NationStates Jolt Archive

The election is OVER. Thank you to all who took part. The results can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11772706&postcount=140).


= = = = =

The election has now begun!

You can cast your vote here (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/election/).


= = = = =

This is the thread for political debate, discussing between voters and party members and/or between parties, asking questions to candidate parties, and so forth.

The list of parties can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11663982#post11663982).

If you're a potential voter and you have questions, simply indicate whether your question is an open one to all parties, or whether it's for a specific party. Questions for a specific party can, of course, be posted in that party's thread, but if posted here that gives other parties an opportunity to chime in and explain their own proposed policies.

Anyway... Happy debating!

When does the election actually start, and has a final voting proceedure been determined?

Vote NBIP

*Dressed in large overcoat with fake moustache 'n' glasses mask*

BNIP question:

As an unbiased member of the voting public of NS, I ask what will be the benefits of a great and glorious BNIP government to the forum?

BNIP question:

As an unbiased member of the voting public of NS, what will be the benefits of a great and glorious BNIP government to the forum?
Well, good sah, may I firstly take the opportunity to say what a marvellous question that was, wot wot! Let me lay out the main points of what an election of the NBIP would result in!

Immediate legislation to make it mandatory for cups of tea to be distributed by the losing parties to every poster at least ever 20 minutes!
Legislation that requires every poster to wear a collapsable opera hat every time they wish to raise a point!
A petition for a new sticky thread for people to complain about the bloody weather, wot!
All posters failing to obey Her Majesty's Imperial NationStates Rules will be exiled to one of the Damn Colonies!
Legislation to restore manners to Her Majesty's Imperial NationStates forum! All posters must be refered to as 'good sah!' All female posters must be referred to as 'good Lady sah!'
Pip pip for the Emparh! For more details and to join this glorious party, view the manifesto at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11684017#post11684017

Huzzah for Emparh!

Vote NBIPhttp://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/Slippery__Jim/rourke.gif

When does the election actually start, and has a final voting proceedure been determined?


The election will begin on October 1st, and probably last about 5 days.

For now, the provisional voting system is the same as always, but adapted by PM to the great number of parties.

The election will begin on October 1st, and probably last about 5 days.

For now, the provisional voting system is the same as always, but adapted by PM to the great number of parties.
I don't believe that the nature of the reforms proposed will make any difference. PM states that:
the problem with having too many parties though is the vote will be too split up and its doubtful any party will reach above a quorum to have any power.
So, we can see that the intention of the reforms is to reduce the number of parties to such an extent that one party reaches the required number of seats to actually govern. This will never happen. The only way to actually create a government would be to reduce the election not to ten parties but to two. Even with a smaller number, say three or four, the chances of any one party gaining 50% of the vote is miniscule.

If you want a 'government', therefore, you are going to have to complicate the system massively, with several knockout rounds. This will also have the disadvantage of leaving the Parliament with just two parties.

A far simpler way of forming an 'executive' would be to have the elections as normal, with parties being assigned seats on the basis of their percentage vote. Then, a second ballot could be held, with all the leaders of the Parliamentary parties standing, to elect a 'Prime Minister.' He would appoint Ministers to his 'Cabinet' and could form coalitions with other parties in this way; this body would be the only way legislation could be introduced.

This creates both the incentive to form sensible coalitions with sensible legislation (if you want to do anything, you have to talk) and also a 'reward' for the winning party, in that they have control over the legislative process.

A far simpler way of forming an 'executive' would be to have the elections as normal, with parties being assigned seats on the basis of their percentage vote.

Nobody right now is considering forming an "executive". We could do, I suppose, but the idea was floated during the first election (almost exactly the suggestion you're making now), and turned out to be widely unpopular.

As for "hav[ing] the elections as normal, with parties being assigned seats on the basis of their percentage vote", I'm still very much considering that, but PM raises a valid concern: too few parties may actually get any seats. It's difficult to predict how many would top the 4% bar.

Nobody right now is considering forming an "executive". We could do, I suppose, but the idea was floated during the first election (almost exactly the suggestion you're making now), and turned out to be widely unpopular.
Well, it's just an idea off the top of my head. My honest belief is that if you want this election thing to actually work something pretty major has to change. Of the two elections I've seen, the Parliaments have done as near to nothing as makes no difference. While most people find the elections itself fun, I think even this novelty is wearing off. More and more people seem to be of the 'I'm fed up with the election' variety. Hell, I was one myself before I decided to actually participate.

This could well be the beginning of the end for the Parliament; there's a strong possibility that by time the next one comes around, enough people will be fed up with it for the Mods to declare it spam. I think the changes need to be much more fundamental than just the tweaking that is being suggested.

Well, I'm not averse to changes. Let's see what people think of your suggestions?

Well, I'm not averse to changes. Let's see what people think of your suggestions?
Don't take them as firm proposals. They really were just off the top of my head. :p

Well, the FRP is here. Feel free to ask me, its founder, any intelligent questions you may have. :)

Oi, me hearties. The floor be open to questions for the founder of the PUNKS AND PIRATES party.

Oi, me hearties. The floor be open to questions for the founder of the PUNKS AND PIRATES party.

Can I have my gold back?

Can I have my gold back?

Nay. Twas stolen fair and square.

Nay. Twas stolen fair and square.
*Mans the gunboats*

And I'll just point out that the floor is open to serious questions for the PUNKS AND PIRATES party as well. We are both serious and silly.

Ask away and I will answer any questions about TDP.

Got questions about the alcohol party? Just ask me

join the real CWP all the CWP was before the silly merge that killed it.

Greetings to the voters of the world.

I come to this thread to ask you to vote for the Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland (NPVBFANMRPFTROG).


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499310



Come, give your support to a government by a quixotic unaccountable self-perpetuating elite that actively seeks the imposition of a goal widely held to be completely and utterly unattainable.

After all..... is this any different from your current government?



And, as required by the party platform, I hereby denounce the Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland - Pangaea Tendency as a dangerous splittist faction.

I would like to ask all of the parties what their views on the Holy Father Pope Jesussaves I are? Will they give the Holy General Church money...I mean stuff?

