NationStates Jolt Archive


The Opportunity & Fairness Meritocratic Party thread

Pure Metal
13-09-2006, 19:17
http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/OFMP/OFMP%20small.jpg


>> new party now recruiting members! democratic party open to members' suggestions... if interested please reply below :) thank you :)


Summary: This party believes in equality of opportunity and a socialised capitalist economy. Socially libertarian on most issues, we support nationalised health, schools, and other key industries central to a stable quality of life. To achieve meritocracy and equality of opportunity, we believe in banning (nationalising) private schools, centralising school curriculi, and banning inheritance. This will ensure no child may have less opportunity to succeed than any other, and society has a fair basis from which to operate.


Manifesto

This party believes in equality of opportunity over other concerns. This surpasses ‘equality of outcome’ as per communist models; our policies, however, may still be argued to be socialist. What this means is to ensure true fairness, the government should not dictate what people earn in an attempt to reach some form of arbitrary equality (of outcome), but rather citizens should be given the same starting point in life and thus ensure a just and fair outcome by allowing people to use their skills and talents to their advantage, to further themselves and society. People are not to be left behind however as a welfare system (including nationalised health and schooling), funded by a progressive tax system, is a must to ensure a minimum quality of life for all citizens, for those whom life has not indeed been fair, who have yet to realise their potential, or whom have been handed in the grand lottery of life a poor hand of talents or gifts. To discriminate against these people for not having the gifts necessary to thrive would be as unjust as discriminating against those who have ‘made it’; morally more-so (hence justification for a progressive tax system).
Please read our manifesto of policies below, and even if you don’t agree with all of them I invite you to join the party – we are a new party and need your support! Thank you.


1. Opportunity

1.1: This party recognises that birth is a lottery (referred to as the ‘grand lottery’) whereby we have no say or decision as to where - which country or neighbourhood - we are born in, nor do we have any choice to whom we are born – whether our parents will be rich or poor, lower or upper class, married or divorced, supportive or abusive – and as such for one to take advantage of their positioning in the grand lottery to the detriment of others would be unjust.

1.2: This however does not negate the fact that people are born different, with different talents and abilities. To play down these and work only to the tune of the lowest common denominator would be unfair to those with demanded skills or talents, who are capable of achieving more for themselves, just because they happened to be born with greater intelligence or an aptitude or talent for something in demand in society.

1.3: As such this party believes that to discriminate against people’s inherent natural talents and abilities would be unjust – imposing artificial restraints on natural differences. To work to better one’s self is currently a natural drive, and restraining this with forced equality of outcome (whereby all people earn the same regardless of their job) is also unjust while money is seen as a key determinant of worth and/or success.

1.4: Thusly, in a capitalist system, this party believes allowing people to better themselves and make use of their natural talents is just. This will result in inequality of outcome. However, this inequality will also be just if a true meritocracy is established.

1.5: A meritocracy is often believed to be what is inherent in capitalism, today. However looking back to point 1.1 of this manifesto, it is evident this is not true. As such the capitalist system in which we live today is inherently unjust – not necessarily in the inequality of society (though current levels of inequality may be argued to be too great), but how we arrived here.
The way to achieve a meritocracy is to eliminate the arbitrary societal factors in the grand lottery, as per point 1.1 above, that cause some to be unfairly born with a better chance of making use of their natural abilities than others. This will be looked at in section 2 below:


2. Fairness

2.1: Achieving and maintaining a true meritocracy is the primary goal of this party (to ensure equality of opportunity), and is the only way to set up a fair society. The government will play a key role in this.
However, a just starting point does not always a fair outcome make - to 'set up' society and then let it run without the guiding hand of government, to ensure citizens' positive rights to a minimum quality of life are upheld (as discussed later) and to correct market failures, would be negligent. The government must also ensure society then runs in a just way using laws to regulate the conduct of business to reduce unjust aquisitions of wealth or power. This will all be discussed later in this manifesto.

2.2: A fair, meritocratic society will be 'set up' by literally ensuring equality of opportunity in schools:

All schools will be run by the government – all private schools and universities will be nationalised.
A national standard curriculum will be established to ensure all students cover the same ground.
There will be no tiers of schooling - whereby a class goes ‘faster’ through the syllabus and can cover more ground – though more able classes can cover the same topics in more depth as per their ability.
A larger ‘core’ set of subjects will be taught to all students to the age of 18, including maths, science(s), philosophy and critical thinking.
Schooling will be free and compulsory to the age of 21. Higher education between the ages of 18 and 21 may be completed at university or more practical/vocational environments.

