NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite the ongoing protests to the administration of the the prior election, it cannot be disputed that neoliberal policy was very poorly represented within the last election. No realignment of the seat allocation or voting system would have rendered anything more than a very marginal number of seats for parties sharing these views.

As I see it, there are three major reasons for this occurrence:

1. Fractionalized parties. A cursory glance at a number of parties' platforms reveals a great deal of similarities. There is little reason why the Libertarian Party and Autonomist Party could not have joined into one party. Albeit, this would not have been such a problem were the 4% threshold removed in assigning the extra seats, a combining of parties would still pay dividends.

2. Lack of visibility/discussion. The UDCP is an excellent party. I disagree with many of their policies, but I cannot deny that they are an excellent party. All it takes is one look at their manifesto to see why. Their manifesto is well composed and the result of a wide array of input and discussion. This sort of constant open discussion is vital to bringing in committed members that will both follow the party and keep the party thread close to the front page, as well as creating a greater visibility amongst the casual poster. Bringing in the fractionalized parties will help bring about a better and more in depth discussion, as well as consolidate the members who may be more aligned with neoliberal views, but chose a more visible, more active party.

3. Lack of focus on attracting new members and voters. This is similar to the prior problem, but involves a few more prescriptive measures. There seemed to be a greater focus on internalizing parties, rather than externalizing them. Many parties used their parties as platforms for expressing their own views, rather than inviting and exploring the views around the forum, and as such were a little exclusive.


So my prescriptive measures:

1. Form a single party.
2. Maintain active constant debate on NSG, with threads titles and topics always explicitly linked to the new party.
3. Work concertedly to bring in posters with similar ideas into the party, rather than watching them set up rival parties.
4. Maintain a more moderate and palatable platform, that is more general, in order to invite participants.
5. Maintain a party whip, but allow flexibility amongst representatives and members.


Is there anyone interested in this idea?

Although I would of course disagree with your policies, I'd welcome the return of a strong neoliberal party, if only because I remember the interesting debates it created.

Although I would of course disagree with your policies, I'd welcome the return of a strong neoliberal party, if only because I remember the interesting debates it created.

After the strong support the Classic Liberals and Reason Party had, it is criminal that libertarian views are so marginalized now.

After the strong support the Classic Liberals and Reason Party had, it is criminal that libertarian views are so marginalized now.

What, you mean either anarcho-capitalists vs. anarcho-communists (and their more centered (vertically, moreorso) counterparts)?

True...

So what would be recommended to the Free Republic party? Although the FR was economically right-wing, and its social policy focused on individual rights and freedoms with little government intervention, because of its views on political structure it drew a great deal of ire from other parties.

What, you mean either anarcho-capitalists vs. anarcho-communists (and their more centered (vertically, moreorso) counterparts)?

True...

The Classic Liberals had a definitive stance on the positive role of government, and it garnered mainstream attention.

I also don't think that this should be communist, as the (not very radical) left is already well represented.

I do think that we should distance ourselves from capitalism, however, and align ourselves with the free market.

So what would be recommended to the Free Republic party? Although the FR was economically right-wing, and its social policy focused on individual rights and freedoms with little government intervention, because of its views on political structure it drew a great deal of ire from other parties.

I do admire much of your policies, but I do feel that your concentration on self-defense and mandatory civil service would be problematic.

I think that your party may appeal to the neoconservative posters on here, and may catch a lot of free market supporters that are turned off by what might be a more pacifistic party.

I think your party would be a good alternative to any that I and others may start.

That said, I do plan on poaching some of your members, but will still work to guarantee representation for you in the parliament.

maybe people just don't like libertarian-liberal policies *is hit by rotten tomatoes*

maybe people just don't like libertarian-liberal policies *is hit by rotten tomatoes*

Maybe people just don't like you.

*throws bottle*

There is little reason why the Libertarian Party and Autonomist Party could not have joined into one party.


I formed the Autonomist Party exactly because of disagreement that I have had with the general libertarian (American) philosophy over time. The strongest clash would occur as concerns the following points:


For the abandonment of the corporation, limited liability, intellectual property, and any other venture that derives its existence exclusively by explicit and direct government charter and support, 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.



