The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) is a vote to put the People, and each and every individual constituting the same, in charge.

And then each shall be free to bring his or her self whatever he or she wants, not what some politicians think, say, or mandate as being "wanted."

Join The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) today; we still need one more member in order to be officially listed!

Your Liberty awaits you. Take it.

I ain't votin'.

United Democratic Communist Party. I'd vote for the Democratic Socialist party, but they don' seem to be running.

United Democratic Communist Party. I'd vote for the Democratic Socialist party, but they don' seem to be running.

Thank you for your support.

Indeed, Vote UDCP!
Vote for genuine human rights!

Thank you for your support.

Indeed, Vote UDCP!
Vote for genuine human rights!
Vote MOBRA!
Vote for genuine human leather!

This 'Surfacer' knows not what he says!
MOBRA is not Fascist!
The FRP, will make you pay Inheritence Tax!

We don't discriminate between surfacers and burrowing animals in the FRP. If a mole wants to prove themselves as a leader, no one will stand in their way, as it is their constitutional right.

Can we expect MOBRA to extend the same courtesy to surfacers, hmmmmm? :D

Probably th human rights party, since there is no green party.

Probably th human rights party, since there is no green party.

The UDCP is about as close to a Green Party as there is.

It probably goes without saying that I'm voting for The Freedom, Environment and Science Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499248), since I created it.

It probably goes without saying that I'm voting for The Freedom, Environment and Science Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499248).

OR DOES IT!?!?!?!?!

OR DOES IT!?!?!?!?!

PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!


... seemed like the appropriate response...

Probably th human rights party, since there is no green party.

The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) represents genuine efforts to endorse the values found within the Four Pillars of the Green Party, which of course include:


Ecology
Social Justice
Grassroots Democracy
Non-violence


The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) does so by placing especially strong importance on another Green value, decentralization, in partnership with grassroots democracy.

The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) is all about empowering People, and their communities.

Take a look at The Autonomist Party platform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288), and share any questions or concerns one might have. Especially as concerns environmental policy; there is always room for expansion and discussion of any and all viewpoints.

Your Liberty awaits you. Take It.

Probably whichever one Dhomme's fronting this time.

I choose wisely. *nods*

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8537/cwp01ri4.jpg

I choose wisely. *nods*

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8537/cwp01ri4.jpg

*applauds*

Again? We're starting with this crap again? Fuck, I think I prefered the bi-monthly popularity contests we used to have a year or so ago over these pointless NS elections.

You forgot the National Socialists!

IF your tired of voting for lunatics.....vote HRP.

Hey look, communists are winning... on the internet!:eek:

The FRP, will make you pay Inheritence Tax!

Why should I care? I doubt I'll ever leave anything of value to my children, and I'll be dead. It doesn't really matter to me.

Vote United Democratic Communist Party to keep the Libertarian lunatics out!

Vote United Democratic Communist Party to keep the Libertarian lunatics out!

Vote Human Rights Party and keep all the lunatics out!

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3683/tcrazycr8.png

Vote Human Rights Party and keep all the lunatics out!

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3683/tcrazycr8.png

That's right! We only need three more votes, and we're tied with the UDCP.

Vote Human Rights Party and keep all the lunatics out!

If we're insane, then how far over the cuckoo's nest are you?

If we're insane, then how far over the cuckoo's nest are you?

Personally, I’m beyond help, but the party’s cool.

Personally, I’m beyond help, but the party’s cool.

Well, I guess sanity is highly over rated then. Personally, I'm as mad as a hatter. But, "In an age of chaos, look to the lunatic to show you the way."

Vote United Democratic Communist Party to keep the Libertarian lunatics out!

Vote United Democratic Communist Party, to end individualism and all those pesky choices!

The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) now qualifies for inclusion in the official list of parties running in the Fourth NS General Election!

Check out The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) platform here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288), including the recently added "The Nature of Revenue" section.

Remember, The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) promises to bring you nothing...except the right to live your life as you see fit.

Your Liberty awaits you. Take It.

[cheering]
U! D! C! P!
Free and equal, equal and free!
Serving the interests of humanity!
Yayyyyy UDCP!
[/end cheer]

We don't discriminate between surfacers and burrowing animals in the FRP. If a mole wants to prove themselves as a leader, no one will stand in their way, as it is their constitutional right.

Can we expect MOBRA to extend the same courtesy to surfacers, hmmmmm? :D
Yes no doubt, you don't discriminate, you will tax every man and his dog and the dogs fleas and the worms, just for an extra buck!
You wont fool MOBRA with your veiled untoward deeds!

Vote for human rights... and more!
Vote UDCP!