There is to be more parental involvement in the schooling process. Education is not just about acquiring facts and knowledge, but life skills including social skills and an outlook on life. The home is the primary arena for the formation of the latter, and as such parents themselves will have greater responsibility and support for teaching their children important life lessons, as well as responsibility for encouraging and supporting schoolwork.
Education is to be of primary importance in the government budget.


2.3: Equality of opportunity will also be achieved by the tax system
Inheritance will be abolished (inheritance tax effective at 100%).


2.4: This party believes in positive rights as a basic reasoning behind a welfare system ensuring a minimum quality of life for all citizens (see #4.6 below)




3. Rights

3.1: The following rights are endowed to citizens by this party:
The right to private property
The right to personal privacy
The right to freedom of speech and expression of religion
The right to a basic quality of life; the right to clean drinking water, shelter, adequate food and nourishment, clothing, warmth (and fuel for this purpose), the freedom to travel and free movement within national borders and abroad, the ability to communicate effectively (the internet, post, etc); the right to an adequate infrastructure to achieve these rights.
The right to education
Other rights as per the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights





4. Other key policies

4.1: Social libertarianism is to be the byword for social policies of this party. Citizens shall be granted freedom from the state to do what they wish on their private property, so long as it harms no-one and is not to the detriment of another's health, property, or well-being.

4.2: Abortion is to be legal until the 19th week of pregnancy, following which the foetus is self-aware and conscious.

4.3: This party believes in a republic. No man or woman is born better than another, nor with any rightful claim to power which has not been earned.

4.4: This party believes in internationalism, supporting the UN and (if applicable) closer ties and integration with the EU.

4.5: A National Health Service to be well funded. Private operators are allowed.

4.6: Welfare state supported.

4.7: Key industries for the running of the country are to be nationalised with emphasis on providing consumers with good service over profit: Gas supply to consumers, electricity grid, broadband and internet supply, waste management, transport and rail, water.

4.8: Military funding to be kept to a minimum for defensive purposes only

4.9: Churches are not to be exempt from taxation

4.10: Nepotism is to be illegal

4.11: This party believes religion has no place in the government.



Members List:
Pure Metal
Underdownia
Glitziness
13-09-2006, 19:18
You already know what I think but, again, very good manifesto, and I'm very much interested in the party :) :fluffle:
Pure Metal
13-09-2006, 19:20
You already know what I think but, again, very good manifesto, and I'm very much interested in the party :) :fluffle:

not going to be a member though? ;)


and a general note to anyone who replies to this thread: i will be away as of later tonight till late tomorrow night, and won't be able to reply/rebuttle till then, heh.
Andaluciae
13-09-2006, 19:25
You win the most professional manifesto award. Congratulations.

It's actually rather impressive, and you've got more than one or two decent ideas in there, but I'll be sticking to the HRP.

Best o' luck.
Pure Metal
13-09-2006, 19:28
You win the most professional manifesto award. Congratulations.

It's actually rather impressive, and you've got more than one or two decent ideas in there, but I'll be sticking to the HRP.

Best o' luck.

woo! *covets award :P*


and thank you :) i'm not sure how much support i'll get cos its a bit off-the-wall and not generally a well-supported political idea (its mostly based on a cross between Rawls' and Cohen's work, which seems pretty new to me at least). plus is late in the election and stuff, but *crosses fingers anyway*
Mikesburg
13-09-2006, 19:33
What's to stop someone from 'gifting' the majority of their posessions to family members prior to death?

A good manifesto all around I must say, though. However, I'm still holding out for a party a little more 'centrist'. (And I don't count any party that holds the right to bear arms as centrist.)
Glitziness
13-09-2006, 19:36
not going to be a member though? ;)
I don't know yet!! :p You know how indecisive I am :p Though you are one of my choices :) Really just depends if I go for short term or long term *nods*
New Burmesia
13-09-2006, 19:37
I'll be sticking to the UDCP, although in some areas I lie somewhere between the two.