For rejection of the entire concept of "charity," as it creates a hierarchical relationship of "donor" and "recipient," where the individual is made dependent upon the donor for his or her well being. It is irrevelant that such a relationship might be considered "voluntary;" the dependent individual is still ultimately made less free because of the ultimate loss of self-reliance.



Even so, the recognition that government is still necessary for the maintenance of peace and order requires recognition that some means are required for collecting the necessary revenue for funding that government.



For the establishment of government agencies, according to the principles described in the section "The Nature of Government," for the protection of the general atmosphere, oceans, and other similar areas of the ecosystem where it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to partition or otherwise prevent the pollution of some or one from harming all


I personally envisioned the Autonomist Party as an alternative to the capitalist/corporate-centric political philosophy that appears to characterize the more right-wing of the libertarian (American) movement. While both the Autnomist Party and this movement call for far less reliance on the mechanisms of the state, the societies proposed by each as a replacement are in many ways fundamentally different (private capital business/corporate vs. voluntary social[ist] mutual/cooperative/collectivism). It has been my experience that the sort of society proposed by the Autonomist Party is a [i]minority opinion, and thus I envisioned the creation of a separate party as a necessary means of preserving and amplifying the viewpoint, rather than joining into a larger movement where that viewpoint is guaranteed to become muted, if not entirely lost.

Nonetheless, I would certainly be interested in hearing the opinions of members of the Libertarian Party regarding the Autonomist Party platform. And I am most certainly open to working with the Libertarian Party (or any other party) in promoting the cause of liberty (as, for instance, is the case with the NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform). But I do not see a merger as being either possible or desirable.

I formed the Autonomist Party exactly because of disagreement that I have had with the general libertarian (American) philosophy over time. The strongest clash would occur as concerns the following points:

But I do not see a merger as being either possible or desirable.

While I was hoping that you would be a major contributer to this party, I imagined that you would say as much, and I respect your desire to maintain a seperate party.

I will remain a member of your party (if you will have me), as I still appreciate much of its platform, but I will be forming a new party with anyone who agrees with me in terms of the method of projecting our common viewpoints, and as I firmly believe that a fragmental group of neoliberal parties is defeatist, I won't be shy about recruiting within your party ranks.



Just to comment on some portions of the AP Platform:

For the abandonment of the corporation, limited liability, intellectual property, and any other venture that derives its existence exclusively by explicit and direct government charter and support, 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.

If by "abandonment" of the corporation, you mean removal of government favoritism, I support that, but the corporation is a perfectly natural form of collectivisation that is entirely possible without government intervention or protection. Limited liability is merely a form of liability that can be freely negotiated by creditor and borrower, and (outside of limited tort liability) I have absolutely no problem with it.


For rejection of the entire concept of "charity," as it creates a hierarchical relationship of "donor" and "recipient," where the individual is made dependent upon the donor for his or her well being. It is irrevelant that such a relationship might be considered "voluntary;" the dependent individual is still ultimately made less free because of the ultimate loss of self-reliance.

While I understand your rationale, I feel that this section is contradictory to the free association and self-determination necessary within a free society.

To loosely quote the great Sam Waterston in a investment commercial I just heard on TV:

"Independence is not going it alone, it is the freedom to choose."

Even so, the recognition that government is still necessary for the maintenance of peace and order requires recognition that some means are required for collecting the necessary revenue for funding that government.

Like I said, I hope this party pursues a positive role for government, rather than casting all government in a negative light.

We neo-liberals have managed to break ourselves into our own little factions, and separate a reasonably potent voting bloc into several nearly identical (save for a few minor differences here and there) parties. Even more than that, we didn't have any parties carry over, whereas the UDCP carried over from the previous election, neither the Reason Party or the Classical Liberal Party carried over.

We neo-liberals have managed to break ourselves into our own little factions, and separate a reasonably potent voting bloc into several nearly identical (save for a few minor differences here and there) parties. Even more than that, we didn't have any parties carry over, whereas the UDCP carried over from the previous election, neither the Reason Party or the Classical Liberal Party carried over.

Exactly.

I am debating whether I would like to restart the Classic Liberal Party, or collaborate on a new party from scratch, with a more concentrated political effort.

I do admire much of your policies, but I do feel that your concentration on self-defense and mandatory civil service would be problematic.

I think that your party may appeal to the neoconservative posters on here, and may catch a lot of free market supporters that are turned off by what might be a more pacifistic party.

I think your party would be a good alternative to any that I and others may start.