Yes no doubt, you don't discriminate, you will tax every man and his dog and the dogs fleas and the worms, just for an extra buck!
You wont fool MOBRA with your veiled untoward deeds!

I guess you figured out that our ban on income and payroll taxes is just a cover for our parasite taxes... darnit! You moles must have ESP!

The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) is now official (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499225)!

Do the right thing: vote "Other" on this poll, and vote "Autonomist (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288)" on election day!

Your Liberty awaits you. Take it.

If you prefer good policies to vague slogans and deceptive propaganda campaigns, choose the The Freedom, Environment and Science Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499248).

We love propaganda!

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/7690/propagandabk4.jpg

Hey look, communists are winning... on the internet!:eek:
In Soviet Russia Communists are winning on the Internet!
Wai...
:eek: :(

Who voted RCP?

You're all commies :p

You're all commies :p
Way to kill the thread.

You're all commies :p
I hate Commies!

I hate Commies!

I eat communists for breakfast!

Mmmm... communists...

Why settle for a one issue party? The UDCP maximizes human rights, and does more. Vote UDCP!

Vote Free Republic- we know what we're doing!

The OMG Pogo Stick!!!1 party

Vote for the HRP
because anything else just isn't free.

because anything else just isn't free.

Excepting, of course, that which is more free: The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288)

Excepting, of course, that which is more free: The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288)

I know you get the irony inherent in "The Autonomist Party". I wonder who else does?

I know you get the irony inherent in "The Autonomist Party". I wonder who else does?

Individualism does not preclude the value of community. Indeed, properly founded in the values of human liberty, this foundation being the goal of The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288), each compliments and strenghtens the other. It is the other ideologies, of the so-called "left" or "right," who persist in folly by seeking the destruction of one, and, thereby, the other. There is no "irony," only recognition of simple truth.

Pogo Sticks FTW? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499748)

Free Republic Freedom > Other Parties' Freedom.

Excepting, of course, that which is more free: The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288)

Minarchism is totalitarianism by the ungoverned.

Free Republic Freedom > Other Parties' Freedom.

Is this the same party that would hold at ransom the most sacred and individual assertion of freedom and liberty, the right to vote, via the subjugation of that same individual to indentured servitude in the name of "service?" It is impossible to see how this qualifies as "freedom" of any kind.

Let us not mince words. It is slavery, pure and simple.

Throw off the Masters that would put you in chains.

Your Liberty awaits you. Take it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288)

Minarchism is totalitarianism by the ungoverned.

Where the institutions of government allow the ungoverned a free hand above and against all others, perhaps; this is the case with most ideologies, and associated parties, stuck in the outmoded ways of the so-called "left" and "right."

Actual review of the manifesto of The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) will demonstrate that by making all individuals the owners and controllers of their own lives, such conclusions regarding limited government are simply not the case

Actual review of the manifesto of The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) will demonstrate that by making all individuals the owners and controllers of their own lives, such conclusions regarding limited government are simply not the case

It would be pretty, were it true.

However, it is not. All that would happen is the rise of a new form of control: Business. Why trade one tyrany for another, less stable one?

It would be pretty, were it true.

However, it is not. All that would happen is the rise of a new form of control: Business. Why trade one tyrany for another, less stable one?

The simple empirical fact of the matter is that big business derives its power from the state. The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) explicitly calls for the abolishment of those statist powers and institutions that allow business to behave in the way cited:


[The Autonomist Party calls] for the abandonment of the corporation, limited liability, intellectual property, and any other venture that can exist only by explicit government mandate, for the purpose of serving to further centralize power, remove responsibility for individual or group actions, or create scarcity and systems of control, overly liable to abuse, where none need exist.


Sure, big business puts up a nice show about free enterprise and such...while it sends its lobbyists to the trough like pigs, collecting subsidies and special legislation, which The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) also opposes:


[The Autonomist Party calls] for an endorsement of the virtue of competition and free enterprise, and the establishment of a genuine free market, where "free" represents the freedom from statist coercion, protection, or augmentation; an end to all subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, and other burglary of the full product of the People's labor for the sake of a few well connected tyrants.


And finally, The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) would put the people in control of business ventures, exactly so the same can't walk all over the people's rights:


[The Autonomist Party calls] for replacement of state ownership and the corporation with employee owned and controlled entities taking any number of possible shapes, for profit or not for profit; mutuals, cooperatives, sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.


As far as the making of regulations and legislation goes, The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) simply advocates for decentralization and democracy. If the people of a given community want greater or lesser regulations concerning business in that community, that is their prerogative.

Clearly, The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) does not exist to enhance the dictatorship of big business. Its goal, in reality, is the destruction of that dictatorship, and the empowerment of the individual and of the people.