DEATH TO THE SURFACERS!

I would like to ask all of the parties what their views on the Holy Father Pope Jesussaves I are? Will they give the Holy General Church money...I mean stuff?

The Defenderists will not require any tithing; however, the Church of Jesussaves will be allowed (along with the Minaxricanianist Church, Mormon Church, etc.)

The religions' churches will not be exempt from tax; rather, their tax will be reduced greatly (around 50%-75%).

I would like to ask all of the parties what their views on the Holy Father Pope Jesussaves I are? Will they give the Holy General Church money...I mean stuff?
Tho only true church is the Church of Computerology.

Tho only true church is the Church of Computerology.

Then will there be religious freedom between the three religions mentioned?

Tho only true church is the Church of Computerology.

That Church is welcome in TDP (and thus Minaris).

Then will there be religious freedom between the three religions mentioned?
Not for no stinking surfacer.

Not for no stinking surfacer.

Then jihad on you!

Then jihad on you!
Don't exist. http://http://209.85.48.10/3630/189/emo/blat.gif

Greetings to the voters of the world.

I come to this thread to ask you to vote for the Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland (NPVBFANMRPFTROG).


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499310



Come, give your support to a government by a quixotic unaccountable self-perpetuating elite that actively seeks the imposition of a goal widely held to be completely and utterly unattainable.

After all..... is this any different from your current government?



And, as required by the party platform, I hereby denounce the Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland - Pangaea Tendency as a dangerous splittist faction.


As founder of the NPVBFANMRPFTROG, I fully endorse the above statement, and encourage all and sundry to join us.



I also denounce the Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland - Pangaea Tendency as a dangerous splittist faction

I would like to ask all of the parties what their views on the Holy Father Pope Jesussaves I are? Will they give the Holy General Church money...I mean stuff?

The policies of the United Democratic Communist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610) (UDCP) will be fully secular. Which means there will be no funding or supporting of any religion, but there will be full freedom of belief, expression, association and worship.

I would like to ask all parties what their policies would be in terms of heath care. Our basic policies are as follows:

HEALTH CARE
* Free healthcare would be provided to all.
* Increased effort would be invested into information and research regarding cancer and Aids.
* Family planning programmes, and contraception techniques, would be taught and encouraged.
* Contraception would be made widely available to all.

I would like to ask all of the parties what their views on the Holy Father Pope Jesussaves I are? Will they give the Holy General Church money...I mean stuff?

The PUNKS AND PIRATES party does not recognise any pope. We shan't give shares in plunder to ye.

DEATH TO THE SURFACERS!

Oi! Avast! Tis no quarter for the like of ye! Me hearties'll be hoisting the red flag...

Tho only true church is the Church of Computerology.

Har.

I would like to ask all parties what their policies would be in terms of heath care.
As outlined in the Manifesto:
compensation for disabling injuries such as loss of eye, hand, arm, or leg (losses of right hand or arm were compensated with more as more pirates were right-handed)

This will be the basis for any health plan.

I would like to ask all of the parties what their views on the Holy Father Pope Jesussaves I are? Will they give the Holy General Church money...I mean stuff?
Sah, the only true church is the Church of England, wot! But if you want to worship the anti-Christ, we won't stop you.

I would like to ask all parties what their policies would be in terms of heath care. Our basic policies are as follows:

HEALTH CARE
* Free healthcare would be provided to all.
* Increased effort would be invested into information and research regarding cancer and Aids.
* Family planning programmes, and contraception techniques, would be taught and encouraged.
* Contraception would be made widely available to all.
Our healthcare policy is as follows:


It is Britain that rules the waves when it comes to our National Health Service, wot!
Free tea on the NHS!
Hospital meals will consists of chips and some more tea. This should be more than enough to cure anyone, wotwot
Anyone who refuses to get better within two weeks will be shipped to the Damn Colonies!
As for contraception, it will be available to all. We are, after all, the pioneers of the missionary position, wot!

Vote NBIP
Sickness has never been so good.

yes. i'm sure all you have heard about the disasterous death of the CWP after merging with some pogostick freaks. well, they did not die, the actual CWP is still here, take a look at, and join The Real Choose Wisely Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500430)

Oi, me hearties!

A question fer ye all:

What be yer positions on theiving against bloody "capitalist" who ain't earnt their shilling?

(Translated into seriousness - what're the party positions regarding capitalism and property? Especially the ownership of one's own labor?)

Healthcare- we will help offset the costs, depending on the income and operation cost of the person.

Oi, me hearties!

A question fer ye all:

What be yer positions on theiving against bloody "capitalist" who ain't earnt their shilling?

(Translated into seriousness - what're the party positions regarding capitalism and property? Especially the ownership of one's own labor?)

Property is a right of God, wot!

Unless the Queen wants it, Gawd bless her!

Vote NBIP
The choice of the professional

We have a sort of reverse curve on taxes.

The poor get low taxes, the middle class gets higher than that, the rich get higher taxes, and the REALLY RICH (think multi-billionaire) get very high taxes.

Basically, only the very rich get overly taxed (based on GDP, etc.)

What're the party positions regarding capitalism and property? Especially the ownership of one's own labor?)

I think you can guess for the UDCP. ;) We oppose the perversity that is capitalism, and we aim to empower the workers, enabling them to own the fruits of their own labour once more, instead of their work enriching those who exploit them.