That said, I do plan on poaching some of your members, but will still work to guarantee representation for you in the parliament.

The civil service is not mandatory, a la Switzerland, but rather a requirement for gaining suffrage. No one has to do it. I am not quite certain what you mean by self defense.

I do see your point about the neoconservatives and neolibertarians. Perhaps I should push the FR to be more hawkish and strong-on-defense to distinguish it more from other parties. Of course, what I think would be even more valuable would be to make it more open and attractive to voters.

I'm pretty sure that the FR is polarizing, and that those who join do so because they are more strongly attracted to it, and those who don't are in vehement disagreement with it. I don't think poaching would be a problem, considering this. :D

The civil service is not mandatory, a la Switzerland, but rather a requirement for gaining suffrage. No one has to do it. I am not quite certain what you mean by self defense.

I consider civil service to gain suffrage to be mandatory civil service, but splitting hairs, I guess.

I did misinterpret your stance on self-defense.

I do see your point about the neoconservatives and neolibertarians. Perhaps I should push the FR to be more hawkish and strong-on-defense to distinguish it more from other parties. Of course, what I think would be even more valuable would be to make it more open and attractive to voters.

I don't think you should actually compromise values in order to attract voters, but yes, open discussion is very good.

I don't think you should actually compromise values in order to attract voters, but yes, open discussion is very good.

Oh, I'm not compromising values- I didn't go very in depth with what I had to say. In fact, what I was describing is more in my vein of political thought that I hadn't elaborated on.

Vote me for Prime Minister.

Meh. Most of the voting support for the Classic Liberals went to the HRP because we presented a moderate branch, which had been long missing. I know that I voted for the NSCL twice because I felt that I was choosing between Communism and Socialism or a capitalistic market, and I felt that choosing capitalism was a lesser evil. I expect many people agreed. I created the HRP to provide a moderate capitalist party, which spans a large, but pragmatic, group.

Meh. Most of the voting support for the Classic Liberals went to the HRP because we presented a moderate branch, which had been long missing. I know that I voted for the NSCL twice because I felt that I was choosing between Communism and Socialism or a capitalistic market, and I felt that choosing capitalism was a lesser evil. I expect many people agreed. I created the HRP to provide a moderate capitalist party, which spans a large, but pragmatic, group.

Would you be in support of the NSCL if I reorganized it?

Would you prefer I organize a new party?

I am drafting a statement of principles that will be open to discussion, but will be rather moderate.

Would you be in support of the NSCL if I reorganized it?

Would you prefer I organize a new party?

I am drafting a statement of principles that will be open to discussion, but will be rather moderate.

I would consider supporting the NSCL, if it struck me as being sufficiently moderate. However, I feel that, for the most part, the HRP meets my standards much better.

While I was hoping that you would be a major contributer to this party, I imagined that you would say as much, and I respect your desire to maintain a seperate party.


I would very much like to participate in the discussion of ideas or even specific platform issues. However, at the moment I do see a continued need for a seperate party.


If by "abandonment" of the corporation, you mean removal of government favoritism, I support that, but the corporation is a perfectly natural form of collectivisation that is entirely possible without government intervention or protection. Limited liability is merely a form of liability that can be freely negotiated by creditor and borrower, and (outside of limited tort liability) I have absolutely no problem with it.


The corporation, at least as it currently exists, exists by direct government design and sanction in law. That, combined with the top-down/vertical heirarchical organization usually employed, makes collusion with the state virtually guaranteed to occur and only worsen. Naturally, some level of government regulation and law, in defense of justice, is necessary to make free enterprise work; to that extent, I envisioned opposition to the top-down/vertical structure to be the chief issue. Of course, the alternative proposal consists of bottom-up/horizontal organization; the application of decentralist and democratic principles to aspects of society outside of government as well.


While I understand your rationale, I feel that this section is contradictory to the free association and self-determination necessary within a free society.

To loosely quote the great Sam Waterston in a investment commercial I just heard on TV:

"Independence is not going it alone, it is the freedom to choose."


I, too, fully understand your point; it is why I used the word "rejection" rather than "abolishment."


Like I said, I hope this party pursues a positive role for government, rather than casting all government in a negative light.

No doubt, positive roles exist. At the moment, however, the role is mostly negative, and it is important that people recognize this and understand why it is so.