If the people of a given community want greater or lesser regulations concerning business in that community, that is their prerogative.

As long as they don't violate the property rights of the owners?

Sure, big business puts up a nice show about free enterprise and such...while it sends its lobbyists to the trough like pigs, collecting subsidies and special legislation, which The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) also opposes:

"We call for the end of the corporation... by posturing about a free market that actually gets rid of all the laws that keep them from from becoming too abusive. Makes sense, doesn't it?"



And finally, The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) would put the people in control of business ventures, exactly so the same can't walk all over the people's rights:

Wait.. By putting people, the greediest, most self-centered creatures to ever exist in control of business without any actual regulation on them, you expect them to become perfect angels? :confused:



As far as the making of regulations and legislation goes, The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) simply advocates for decentralization and democracy. If the people of a given community want greater or lesser regulations concerning business in that community, that is their prerogative.

Clearly, The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) does not exist to enhance the dictatorship of big business. Its goal, in reality, is the destruction of that dictatorship, and the empowerment of the individual and of the people.

Yeah right... C'mon, anyone with half a brain can read through pretty words and see "Genuine free market" and the demonization of "statism" and see that it means "We want a Lesseize Faire government". You don't get to have it both ways.

"We call for the end of the corporation... by posturing about a free market that actually gets rid of all the laws that keep them from from becoming too abusive. Makes sense, doesn't it?"

Wait.. By putting people, the greediest, most self-centered creatures to ever exist in control of business without any actual regulation on them, you expect them to become perfect angels? :confused:


Please quote the part of the manifesto that advocates the elimination of all regulations, and I will be happy to explain why and how it is being misintrepreted.


Yeah right... C'mon, anyone with half a brain ...


Ah, where reason fails, there is always childish insults. Why should the voting public endorse a party whose members appear to assume that they are stupid?

As long as they don't violate the property rights of the owners?

Again, the decision belongs to the people and the community thereof.

Please quote the part of the manifesto that advocates the elimination of all regulations, and I will be happy to explain why and how it is being misintrepreted.

* For an endorsement of the virtue of competition and free enterprise, and the establishment of a genuine free market, where "free" represents the freedom from statist coercion, protection, or augmentation; an end to all subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, and other burglary of the full product of the People's labor for the sake of a few well connected tyrants.

Code for "Look Ma, no Regulations!"


Ah, where reason fails, there is always childish insults. Why should the voting public endorse a party whose members appear to assume that they are stupid?

:rolleyes:

K, let's talk logic. I presented a whole argument, and capped it off with a comment you then chose to quote incorrectly. "Anyone with half a brain", doesn't mean that "All my voters have only half a brain"

Again, the decision belongs to the people and the community thereof.

For the abandonment of all state ownership and control of any commercial, industrial, or other business enterprise.

If I'm reading you right, you're implying now that this restriction applies only to centralized institutions, and not to local communities.

So if a given leftist community decided to put the means of production under collective ownership and control, keeping it at the community level, your party would permit this?

Is this the same party that would hold at ransom the most sacred and individual assertion of freedom and liberty, the right to vote, via the subjugation of that same individual to indentured servitude in the name of "service?" It is impossible to see how this qualifies as "freedom" of any kind.

Voting "rights" are only a sham by those who are unable to operate without government aggression and fraud propping them up, pushed upon a willfully ignorant population to give a facade of legitimacy and to allow them to believe that their continual push towards serfdom is somehow giving them more freedom.

We aim to turn the power over the government's monopoly of force from tricksters, charlatans and political prostitutes to those who have shown not only that they care enough of the careful use of power to gain voting privilege by the sweat of their brow, but prove that they will use it for the betterment of their fellow man by serving them before they do anything else.

It is slavery, pure and simple.

We force no one to take this path- one does not become a leader by having others push one into it. They must *earn* suffrage, not have it given to them only to be wasted, thrown away, and taken advantage of by the greedy and megalomaniacal.

Voting "rights" are only a sham by those who are unable to operate without government aggression and fraud propping them up, pushed upon a willfully ignorant population to give a facade of legitimacy and to allow them to believe that their continual push towards serfdom is somehow giving them more freedom.

We aim to turn the power over the government's monopoly of force from tricksters, charlatans and political prostitutes to those who have shown not only that they care enough of the careful use of power to gain voting privilege by the sweat of their brow, but prove that they will use it for the betterment of their fellow man by serving them before they do anything else.
You know, your party would have my vote if not for the irational economic policy and uber-individualist undertones.
The Human Rights Party. We're pragmatic.