Broadly put, these are our policies on this topic:

THE ECONOMY:
* The economy would be fully nationalised.
* Money would be abolished, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All members of society would produce, and in return take what they need for free. Various types of contribution to society would be accepted.
* Needs would be met via an assessment of what people require, so that production of any given item may be diminished or increased in due relation.
* A transitional system would accompany the abolishment of money, during which guidelines would be issued to help people assess what they should take, and enable them not to worry about taking too much or too little.
* A central distribution network would be established, supplying information to all as to available products. Distribution centres will eventually become largely automated. This network would enable the people to have direct control over the means of production and distribution, as they could discuss production of various goods and decide on the necessity to produce greater or lesser quantities of any given good. There would be several layers to this network, from international to almost local, with local products being outside the network.
* During the transitional period, taxes on wealth being hoarded and gradual elimination of money will be instituted along with gradually publicised services, gradual government control over distribution of goods and encouraged communal sharing.
* Ensuring that all basic needs such as housing, warmth, water and food are met for all would be a priority.
* All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means.
* For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted, functioning on a local level so that everyone is involved. This rota system would work on a short-term basis, with citizens being required only to do a particular job for a couple of days out of every fortnight, dependent on local government decision and requirement. Groups of people in demand would be exempt - i.e., if there is a shortage in doctors, they would be exempt from the rota system. Any person unwilling to assist would have their rights limited, and persistent offenders would have their citizenship revoked. People would be encouraged to participate willingly, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the community. The rota would serve to fill gaps, as people would be encouraged to voluntarily contribute to the workload. Those who have rights limited or citizenship revoked will never be denied basic rights to life, such as food, water, shelter.
* For use in trading internationally through governments, a “barter” system would be implemented aimed at exchanging imports for exports, value depending on quantity and demand; all efforts would nonetheless be made towards self-reliance. Intergovernmental international trade would focus on importing raw materials rather than finished goods. Trade with any trading partners who are reluctant to barter would be based on the money already in the country, as well as efforts to ensure that the quantity and value of exports constantly supersede those of imports. (Note: in ideological communism this would not be necessary as communism would be international but assuming this is not the case, this system would come into effect.)

Vote UDCP!

Sahs! Don't vote for that damn foreigner of the UDCP! For he is not only a damned foreigner.. He's a frenchy :eek: All of what he states is mere propaganda good sahs!. You must not be distracted from reality good sahs. The Emparh welcomes all loyal to her Majesty the Queen and the British Emparh!

The NBIP is the only true right party to choose! Why you ask, good sah? Well if I might say so, the tea is jolly good!

Huzzah! God save the queen!
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/Slippery__Jim/rourke.gif

Sahs! Don't vote for that damn foreigner of the UDCP! For he is not only a damned foreigner.. He's a frenchy :eek:

He's also a Brit, though. He has dual nationality. :p

I would like to ask all of the parties what their views on the Holy Father Pope Jesussaves I are? Will they give the Holy General Church money...I mean stuff?

The Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland (NPVBFANMRPFTROG (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499310)) has no official long-term religious policy.

As should be clear from our manifesto, ours will be a quixotic unaccountable rule of laws largely made up on the spot, on a case by case basis depending on our mood that particular day. So if the Holy General Church asks nicely and we're in a good mood, we might be willing to give it money depending on whether we woke up on the right side of bed or not - though if the Holy General Church stands in the way of Continental Reunification, it will be ruthlessly eliminated.

Note that the Party Founder will admit to being Russian Orthodox, but this is a matter of personal conscience rather than official party policy.

I would like to ask all parties what their policies would be in terms of heath care.

The Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland (NPVBFANMRPFTROG (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499310)) has no official long-term healthcare policy.

As should be clear from our manifesto, ours will be a quixotic unaccountable rule of laws largely made up on the spot, on a case by case basis depending on our mood that particular day. In principle, we are in favour of generously funded universal health care, though if this proves messy, expensive, and politically awkward, we'll probably change our minds without caring too much what people think. And if health care funding stands in the way of Continental Reunification, it will be ruthlessly eliminated.



What're the party positions regarding capitalism and property? Especially the ownership of one's own labor?)

Perhaps surprisingly, the Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland (NPVBFANMRPFTROG (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499310)) does have a party position regarding capitalism and property.

Clause four of the party platform reads:
4) After centralising all power in the hands of the Party Central Committee, the Party promises to uphold the rights of a capitalist economy, through the maintanance of private property rights, the encouragement of private ownership of the means of production, and the free operation of stockholder-based corporations.

But note that, as should be clear from our manifesto, ours will be a quixotic unaccountable rule of laws largely made up on the spot, on a case by case basis depending on our mood that particular day. Therefore clause five of the manifesto reads:
5) Except that the Party reserves the right to randomly confiscate property, abolish individual corporations, and nationalise industry if a majority of the Central Committee are having a bad day.

And if a capitalist economy stands in the way of Continental Reunification, it will be ruthlessly eliminated.




Please allow me to also take this opportunity to denounce the Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland - Pangaea Tendency as a dangerous splittist faction.

(Translated into seriousness - what're the party positions regarding capitalism and property? Especially the ownership of one's own labor?)

The FRP believes that property rights are absolutely essential to any true form of freedom, and are an integral part of natural law as well as freedom of exchange between individuals. One's own labor is not to be stolen by the state, but out of pragmatism we do have a sales tax so that people pay for the defense from force and fraud that the state provides.

would like to ask all parties what their policies would be in terms of heath care.

We will not enslave ourselves to powerful medical unions and corporations with crony subsidies and anti-competitive measures, but rather leave the healthcare sector to deal with consumers fairly in a free market.

I would like to ask all of the parties what their views on the Holy Father Pope Jesussaves I are? Will they give the Holy General Church money...I mean stuff?

The state's role is to provide defense against force and fraud. As such, we will not use the money for other purposes- giving money to religion would be one example. However, as we believe strongly in freedom of association and speech, we will not interfere with anyone's worship or attempt to engineer society into thinking more secularly or more religiously either way. That is the role of the individual's choice.

What are your views on-

1) Gay Marriage
2) Abortion
3) Polygamy

TDP's views:

1- Good
2- Good within 19 weeks of pregnancy, if the pregnancy is a result of rape, would endanger the mothers life, or if it would cause serious mental harm (preety much UCDP's stance)
3- Good

Well I'm not part of any party, and I'd like to make it clearly known that my NSG vote is up for bid - that's right; I'll gladly sell my vote to the highest bidder. Payment can consist of just about anything, so make me an offer and guarantee your party at least one definite vote other than your own! Make any & all offers to me, Dobbsworld, via reply TG only. Thank you.