There's life in the old dog yet!
Underdownia
13-09-2006, 19:42
Whoa! Fits nearly 100% perfectly with my views. You've got my vote, and, providing there arent any weird initiation ceremonies, id like to be a member too:fluffle:
Glitziness
13-09-2006, 19:42
What's to stop someone from 'gifting' the majority of their posessions to family members prior to death?
(I'm not speaking officially for the party, but based on what I know of PM)

There'll be a strongly progressive tax system, and - I assume - a crackdown on tax evasion in some way (for people over a certain wealth perhaps, maybe to the extent of it being illegal) so issues like that would get evened out in that way possibly, or perhaps a maximum wage of some sort to help, or restrictions specifically on doing things like that... I am pretty sure that PM has no problem in strict regulation of economic matters, and I'm sure there would be some type of regulation for this kind of thing.
Pure Metal
13-09-2006, 19:44
What's to stop someone from 'gifting' the majority of their posessions to family members prior to death?

A good manifesto all around I must say, though. However, I'm still holding out for a party a little more 'centrist'. (And I don't count any party that holds the right to bear arms as centrist.)

good question and something i have earnestly overlooked. i will give it some thought but also open it up to the floor if anyone has any suggestions :)

and of course, fair enough (i don't support gun ownership or the right to bear arms... need to include that, too :p)
Pure Metal
13-09-2006, 19:47
I'll be sticking to the UDCP, although in some areas I lie somewhere between the two.

There's life in the old dog yet!
lol i reckon i'll get that a lot :p

Whoa! Fits nearly 100% perfectly with my views. You've got my vote, and, providing there arent any weird initiation ceremonies, id like to be a member too:fluffle:
you're very welcome! :D welcome aboard! :)
any suggestions you have, please do pipe up *nods*

(I'm not speaking officially for the party, but based on what I know of PM)

There'll be a strongly progressive tax system, and - I assume - a crackdown on tax evasion in some way (for people over a certain wealth perhaps, maybe to the extent of it being illegal) so issues like that would get evened out in that way possibly, or perhaps a maximum wage of some sort to help, or restrictions specifically on doing things like that... I am pretty sure that PM has no problem in strict regulation of economic matters, and I'm sure there would be some type of regulation for this kind of thing.

that's about it - regulation of the economy, of course. not sure exactly how though yet...
New Burmesia
13-09-2006, 19:54
lol i reckon i'll get that a lot :p

I'm going to have to have a good ol' think about this one, do I go with what I'd like in a perfect world, par se, or what'd be a bit more realistic in the real world...

I might end up joining, depending on how I feel after a shower :D
New Burmesia
13-09-2006, 20:07
lthat's about it - regulation of the economy, of course. not sure exactly how though yet...

Well, I read about a "market socialist" theory on the internet a while ago. I can't find the page yet, but it went something like this, with my own flavoursome ideas:

1) There would be three different types of corporation, 'Public Services', 'State Corporations' and 'Private Businesses'

2) Public services would be run by the Executive (whatever form that would take) and would cover things like Health, Education, Gas, Water, Sewerage, Railways, Airports, and All That Jazz.

3) State Corporations would be run very similarly as they would under capitalism, but with certain differences: they would have a CEO appointed by a committee called the "Board of Supervisors" who would be elected by the populace or by the Parliament. The Board could remove a unsatisfactory CEO, but could NOT issue macroeconomic 'orders' or make decisions for the CEO.

A Charter would set out the aims and the Company 'bill of rights, duties and aims', given upon creation/nationalisation.

4) Private Small/Medium businesses would be encouraged - they do offer much in terms of a better employer/employee relationship, and can show much less of the 'dark side' of capitalism. They would fill gaps in the economy and offer entrepuneralship and perhaps deal with local needs.

But it is just an idea, that's all.
Mikesburg
13-09-2006, 20:37
good question and something i have earnestly overlooked. i will give it some thought but also open it up to the floor if anyone has any suggestions :)

The idea of abolishing inheritance is a noble concept, but I see several problems with implementing it. For instance, what about small family-owned businesses? Let's say for example that my family owns and operates a small but successful chain of coffee shops. My dad owns 80%, I own 20%, but everyone in our family is actively involved in the running of the business and its sucess.