* For an endorsement of the virtue of competition and free enterprise, and the establishment of a genuine free market, where "free" represents the freedom from statist coercion, protection, or augmentation; an end to all subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, and other burglary of the full product of the People's labor for the sake of a few well connected tyrants.

Code for "Look Ma, no Regulations!"


Obviously you have misintrepreted this "code." Indeed, it is not entirely your fault, as those on the political right have, in fact, corrupted the meaning of the phrases "free enterprise" and "free market" to represent the sort of horror that you cite. However, the simple fact of the matter that they ignore, and which The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) fully recognizes, is that free enterprise cannot occur in a society without laws and regulations. Laws and regulations are necessary in order to assert property rights, mediate and resolve conflicts, enforce contracts (or void unjust ones), and punish theft as well as all other crimes that violate the rights of the individual.

Quoting the manifesto of The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) yet again:


While we value the liberty and sovereignty of the individual as paramount, we also value order and peace. Because relationships between individuals are inevitable, conflict is also inevitable, and this conflict stands as a direct threat to the continuance of peace and order. Government is thus a necessity, however, it is a tool for those who desire peace and order, and it is a slave to those who desire peace and order.


We do NOT advocate the total elimination of government, as this would lead to chaos and, ultimately, the tyrrany you cite. We do advocate limiting the power of that government to the extent we feel is necessary to leave the individual secured in his or her liberty to the maximum extent possible, while still ensuring that the same individual is responsible for respecting the equal rights of his or her peers. This is not a matter of "having one's cake and eating it to." This is a matter of abandoning the extremist myths of the "left" and the "right" and understanding that liberty is a balance.

Our aim is to find that balance.

We force no one to take this path- one does not become a leader by having others push one into it. They must *earn* suffrage, not have it given to them only to be wasted, thrown away, and taken advantage of by the greedy and megalomaniacal.

Human beings do not need to "earn" freedom. Period.

An updated version of this poll, now including the Autonomist, Libertarian, Mole and Other Burrowing Creatures, and Opportunity & Fairness Meritocratic parties, can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499764

You know, your party would have my vote if not for the irational economic policy and uber-individualist undertones.

I like the individualist undertones- they keep the party dedicated to establishing a new tradition of protecting the people's rights and not making a tyrannical leviathan again.

I'm not sure what you mean by irrational economic policy. I think the economic policy is fairly moderate (I really could have gone crazy with it, as you probably know).

Human beings do not need to "earn" freedom. Period.

But they're not earning a "freedom". They're earning a privilege.

But they're not earning a "freedom". They're earning a privilege.

Suffrage is not a "privilege." In any model containing political rule, it is an essential aspect of freedom.

Suffrage is not a "privilege." In any model containing political rule, it is an essential aspect of freedom.
Even if the people vote to kill all the gays?

For the abandonment of all state ownership and control of any commercial, industrial, or other business enterprise.


If I'm reading you right, you're implying now that this restriction applies only to centralized institutions, and not to local communities.

So if a given leftist community decided to put the means of production under collective ownership and control, keeping it at the community level, your party would permit this?

Note that the word "control" in that quoted segment of The Autonomist Party manifesto was intended to refer to direct management, and not necessarily laws or regulations in general.

What I was aiming at, when writing that manifesto, was drawing a distinction between "state" and "community," similar to how you drew a distinction between "state" and "government" in the Autonomist Party thread. This is the point of the very heavy emphasis upon decentralization and democracy. If a community wishes to collectivize its possessions/property within that community, and each member of the community participates voluntarily, then The Autonomist Party manifesto takes no issue with such a decision. Indeed, The Autonomist Party manifesto, if anything, would likely envision such an arangement falling under some form of voluntary and employee/member owned and operated mutual, cooperative, or collective as described in the sections "The Nature of Business," "The Nature of Social Welfare," or even "The Nature of Education."

Again, as the manifesto also says, it is not standing shoulder to shoulder with one's fellow human that is opposed. It is doing so via the barrel of a gun that is opposed. State collectivism is opposed. Decentralized and democratic community activity is not. I would assert that all that is required is that each community leave other communities free to make their own decisions as well.

Let each decide which side of the bread they want to butter, and just live in peace, if I may resurrect that particular allegory again.

Even if the people vote to kill all the gays?

Obviously it is not all limitations on the will of the people that is opposed, only brutally and unnecessarily excessive ones.

Iam casting my vote for the United Democratic Communist Party

Long live the motherland

Suffrage is not a "privilege." In any model containing political rule, it is an essential aspect of freedom.

It's not an essential aspect of freedom. It's a control over the government's monopoly of force, and it doesn't matter who administers it, just as long as it's used to protect the sovereignty of individuals as opposed to damaging it. We choose a constitutional republic style of government as a matter of pragmatism, because it has more safeguards against the monopoly of force being turned to ill-use than a king or tyranny by majority.