~Dobbsworld Support.~
-proudly making Kings since I don't know when.-

What are your views on-

1) Gay Marriage
2) Abortion
3) Polygamy


1). We believe in freedom of contract and association. Therefore, civil legal relationships between homosexuals should not be prevented by the state. However, freedom of association and contract would mean that the government cannot force any non-legal entity, like a religion, to accept the contract.
2). Quite honestly, I don't know. I personally am against abortion, but I do not know what my fellow party members stance on abortion is. Therefore, I will have to say that our position on abortion currently is non-existent until a later date.
3). See 1.

He's also a Brit, though. He has dual nationality. :p

Ah! Then he's half a damn foreigner. Have jolly good cup o' tea sah! Huzzah!

What are your views on-

1) Gay Marriage
2) Abortion
3) Polygamy


First of all, why are these by necessity a 'big three'?

Anyway....

You may well not be surprised to read by now that The Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland (NPVBFANMRPFTROG) has no official long-term policy on gay marriage, abortion, or polygamy.

As should be clear from our manifesto, ours will be a quixotic unaccountable rule of laws largely made up on the spot, on a case by case basis depending on our mood that particular day. In principle, we are currently in favour of intervening as little as possible in the private lives of citizens so long as said private behaviour is consensual.

However, if this were to prove messy, expensive, or otherwise politically awkward - or if we were merely having a bad day - we would reserve our right to change our minds without caring too much what people think. And if gay marriage, abortion or polygamy stand in the way of Continental Reunification, they would be ruthlessly eliminated.



I would also like to take this opportunity to denounce the Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland - Pangaea Tendency as a dangerous splittist faction.

For the UDCP:

What are your views on-

1) Gay Marriage


* Marriage would be redefined as a free union with separate religious additions if wanted.

In other words, gay marriage would of course be allowed. We see no rational reason not to.


2) Abortion


* Abortion would be allowed within 19 weeks of pregnancy, if the pregnancy is a result of rape, would endanger the mothers life, would cause serious mental harm or if the mother is in full-time education with at least one compulsory counselling session, a five week wait to prevent rash decisions, and would be coupled with improved childcare and adoption services. (Note: whether abortion would be allowed in a wider range of situations is still under debate)


3) Polygamy


The UDCP has no set view on this matter at present, but thank you for bringing it to our attention. Should you wish to join the Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610) and contribute your views, please feel free.

One's own labor is not to be stolen by the state,

Instead, under your proposed policies, employers are free to steal workers' labour through unlimited exploitation. The fruits of a person's hard work will not go to himself, but will serve to increase the senseless profits of his exploiter, who has done nothing to earn them.


We will not enslave ourselves to powerful medical unions and corporations with crony subsidies and anti-competitive measures, but rather leave the healthcare sector to deal with consumers fairly in a free market.


In other words, under your policies health becomes a market product, a luxury reserved for those who can afford it. If you have no money, you're not entitled to health. In your own words, there are no patients; there are only "consumers" of health.

The capitalists favour the exploitation of workers and want health to be a market product reserved for those who can afford it! Is this the kind of world you want to live in?

Vote for human rights and dignity! Vote for a more humane society!
Vote for a party which places human well-being above increasing the profits of the rich!

Vote UDCP!
United Democratic Communist Party

1) Gay Marriage
2) Abortion
3) Polygamy

Oi, me hearties! PUNKS AND PIRATES say all be matters of personal choice.

Let's step this up:

How about:

1) Liberation of foreign people from oppressive regimes?
2) Nuclear programs
3) 'Riods
4) :fluffle:
5) free speech
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- only if teh real government asks for it
2- OK for peace
3- Sure
4- Chef Rule+14-16 stagger rule
5- see manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11705166#post11705166)

What are your views on-

1) Gay Marriage
2) Abortion
3) Polygamy
MOBRA only cares whether or not it is performed on the surface, or underground as nature intended.

Let's step this up:

How about:

1) Liberation of foreign people from oppressive regimes?
Only if they be my slave.
2) Nuclear programs Plans! Mwahaha!!!..er.. It's better to not discuss this.
3) 'Riods
Ban the crap.
4) :fluffle:
I am pro-death.
5) free speech
Shut your mouth untill I ask for you to speak, you mortal.

'Til the Captain deigns ta let ye bask in his unwashed gory, 'ere's some pointers from a Punks & Pirates party animal

1) Liberation of foreign people from oppressive regimes?
Ifn they's wantin ta be liberated. Elsewise we's just be liberatin their coffers.

2) Nuclear programs
We be believin in personal combat. Cannonballs, big brass balls & mayhap a molo or two. The rest's a no-no.

3) 'Riods
Nay. We no need no shrunken pricks.

4) :fluffle:
Ye can fluffle me peg leg any time ye wants. As long as ye be polishin it afterwads.

5) free speech
Goes witout sayin. Harh Harh, geddit?

Well, yes of course the NSDSP is in this year! Hell, winners of the last election not running? We just don't do that. Why?

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8409/dsp1b0bp.gif

Any questions are easily answered by our knowledgable party members. Or, read the detailed (and I mean detailed) manifesto at the link in my sig. We don't have one of those skimpy one line per topic vague and short manifestos you see in some other parties. We dont just say "Yes environment good."

We go all out. Why?

Because Everyone Matters

The earlier offer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11715947&postcount=45) still stands - don't miss out on this fabulous chance to secure your political party a solid vote in the upcoming NSG elections!



~Dobbsworld Support.~
-proudly making Kings since I don't know when.-

The earlier offer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11715947&postcount=45) still stands - don't miss out on this fabulous chance to secure your political party a solid vote in the upcoming NSG elections!



~Dobbsworld Support.~
-proudly making Kings since I don't know when.-

One second..

How about:

1) Liberation of foreign people from oppressive regimes?

The UDCP will not be conducting wars of aggression and invasion. The question is, furthermore, inherently biased in its use of the term "liberation".


2) Nuclear programs

Our manifesto states:
* Efforts would be put into discovering ways to make nuclear power safer, as a supplement.


3) 'Riods

Assuming you mean 'roids, we will start by educating and informing the public on this issue, and the dangers of steroids.


4) :fluffle:

Fluffle all you want! :p


5) free speech


One of the central aspects of our manifesto. Our manifesto states:
* Freedom of speech and religion will be upheld.