What happens when Dad dies? Does the government take 80% of our family business? Does it liquidate it and redistribute the company in the form of government serivices? Or do we end up with a large amount of mom+pop businesses owned by the state? Not only does it unfairly treat the surviving members of the family who built the business, but it effectively creates a disincentive for budding entrepeneurs.

What about home ownership? If the deed is in dad's name, what happens to the people living in the house?

Perhaps there should be a threshold for which one can inherit? Passing down of family heirlooms, property, and a minimum monetary inheritance? Of course, I don't imagine any business could survive the government taking large portions of its capital, not to mention that allowing a threshold defeats the concept of equality of opportunity. But I think you would need a degree of leniency on the inheritance issue.

and of course, fair enough (i don't support gun ownership or the right to bear arms... need to include that, too :p)

The recent shootings in Montreal should bear testament to that. *shakes head* (I guess gun rights folks would claim that the kids would have been able to shoot back?)
Soheran
13-09-2006, 21:05
I can't support this party, though the program is fairly decent (especially the abolition of inheritance).

I think my objection to it can be best summarized in my response to this statement:

No man or woman is born better than another, nor with any rightful claim to power which has not been earned.

How do you "earn" a claim to power? Do other people lose their right to freedom because you've "earned" power over them?
Pure Metal
13-09-2006, 21:32
would love to reply to things but am off to Kent for the evening - be back tomorrow *nods*
Minaris
17-09-2006, 16:53
You already know what I think but, again, very good manifesto, and I'm very much interested in the party :) :fluffle:

I am the founder of ASWL, a party-to-be which only seems to have a couple differences from yours, including:

- labor prisons used as legal punishment

- inheritance being allowed (to a point (centimental things and the like are allowed; a cap is, as of yet, undefined))

- abortion rights (you set yours at 19 weeks; ours currently is undefined)

- marriage (undefined with you; any type fine w/ us)

and so on...

anyway, I was just letting you know that another party was forming that is very similar to yours.

Chao!
Templa
17-09-2006, 16:56
I see one problem. you'd need to recruit at least psuedo-honest politicions. And there's no such thing.
Meath Street
17-09-2006, 17:22
I support this party. I would prefer abortion to be set as illegal, but if the majority of the party doesn't agree I'm fine with that.
Minaris
17-09-2006, 22:15
I support this party. I would prefer abortion to be set as illegal, but if the majority of the party doesn't agree I'm fine with that.

You probably will not see it becoming illegal...

If anything, it will go later than 19 weeks.
Scarlet States
18-09-2006, 00:34
I'm quitting. Found a better party.
You Dont Know Me
18-09-2006, 01:10
I support your party, but I am a member of another party.

I must say that I quite despise your education program, though.


good question and something i have earnestly overlooked. i will give it some thought but also open it up to the floor if anyone has any suggestions :)

A highly progressive taxation on gifting and charity, perhaps?
Mikesburg
18-09-2006, 03:05
I support your party, but I am a member of another party.

I must say that I quite despise your education program, though.




A highly progressive taxation on gifting and charity, perhaps?

I'm not so sure taxing charity is a good idea...
Glitziness
18-09-2006, 16:19
I support your party, but I am a member of another party.

I must say that I quite despise your education program, though.
You can be a member of more than one.

And how so?
You Dont Know Me
18-09-2006, 17:18
And how so?

I believe that completely standardized, compulsory education is not so much an equaling of opportunity, rather than a limiting of opportunity.

Standardized schooling is not the best path for everyone, and even worse it tends to mold people rather than letting them grow.
Minaris
19-09-2006, 00:30
Burn
Underground
Mole
People

Mole
Omnicide
Rocks
Before
Autumn

All
Wonders
Supercede
Lameness
Minaris
19-09-2006, 22:05
...someone from here joins MY party, formerly AWSL. It is now the Defenderist Party.

More of a revision, but the name is cooler.

See TDP's thread at: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499711
Minaris
20-09-2006, 01:23
...someone from here joins MY party, formerly AWSL. It is now the Defenderist Party.

More of a revision, but the name is cooler.

See TDP's thread at: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499711

Total
Defenserist
Policy

Big
Underhanded
Morphing of
Pants

Mole
Organizations
Really
Bite
All