Obviously it is not all limitations on the will of the people that is opposed, only brutally and unnecessarily excessive ones.
Which depends entirely on one’s point of view.

Which depends entirely on one’s point of view.

Right; and the point of view represented by the "Free" Republic Party is unnecessarily brutal and excessive. ;)

Right; and the point of view represented by the "Free" Republic Party is unnecessarily brutal and excessive. ;)
As is yours. As is the communists.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3683/tcrazycr8.png

Even if the people vote to kill all the gays?

Political rule is not unlimited, either.

To the extent that there is political rule, that political rule must be based on universal suffrage.

and each member of the community participates voluntarily

This, of course, is the wrangling point. No business (at least most businesses) will not "voluntarily" accept regulation that interferes with its profits; it will have to be forced into doing so.

Let me give you a concrete example, so you can clarify your exact meaning. Say I have a mining community whose members are highly concerned by the exploitation of workers by the company running the mines. They meet in their assembly and discuss a course of action.

One group calls on the community to appeal to the generosity and empathy of the mine owners, and hope they will treat the mine workers better. However, holding by a strong belief in capitalist property rights and the right of contract, this faction also insists that the community not undertake any action that would compromise either of those rights, including the enactment of mandatory health and safety regulations.

Another group is more skeptical of the benevolence of the mine owners, and demands that the community compel them to abide by basic health and safety standards and to pay the workers a reasonable wage. However, it insists that the right of ownership of the company over the mines must not be challenged.

A third group declares that the exploitation of the mineworkers is inherent in the capitalist-worker relationship, and calls for bringing the mines under collective ownership and worker self-management, whatever the will of the mine owners.

Which policies fall within the bounds of legitimate community powers?

Edit: The community abides by the principle of free association, in that individuals are free to leave as they see fit, and is not aiming at expropriating the means of production anywhere but within its range. No one outside the community will be affected.

It's not an essential aspect of freedom. It's a control over the government's monopoly of force, and it doesn't matter who administers it, just as long as it's used to protect the sovereignty of individuals as opposed to damaging it.

The state is not and will never be a neutral entity; it will always respond to the interests of those who control it. You claim to champion "individual sovereignty," but in practice the "individual sovereignty" of those incapable of voting will be trampled on by those who do have that capability. The state is composed of humans; as such it can never be an objective arbiter.

As is yours.

Perhaps. But ultimately the choice belongs to the people. Unless the "Free" Republic comes to power and takes it away, anyway.

Right; and the point of view represented by the "Free" Republic Party is unnecessarily brutal and excessive. ;)

Well, if it's somehow brutal to want to change the political system from being composed of a willingly ignorant populace and statists who are able to exploit that lack of knowledge to their own ends, and to want to achieve true autonomy instead of a polluted version with false, imaginary rights that are only a front for statism, then yes, we're Genghis Khan.

The state is not and will never be a neutral entity; it will always respond to the interests of those who control it. You claim to champion "individual sovereignty," but in practice the "individual sovereignty" of those incapable of voting will be trampled on by those who do have that capability. The state is composed of humans; as such it can never be an objective arbiter.

To say that the state never will be a neutral entity as a justification for not changing the status quo is like using the fact that some people will always be murderers to try to dissuade people from prosecuting crime. You might not be able to achieve perfection, but you should at least try and fix what's wrong. It will not be trampled upon by those not voting, because those who are voting have proven themselves as those who are willing to give aid to others for years with only the tiniest certain benefit (what is one vote in millions worth)? Also, those who are not able to vote CHOOSE not to vote. If they think something is wrong, then they should give of themselves before they demand of others.

To say that the state never will be a neutral entity as a justification for not changing the status quo

Um, I'm a communist anarchist.

I'm not exactly a fan of the "status quo."

It will not be trampled upon by those not voting, because those who are voting have proven themselves as those who are willing to give aid to others for years with only the tiniest certain benefit (what is one vote in millions worth)?

Most likely, you will end up with a small political elite as a result. Not many people are willing to do so. The problem is that lots of people with dedication and ambition are nevertheless people who should not be ruling over others. And you are still depriving the majority of freedom; you are subjecting it to the will of a minority that may be radically different from what they themselves will.

Also, those who are not able to vote CHOOSE not to vote.

In the same sense that those imprisoned in totalitarian states for dissenting "choose" to go to prison.

If they think something is wrong, then they should give of themselves before they demand of others.

I need not "earn" the right to demand that others not interfere with my freedom.

Political rule is not unlimited, either.