Our party prides itself on a detailed manifesto which addresses the important issues of contemporary society.

Vote for a party with genuine policies!

Vote UDCP!
United Democratic Communist Party

*Mans the gunboats*

Dear lord! To the boats!

Whoever you vote, just do not vote UDCP. Save your tea plantations, mercentile vessels and country estates from the dirty, grasping hands of the underclasses....

'Til the Captain deigns ta let ye bask in his unwashed gory, 'ere's some pointers from a Punks & Pirates party animal

1) Liberation of foreign people from oppressive regimes?
Ifn they's wantin ta be liberated. Elsewise we's just be liberatin their coffers.

2) Nuclear programs
We be believin in personal combat. Cannonballs, big brass balls & mayhap a molo or two. The rest's a no-no.

3) 'Riods
Nay. We no need no shrunken pricks.

4) :fluffle:
Ye can fluffle me peg leg any time ye wants. As long as ye be polishin it afterwads.

5) free speech
Goes witout sayin. Harh Harh, geddit?

Aye. "ceptin the 'roids - ifn ye wants to shrink yer parts, who's to stop ye?

I think you can guess for the UDCP. ;) We oppose the perversity that is capitalism, and we aim to empower the workers, enabling them to own the fruits of their own labour once more, instead of their work enriching those who exploit them.

Broadly put, these are our policies on this topic:

THE ECONOMY:
* The economy would be fully nationalised.
* Money would be abolished, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All members of society would produce, and in return take what they need for free. Various types of contribution to society would be accepted.
* Needs would be met via an assessment of what people require, so that production of any given item may be diminished or increased in due relation.
* A transitional system would accompany the abolishment of money, during which guidelines would be issued to help people assess what they should take, and enable them not to worry about taking too much or too little.
* A central distribution network would be established, supplying information to all as to available products. Distribution centres will eventually become largely automated. This network would enable the people to have direct control over the means of production and distribution, as they could discuss production of various goods and decide on the necessity to produce greater or lesser quantities of any given good. There would be several layers to this network, from international to almost local, with local products being outside the network.
* During the transitional period, taxes on wealth being hoarded and gradual elimination of money will be instituted along with gradually publicised services, gradual government control over distribution of goods and encouraged communal sharing.
* Ensuring that all basic needs such as housing, warmth, water and food are met for all would be a priority.
* All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means.
* For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted, functioning on a local level so that everyone is involved. This rota system would work on a short-term basis, with citizens being required only to do a particular job for a couple of days out of every fortnight, dependent on local government decision and requirement. Groups of people in demand would be exempt - i.e., if there is a shortage in doctors, they would be exempt from the rota system. Any person unwilling to assist would have their rights limited, and persistent offenders would have their citizenship revoked. People would be encouraged to participate willingly, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the community. The rota would serve to fill gaps, as people would be encouraged to voluntarily contribute to the workload. Those who have rights limited or citizenship revoked will never be denied basic rights to life, such as food, water, shelter.
* For use in trading internationally through governments, a “barter” system would be implemented aimed at exchanging imports for exports, value depending on quantity and demand; all efforts would nonetheless be made towards self-reliance. Intergovernmental international trade would focus on importing raw materials rather than finished goods. Trade with any trading partners who are reluctant to barter would be based on the money already in the country, as well as efforts to ensure that the quantity and value of exports constantly supersede those of imports. (Note: in ideological communism this would not be necessary as communism would be international but assuming this is not the case, this system would come into effect.)

Vote UDCP!
so your saying eeverything should belong to the government> no-one would want to live in such a dystopia.

I would like to ask all parties what their policies would be in terms of heath care.

The Alcohol Party supports free stomach pumpings to all for those days when you've had just a bit too much to drink and are about to slip into a coma.

What are your views on-

1) Gay Marriage
Fine by us. Marriages mean alcohol. Alcohol is good, so drink up, marry, and be merry.

2) Abortion
legal because sometimes you drink too much, get pregant and have problems. Abortions allow you to fix the mistakes you made while you were drinking.

3) Polygamy
fine by us

so your saying eeverything should belong to the government> no-one would want to live in such a dystopia.

Go back and read what we actually say. If you disagree with specific aspects, I or another member of the party will be glad to reply, but we do not respond to scare-mongering untruths.

Since there is no centrist social liberal party, I believe I will be siding once more with the DSP.

Side with MOBRA, and help slow the approach of the end of the world as you know it.

Instead, under your proposed policies, employers are free to steal workers' labour through unlimited exploitation. The fruits of a person's hard work will not go to himself, but will serve to increase the senseless profits of his exploiter, who has done nothing to earn them.

They do not "steal" labor- they make a contract with the person that they give them X of their time for amount Y. Wages were not the first source of income- profits were, because people used to do everything themselves and whatever they got they kept. You might think this was very nice, but it just meant that everything was done badly and hardly anything was made. People rented out their labor because it was worth more to others to have it, and they exchanged it for the monetary amount because that amount was worth more than their time doing other things. Also, value does not depend on labor- I am a terrible artist, and even if I spent days doing a painting no one in their right mind would buy it. People, however would buy a napkin scribbling by Picasso for God knows how much money. We can therefore conclude that value is subjective, not labor-based. This would fall in line with the perception of the capitalist and worker would rather change their labor and money for one another.

Oh, and just so you know, the capitalist hiring takes more risk than the worker. The worker will get paid no matter what happens. The capitalist has no assurance that he will get his profits, but it is certain that he will pay first no matter what.

In other words, under your policies health becomes a market product, a luxury reserved for those who can afford it. If you have no money, you're not entitled to health. In your own words, there are no patients; there are only "consumers" of health.

It's a matter of scarcity- if you put all of your resources into healthcare, you don't have anything left for other things. If you don't have enough money, you should be able to take out a loan or contingency of some type to pay. If we don't support the corporations and medical associations in their price fixing attempts, the cost of medical care will drop and people will be able to have their healthcare AND lots of other things, without a loss in output.