To the extent that there is political rule, that political rule must be based on universal suffrage.
With enough support, you can pass anything. A piece of paper is nothing in the face of a mob. Not that this has anything to do with the HRP. We don't even adress suffrage.

This, of course, is the wrangling point. No business (at least most businesses) will not "voluntarily" accept regulation that interferes with its profits;


Unless that regulation helps boost said profits, anyway. This is a little feature that many advocates of increasing regulation of business sometimes miss. Those hoards of business lobbyists in Washington D.C. are there for a reason. Let us not unnecessarily enhance the precident.


One group calls on the community to appeal to the generosity and empathy of the mine owners, and hope they will treat the mine workers better. However, holding by a strong belief in capitalist property rights and the right of contract, this faction also insists that the community not undertake any action that would compromise either of those rights, including the enactment of mandatory health and safety regulations.

Another group is more skeptical of the benevolence of the mine owners, and demands that the community compel them to abide by basic health and safety standards and to pay the workers a reasonable wage. However, it insists that the right of ownership of the company over the mines must not be challenged.

A third group declares that the exploitation of the mineworkers is inherent in the capitalist-worker relationship, and calls for bringing the mines under collective ownership and worker self-management, whatever the will of the mine owners.


I am personally inclined to select the second option, regulation by law with maintenence of property rights, if only because I wish to avoid extremes; the ideology represented by the first has lead to great horrors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29), but then so has the third (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin).

This doesn't mean I oppose any attempt by the miners to gain ownership over the mines, however. Such control can most certainly be attained; the miners can collectively pool resources and purchase either the mine itself, stock in the company, they can open a competing business structured however they like, they can seek restitution for abuses and other wrongs committed against them, etc. Once a mining company is secured by the miners, they can draw whatever conclusions they wish about capitalist-worker relationships, and operate their enterprise however they wish.

I'm not really sure what else I can say. I don't wish the worker to be completely impotent, but I also want to avoid extremism, as in the midst of the glorious revolution human beings are capable of making grossly poor decisions that they later regret (even within the context of right-wing politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet), of course. This is by no means a criticism of the left exclusively).

With enough support, you can pass anything. A piece of paper is nothing in the face of a mob.

That's why you protect free association.

Unless that regulation helps boost said profits, anyway. This is a little feature that many advocates of increasing regulation of business sometimes miss. Those hoards of business lobbyists in Washington D.C. are there for a reason. Let us not unnecessarily enhance the precident.

Absolutely. Too often the union between statism and corporate capitalism is ignored in favor of some sort of dichotomy between the two.

In other words, you are asking me how the transition from the status quo to what The Autonomist Party calls for is supposed to happen. I am personally inclined to select the second option, regulation by law with maintenence of property rights, if only because I wish to avoid extremes; the ideology represented by the first has lead to great horrors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29), but then so has the third (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin).

Worker self-management and decentralized collective ownership along left-anarchist lines is not analogous to vanguardist statism.

I will not deny being an "extremist," but a certain figure (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater) who I strongly disagree with in most other contexts had some useful advice in that regard.

This doesn't mean I oppose any attempt by the miners to gain ownership over the mines, however. Such control can most certainly be attained; the miners can collectively pool resources and purchase either the mine itself, stock in the company, they can open a competing business structured however they like, they can seek restitution for abuses and other wrongs committed against them, etc.

Only if they have such "resources," that is, sufficient capital.

If they did, they most likely wouldn't be working at the mine in the first place.

I'm not really sure what else I can say. I don't wish the worker to be completely impotent, but I also want to avoid extremism, as in the midst of the glorious revolution human beings are capable of making grossly poor decisions that they later regret (even within the context of right-wing politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet)).

Frankly I don't see much hope for changing things any other way; statist-capitalist institutions tend to make the forms of representative democracy we possess highly limited.

Um, I'm a communist anarchist.

I'm not exactly a fan of the "status quo."

Oh, OK. You should have told me that first, though- that's a whole other debate, and not the one I thought I was having at first glance.

Most likely, you will end up with a small political elite as a result. Not many people are willing to do so. The problem is that lots of people with dedication and ambition are nevertheless people who should not be ruling over others. And you are still depriving the majority of freedom; you are subjecting it to the will of a minority that may be radically different from what they themselves will.

1.) They are not "ruling" over others- they are managing the government's monopoly of force so as to help rather than hinder individual liberties. You may say that people with a lot of dedication and ambition are not the best to have power in government- I know you're an anarcho-communist, but what other people could possibly do better? Undedicated, unmotivated people? A great nation has to be supported by people who are willing to sacrifice of themselves to make it so.