1) Liberation of foreign people from oppressive regimes?
2) Nuclear programs
3) 'Riods
4) :fluffle:
5) free speech

1) We do not support trade with oppressive regimes, but will rather use it to pressure their governments to be more liberal with their people. We stand strongly for national defense and security.
2) For deterrence.
3) No idea what it is.
4) Sure, go ahead.
5) Absolutely yes.

Side with MOBRA, and help slow the approach of the end of the world as you know it.

I do not abide to fearmongering politics and politicans who promise to protect me from nightmares.

*Continues work on MOBRA doomsday device, which will render the surface of the planet uninhabitable*

I heart Kubrick. :D

*Continues work on MOBRA doomsday device, which will render the surface of the planet uninhabitable*

*Teh militia disables the device permanently*

Vote TDP cuz we saved you! ;)

Here's a question to get the debate rolling again-

Individualism or Collectivism?

Here's a question to get the debate rolling again-

Individualism or Collectivism?

Yes.

(**points at sig**)

Here's a question to get the debate rolling again-

Individualism or Collectivism?

Economically:

The Defenderist Party stresses individualism, as collectivism, while good in theory, cracks in competition with corruption (and diehard individualism).

However, TDP is NOT laissez-faire (sp?) capitalist.

It is more Socialist.

Otherwise, pure individualist

Here's a question to get the debate rolling again-

Individualism or Collectivism?

Bartering system.

Here is another issue:

There are many parties that avoid the serious issues, instead offering tea or pogo sticks. Or booze (actually, I think they are serious).

To avoid this, I must ask the party leaders one thing:

If you could make one law, forever to be followed, what would it be?

Yes.

(**points at sig**)

You're certainly welcome to elaborate.

Here is another issue:

There are many parties that avoid the serious issues, instead offering tea or pogo sticks. Or booze (actually, I think they are serious).

To avoid this, I must ask the party leaders one thing:

If you could make one law, forever to be followed, what would it be?

Living on the surface shall be punished by death.

Here is another issue:

There are many parties that avoid the serious issues, instead offering tea or pogo sticks. Or booze (actually, I think they are serious).

To avoid this, I must ask the party leaders one thing:

If you could make one law, forever to be followed, what would it be?

Have government follow natural law. That's about all we'd need.

Individualism or collectivism?

In response to my own question, individualism. The individual exists, whereas the collective is a fiction made up of the sovereign actions of individuals. The most important duty of government is to uphold the ultimate freedom of action, so as to allow for truly free actions of and interaction between individuals.

Have government follow natural law. That's about all we'd need.Except, of course, for the fact that property rights don't exist in natural law.

You're certainly welcome to elaborate.

I have, I just didn't feel like writing the whole thing over again. :D

(**points at own sig again**)

Except, of course, for the fact that property rights don't exist in natural law.

Then why is stealing wrong?

Here's a question to get the debate rolling again-

Individualism or Collectivism?

I can't answer that question until you define precisely what you mean by each of those terms. Both are very broad and very vague. And not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Vote UDCP!

IMPORTANT!

The election has now begun!

Thanks to Pure Metal, you can go and cast your vote here (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/election/).

IMPORTANT!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/rourke.gif
Vote NBIP
The Party of Gentleman

NBIP- The party of evil imperialists
MORBA- Nonsensical party supporting nonsentient creatures as leaders
UDCP- More authoritarian and less capitalist than us
CypsWP- a disgrace if ever there was one. a double nonsense party? Come on.


Vote The Defenderist Party and know that you and your rights will be protected.


TDP- Protecting your rights (and not being ridiculous)

Then why is stealing wrong?In natural law, it isn't.

UDCP- More authoritarian and less capitalist than usAuthoritarian? How so?

Authoritarian? How so?

well, we are libertarian and they are moreorso centrist.

Thusly, they are more authoritarian than us.

Not saying they are "Z0MG, l0ng l1v3 t3h 3mp3r0r! N0 r1t3s f0r p30pl3!!!!!111!!!Shift+one!!!!" kind.

Just, they are higher on the scale.

The prisoners get to work in labor prisons


Hoozah for the libertarian Defenderists!

Hoozah for the libertarian Defenderists!

Hey, it makes their sentences shorter, removes the Death Penalty, ensures the prisons are well-funded, and actually has the prisoners pay society back for what they did.

Why is that a problem?

Hey, it makes their sentences shorter, removes the Death Penalty, ensures the prisons are well-funded, and actually has the prisoners pay society back for what they did.

Why is that a problem?

Oh it's a great idea. It worked just fabulously for Stalin.

Oh it's a great idea. It worked just fabulously for Stalin.

well, since it's a democratic republic, the communist Stalinism won't happen. The voters would never allow that.

well, we are libertarian and they are moreorso centrist.

Thusly, they are more authoritarian than us.

Not saying they are "Z0MG, l0ng l1v3 t3h 3mp3r0r! N0 r1t3s f0r p30pl3!!!!!111!!!Shift+one!!!!" kind.

Just, they are higher on the scale.How does The Defenderist Party determine what "hurts" other people? 'Hurt' is subjective.

well, since it's a democratic republic, the communist Stalinism won't happen. The voters would never allow that.What if it's necessary in the name of 'efficiency'?

How does the defenderist party determine what "hurts" other people? 'Hurt' is subjective.

Where does it say hurt?

Oh, in the manifesto?
Hurt is basically one of these two things:

A) Is it force? (i.e., physical harm brought on by someone else that they did not approve of)

B) Is it fraud? (self-explanatory)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, harm is something that either physically, mentally (in certain cases only (i.e., insanity; but not emotions)), or economically (teh $$$/stuff they have OK?).

It is the libertarian definition, really.

Vote UDCP! The party one critic described as "liberal" and "centrist".

Here is another issue:

There are many parties that avoid the serious issues, instead offering tea or pogo sticks. Or booze (actually, I think they are serious).

To avoid this, I must ask the party leaders one thing:

If you could make one law, forever to be followed, what would it be?

Alcohol will never be banned. It was tried once, the outcome was horrible.

Vote UDCP! The party one critic described as "liberal" and "centrist".