2.) It's a privilege, not a freedom. The monopoly of force effectively makes demands of people- if they do not want to give before they take, then too bad for them. They always have the choice of showing themselves worthy to manage the government's monopoly of force and show that their acts are not aimed at their own gratification, but rather for the rights of all individuals. If it gets abusive, the people do have the rights to firearms with which to overthrow the government, as I alluded to in the preamble- if this government fails, then the only other thing that could possibly work is an anarchy, not having a government at all, since all other governments have been tried and failed.

In the same sense that those imprisoned in totalitarian states for dissenting "choose" to go to prison.

The political prisoner has his status forced upon him by the state, and he has no choice whether or not to avoid it. It is also a violation of his liberties. The person who goes through service chooses of his own volition to show that he has the good of others in mind, to prove that he will not use the monopoly of force to just take from his fellow man. He gains from following this path.

I need not "earn" the right to demand that others not interfere with my freedom.

I would not dispute that you do not have to earn the right to your individual freedoms. However, it is dangerous and unsafe if the power to violate other people's freedoms, the state's monopoly of force, to the willfully ignorant who can be manipulated by powerful authoritarians. There must be some safeguard, and this is what the Free Republic proposes in order to defend liberty.

Oh, OK. You should have told me that first, though- that's a whole other debate, and not the one I thought I was having at first glance.

That comment had the wrong tone, I intended it to be a clarification, not a criticism.

1.) They are not "ruling" over others- they are managing the government's monopoly of force so as to help rather than hinder individual liberties.

They are "ruling over others", but with the occasional reference to liberal philosophy.

You may say that people with a lot of dedication and ambition are not the best to have power in government

I said they wouldn't necessarily be good to have in government. The enlightened rule you expect from them would hardly be likely.

- I know you're an anarcho-communist, but what other people could possibly do better?

No one or everyone.

Undedicated, unmotivated people?

I don't care whether they're dedicated or motivated. I care whether they deserve freedom, as all humans do.

A great nation has to be supported by people who are willing to sacrifice of themselves to make it so.

A great nation rests on freedom, and freedom precludes exclusivist political rule.

2.) It's a privilege, not a freedom. The monopoly of force effectively makes demands of people- if they do not want to give before they take, then too bad for them.

No one should be "tak[ing]."

They always have the choice of showing themselves worthy to manage the government's monopoly of force

There is no one "worthy" of rule over others.

and show that their acts are not aimed at their own gratification, but rather for the rights of all individuals.

Compulsory service before attaining the right to vote does not necessarily indicate a desire to preserve rights.

If it gets abusive, the people do have the rights to firearms with which to overthrow the government, as I alluded to in the preamble-

Why not let them overthrow it through democracy?

if this government fails, then the only other thing that could possibly work is an anarchy, not having a government at all, since all other governments have been tried and failed.

I think that's an unjustified broad brush. Off the top of my head, I'd name liberal statist democratic socialism as a form of government that has never really been tried; there are lots of others.

The political prisoner has his status forced upon him by the state, and he has no choice whether or not to avoid it. It is also a violation of his liberties. The person who goes through service chooses of his own volition to show that he has the good of others in mind, to prove that he will not use the monopoly of force to just take from his fellow man. He gains from following this path.

What if I told you that the right of free speech, because it can incite others to action, is also a right that has to be earned by abstaining from saying certain things?

I would not dispute that you do not have to earn the right to your individual freedoms. However, it is dangerous and unsafe if the power to violate other people's freedoms, the state's monopoly of force, to the willfully ignorant who can be manipulated by powerful authoritarians. There must be some safeguard, and this is what the Free Republic proposes in order to defend liberty.

Your "safeguard" is exclusive rule; it is not a safeguard at all, but a recipe for oligarchy.

Absolutely. Too often the union between statism and corporate capitalism is ignored in favor of some sort of dichotomy between the two.



Worker self-management and decentralized collective ownership along left-anarchist lines is not analogous to vanguardist statism.


I don't mean to make that equation. I mean to imply that there are probably more vanguardist statists than there are left-anarchists (edit: in fact, I read your own reservations regarding the UDCP in the other poll thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11683569&postcount=5)...). Just as there are probably more who try to make that dichotomy regarding corporate capitalism than there are genuine individualist anarchists.

The revolution is always righteous. Until it's stolen.


Only if they have such "resources," that is, sufficient capital.
If they did, they most likely wouldn't be working at the mine in the first place.


Individually, perhaps. But together, with outside supporters, perhaps not.


statist-capitalist institutions tend to make the forms of representative democracy we possess highly limited.


Individual property rights need not necessarily be capitalist, or even statist (assuming again the distinction between "state" and "government" or "state" and "community.") Beyond that, again, I don't really know what to say.

I don't mean to make that equation. I mean to imply that there are probably more vanguardist statists than there are left-anarchists. Just as there are probably more who try to make that dichotomy regarding corporate capitalism than there are genuine individualist anarchists.

The revolution is always righteous. Until it's stolen.

Give me a better solution, and I'll happily embrace it.

Individually, perhaps. But together, with outside supporters, perhaps not.

But bringing in outside supporters still makes them dependent; it means that their freedom is once more conditional, conditional on accepting the will of whichever capitalist is sponsoring the venture.

Individual property rights need not necessarily be capitalist, or even statist (assuming again the distinction between "state" and "government" or "state" and "community.")

Of course not. But how do you expect to bring about individualist anarchism, or any variety of anarchism, without revolution?

Give me a better solution, and I'll happily embrace it.

Evolution. Don't give the vanguardist statists the whole pie all at once. Take a piece a step at a time. I might never see the result, but I most certainly do not want to see what results when the revolution is stolen.


A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame, as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world, aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failiure.



But bringing in outside supporters still makes them dependent; it means that their freedom is once more conditional, conditional on accepting the will of whichever capitalist is sponsoring the venture.


Outside support could take the form of other workers.

That comment had the wrong tone, I intended it to be a clarification, not a criticism.

Well, I know what you were trying to say now, so no harm done.

They are "ruling over others", but with the occasional reference to liberal philosophy.

You really think I'm a crypto-fascist, don't you? :P

They are not ruling over others, because the non-voters are not having their capacities of individual sovereignty and self-ownership violated- they are still the masters of their own domains. They would be ruling over them if they were violating this capacity, but the more informed, more protective use of the monopoly of force would keep such violation from happening.

I said they wouldn't necessarily be good to have in government. The enlightened rule you expect from them would hardly be likely.

But I would say that the qualities of these people are not limited to just dedicated and ambitious- it is dedicated and ambitious in defense of liberty. They perform a service that, in its greatest certainty, physically benefits the non-voter more than it does the one who performs the service. There is no assurance greater than just one vote in a sea of millions, but those who perform it regardless are far more likely than not interested more in the public good than they are in being able to punch in a few holes every year.

I don't care whether they're dedicated or motivated. I care whether they deserve freedom, as all humans do.

They get their freedom- they just don't get the capacity to hold other's freedoms in their hands.

A great nation rests on freedom, and freedom precludes exclusivist political rule.

If they exclude themselves, then it is their choice. That is their freedom to choose to do so. It does not matter who does the political ruling, it only matters if it protects the individual's rights. What makes a democracy that oppresses its minorities any better than a king who oppresses the minorities of his domain.

No one should be "tak[ing]."

Let me rephrase that. No one should be able to say what a nation should do if they do not serve for the good of the nation first.

There is no one "worthy" of rule over others.

Not of rule, no. But those who hold the power to nurture or strangle liberty should be those who have shown themselves to want the latter.

Compulsory service before attaining the right to vote does not necessarily indicate a desire to preserve rights.

If by compulsory, you mean a draft, then I would agree. Drafts are stupid things, no better than legalized kidnapping, and if a nation must resort to such a method because it cannot protect its liberties, then it obviously has no resolve to do so anyway. But we are not talking of a draft- the people who take the service do so out of their own free will, and do not need to perform it. The important thing about the service is A.) It is in the service of others, with no certain benefit other than having one vote out of as many as there are stars in the night sky, and B.) What one gains by the sweat of his brow, one will not waste. The problem of democracy today is that we have a willfully ignorant population that can be manipulated by statists who take advantage of that lack of knowledge. A. precludes the latter, and B. precludes the former. With that, the threat to liberty is undone.

Why not let them overthrow it through democracy?

Because democracy has already failed already. I thought you'd like anarchy? :D

I think that's an unjustified broad brush. Off the top of my head, I'd name liberal statist democratic socialism as a form of government that has never really been tried; there are lots of others.

Each part of it has failed, though, except for the former, which hasn't really been allowed to thrive. But an anarchy would be based of voluntary exchange, which would be liberal.

What if I told you that the right of free speech, because it can incite others to action, is also a right that has to be earned by abstaining from saying certain things?

I would say you're wrong. Just because I say something doesn't mean you have to listen- if people vote for certain policy, it HAS to be followed.

Your "safeguard" is exclusive rule; it is not a safeguard at all, but a recipe for oligarchy.

It is not exclusive rule, because anyone can join it. Not everyone joins the marathon- does that make it exclusive? All I care about for this form of government is that it protects individual rights, through whatever government form is necessary. I choose this safeguard because it is the best answer to rational ignorance and the problems posed by very knowledgeable statist groups that are willing to abuse the powers of democracy.