It is the shill of the right wing conservatives and big bad business too!

This message sponsored by the all things to all people conservatorium for the UDCP.

Alcohol will never be banned. It was tried once, the outcome was horrible.

It gets better the second time you are drunk.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/Slippery__Jim/animated_union_jack2.gif
Vote NBIP
Double chips with everything!

In natural law, it isn't.

So you really shouldn't mind if someone steals all of your possessions, right? Because, after all, it's not a part of natural law and people should be able to take whatever they want from others if they feel like it.

So you really shouldn't mind if someone steals all of your possessions, right? Because, after all, it's not a part of natural law and people should be able to take whatever they want from others if they feel like it.I'm not the one arguing in favor of natural law. You are.

http://img106.echo.cx/img106/4793/mobra5xj.jpg

MORBA- Nonsensical party supporting nonsentient creatures as leaders

Who d'you think yer calling nonsentient?!

MOBRA! There is safety in the depths...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/Praetonia/NBIP.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/Praetonia/NBIP.png

*Burns flag*

*throws various petroleum products at Minaris*

*chuckles quietly as Minaris begins to combust*

*throws various petroleum products at Minaris*

*chuckles quietly as Minaris begins to combust*

*is in flame retardant biohazard-grade radiation suit. Is safe*

I'm not the one arguing in favor of natural law. You are.

Then why are you telling me what natural law is and is not?

Then why are you telling me what natural law is and is not?So that you know what exactly it is that you're advocating.

Members of the Defenderist, Alcohol, Autonomist, Free Republic, Opportunity & Fairness Meritocratic, Religious Conservative, Libertarian, and Human Rights parties: unite together in the common cause of demanding free, fair and transparent elections, as well as greater representation for all parties.

Learn about and discuss the issues here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11764071&postcount=109) and spread the word among your party members!

VOTE MOBRA!

Free and open elections are the key to a stable democracy. The business of government is serious business. The right to hear your vote counted is part of democracy.

All votes, are votes. No thresholds!

Free and open elections are the key to a stable democracy. The business of government is serious business. The right to hear your vote counted is part of democracy.

All votes, are votes. No thresholds!

Citing support from members of the Human Rights and other parties, I have created a thread for the NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11765635#post11765635) and encourage all concerned individuals and parties to join and help create more free, fair, and transparent elections, increasing representation in the NS General Parliament for all voters.

*is in flame retardant biohazard-grade radiation suit. Is safe*

*Loads catapult with basket of dynamite and assorted other explosives*
*Launches at Minaris*

"Safe" is a very relative and temporary condition.

Peisandros should VOTE MOBRA!

As should everyone else.

What is everyone's position on global warming?

What is everyone's position on global warming?

That it is good.

What is everyone's position on global warming?

Since you're asking the question, do you want to give the UDCP's position? ;)

For now, I'll just quote our Manifesto:


THE ENVIRONMENT:
* A more extensive public transport would be gradually set up, and a limit placed upon the use of private cars (or, at least, they would be discouraged).
* Efforts would be made to strongly cut back on the wastage of over-production.
* Fossil fuels would be abandoned in favour of clean, renewable forms of energy: wind, solar, tidal…
* Efforts would be put into discovering ways to make nuclear power safer, as a supplement.
* Recycling and sustainable production methods would be encouraged.
* The Kyoto agreement would be adhered to.

What is everyone's position on global warming?

If it's man-made, we can deal with it with a trading scheme.

So that you know what exactly it is that you're advocating.

Er, I'm advocating natural law, which isn't at all what you've been describing. It does include property rights. End of story.

Here's a question to get the debate rolling again-

Individualism or Collectivism?

Well, the "I" in our acronymic name stands for:
Individualists

Individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority.
(See the manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11705853&postcount=36).)

Here is another issue:

There are many parties that avoid the serious issues, instead offering tea or pogo sticks. Or booze (actually, I think they are serious).

To avoid this, I must ask the party leaders one thing:

If I might address this for a moment - please do not put us doen in the joke catagory. If anyone has done so, I ask you to now look at our manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11705853&postcount=36) and reconsider.

If you could make one law, forever to be followed, what would it be?

The Final Law: There shall be no more laws made and all laws made to date shall be repealled.

What is everyone's position on global warming?

Asd far as it actually exists and is a product of human behavior, it's a result of the current nations system. Abolishing nations and corporations will bring an end to it.

The numbers speak for themselves:


Dissonant Cognition (Autonomist Party): "8,948th in the world for Most Politically Free Nations"
Wilgrove (Libertarian Party): "7,470th in the world for Most Politically Free Nations"
Greill (Free Republic Party): "5,325th in the world for Most Politically Free Nations"
Kinda Sensible People (Human Rights Party): "705th in the world for Most Politically Free Nations"



Philosopy (New British Imperial Party): "83,389th in the world for Most Politically Free Nations"
Ariddia (United Democratic Communist Party): "34,162nd in the world for Most Politically Free Nations"


Who do YOU want protecting your right to vote, your right to be heard? Join the NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502011) today!

Protect your vote and make your voice heard.

(data from United Nations study conducted 10/05/06)

Er, I'm advocating natural law, which isn't at all what you've been describing. It does include property rights. End of story.Not hardly. From the wikipedia article on natural law: "According to natural law jurisprudence, the fundamental principles of all law derive from nature and the natural world, or from a supreme being, depending on the particular perspective—but it is never the creation of human societies or governments."

Property rights are the creation of human societies or governments, therefore they don't fall under the realm of natural law.

Not hardly. From the wikipedia article on natural law: "According to natural law jurisprudence, the fundamental principles of all law derive from nature and the natural world, or from a supreme being, depending on the particular perspective—but it is never the creation of human societies or governments."

Property rights are the creation of human societies or governments, therefore they don't fall under the realm of natural law.

Property rights do come from nature (my cats even have an understanding of property), and aren't of human design as they are so much of human action. So it does include property rights.

*Loads catapult with basket of dynamite and assorted other explosives*
*Launches at Minaris*

"Safe" is a very relative and temporary condition.

*Is in force field. Is safe*

Property rights do come from nature (my cats even have an understanding of property), and aren't of human design as they are so much of human action. So it does include property rights.I very much doubt that your cats understand property.
Usage rights stem from human action. Property rights are additional.

I very much doubt that your cats understand property.
Usage rights stem from human action. Property rights are additional.

Seriously, they do. They know when they're trespassing on each other's territory and they guard it for themselves. It's freaky, you should see it. :D

And usage rights are a part of property rights. Property rights are the mother, not the sister or daughter, of usage.

I just heard a rumor that there was an election in August.
Is this true?:eek:

Ninjas!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5::mp5: :mp5:

Seriously, they do. They know when they're trespassing on each other's territory and they guard it for themselves. It's freaky, you should see it. :DThat isn't property rights, that's usage rights; they're protecting their usage rights, not their property rights. If you took one of them to the vet, how would it protect its territory from the other while it's gone?

And usage rights are a part of property rights. Property rights are the mother, not the sister or daughter, of usage.Property rights are one mutated form of usage rights...not so much the sister or daughter, but the sister's daughter.

That isn't property rights, that's usage rights; they're protecting their usage rights, not their property rights. If you took one of them to the vet, how would it protect its territory from the other while it's gone?

Well, they have a problem in that they cannot effectively communicate with one another so as to employ the other to protect their territory. However, the same situation could apply to someone who goes out to dinner and has his house burgled- it's still his house, even if someone else trespasses. Plus, cat would probably attack the other cat if they're still there when they get back home.

And it's still property rights. They have staked out the place (metaphorically speaking, of course), and drive away anyone they don't want to be there. It's quite obviously an exclusive right, which seems to be closer to the concept of capitalist property rights as opposed to communist usage rights.

Property rights are one mutated form of usage rights...not so much the sister or daughter, but the sister's daughter.

Maybe we should consult the family tree...? ;)

But no, seriously, property includes usage of material things, as well as exchange and other parts. Usage has an important part, obviously, but is encompassed within the grand scheme of property rights.

Well, they have a problem in that they cannot effectively communicate with one another so as to employ the other to protect their territory. However, the same situation could apply to someone who goes out to dinner and has his house burgled- it's still his house, even if someone else trespasses. Yes, according to property rights, but not according to natural law. Anything that you cannot personally defend is fair game in natural law.

Plus, cat would probably attack the other cat if they're still there when they get back home.Yes, because they can now personally defend the territory. Property rights don't rely on the personal defense of the territory by the owner, and this is why they don't exist in nature.

And it's still property rights. They have staked out the place (metaphorically speaking, of course), and drive away anyone they don't want to be there. It's quite obviously an exclusive right, which seems to be closer to the concept of capitalist property rights as opposed to communist usage rights.The ability to drive someone away from somewhere is not indicative of property rights. If I break into your house and can drive you out of it, is your house now my property? Of course not.

Maybe we should consult the family tree...? ;)

But no, seriously, property includes usage of material things, as well as exchange and other parts. Usage has an important part, obviously, but is encompassed within the grand scheme of property rights.Oh, I agree that property rights incorporate usage and then some, however property rights were created after usage rights, and the two can be separate. It's entirely possible to have usage rights but not property rights.

Yes, according to property rights, but not according to natural law. Anything that you cannot personally defend is fair game in natural law.

For animals, perhaps, because they lack communication abilities. You see animals acting in a pack to defend territory, however. (Even the cats- usually the females- work together to protect the territory and each others' babies). However, because humans can communicate with one another, they can arise to relationships that can protect more property than one person alone can. The animals understand the concept of protecting what is one's own, which is a core idea of property, and to punish those who violate this possession, which is another core concept of property.

Yes, because they can now personally defend the territory. Property rights don't rely on the personal defense of the territory by the owner, and this is why they don't exist in nature.

With creatures that cannot communicate effectively, yes. But humans can communicate effectively, so this can be avoided by contracting security to others.

The ability to drive someone away from somewhere is not indicative of property rights. If I break into your house and can drive you out of it, is your house now my property? Of course not.

I actually used this example of a burglary, but rather than being driven out the person is away. The ability to drive someone away is not indicative of property rights- the instinct to protect what is one's own is.

Oh, I agree that property rights incorporate usage and then some, however property rights were created after usage rights, and the two can be separate. It's entirely possible to have usage rights but not property rights.

I'm not quite so sure about the two being separate, I think they're quite intertwined. You may be able to use something that is not yours, but you face repercussions for doing so. Property rights arrive from the instinct of protecting what belongs to you from those who would wish to steal it from you. Someone may grant you usage rights to something- like if a father gives his son the key's to the family car, he is not transferring the car but rather allowing usage of it. It is still the father's, but he is manipulating his property rights so as to permit the usage by others. They're all related, in the end, and all very important.

For animals, perhaps, because they lack communication abilities. You see animals acting in a pack to defend territory, however. (Even the cats- usually the females- work together to protect the territory and each others' babies). However, because humans can communicate with one another, they can arise to relationships that can protect more property than one person alone can. The animals understand the concept of protecting what is one's own, which is a core idea of property, and to punish those who violate this possession, which is another core concept of property.They understand the concept of protecting what they are using.

With creatures that cannot communicate effectively, yes. But humans can communicate effectively, so this can be avoided by contracting security to others.And once this happens, they are no longer living under natural law.

I actually used this example of a burglary, but rather than being driven out the person is away. The ability to drive someone away is not indicative of property rights- the instinct to protect what is one's own is.No, however, the ability to have someone else protect what is your own is indicative of property rights.

I'm not quite so sure about the two being separate, I think they're quite intertwined. You may be able to use something that is not yours, but you face repercussions for doing so. Property rights arrive from the instinct of protecting what belongs to you from those who would wish to steal it from you. Someone may grant you usage rights to something- like if a father gives his son the key's to the family car, he is not transferring the car but rather allowing usage of it. It is still the father's, but he is manipulating his property rights so as to permit the usage by others. They're all related, in the end, and all very important.The concept of 'belonging to you' as opposed to 'something you are using' is what separates property rights from usage rights.