NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to slipping support of libertarian policy within the NS Parliament, I have decided to reorganize the Classic Liberals. I am posting a Statement of Principles without any specific stances listed. Feel free to respond to any percieved flaw, strength, or implication that you see within the Statement, and also propose possible stances to issues. All input and all perspective members are welcome.

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

Statement of Principles

We, the Classic Liberal Party of NationStates General, stand on the belief that the only role of government is to afford the individual the dignity of self-determination. In this we must deny the right of government to interfere into the free and voluntary speech, beliefs, and actions of the individual. Government has long sought to control the lifestyles and associations of those unlucky enough to be subject to it.

Therefore, where government exists, we demand that it must respect:

1. The right to free expression of, and access to, ideas, beliefs, and information.

2. The right to free association.

3. The right to property as an extension of oneself and one's labor.

The affordance of self-determination does, however, provide a positive role in the life of the individual, as no individual should live without the means to the basic opportunities to exert dominion over their own lives; nor should it the individual be subordinated to the forceful or fraudulent actions of others.

Therefore, where government exists, we demand that it must provide:

1. Prohibition of the use of force between citizens.

2. Prohibition of fraudulent activity.

3. Avenues for all to recieve the education and healthcare necessary to escape the cycle of socioeconomic marginalization.

Most importantly, government must be equally responsive to all of its citizens.

Therefore where government imparts these provisions and prohibitions, we demand that it:

1. Provides equal utility and freedom to all of its citizenry in proportion to their comprehension of the obligations that these rights carry.

2. Administer the function of government at the lowest possible level, with democratic input being as direct as possible.

Through all of this, we hope to allow people the autonomy to live their life as they please, while providing for themselves and others freely, through their own labor, and as free traders of the product of that labor.


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

I. The Rights of the Individual

1. The most egregious error of government throughout history has been the "presumption of knowing better." Those in power have always presumed that they were better inclined than the individual to make life choices for that individual. We must accept that, while we may not agree with the choice another makes, we must allow them the right to make that choice, if we are to claim that right for ourselves.

Therefore, this error must be remedied by allowing the individual the freedom of choice and the freedom to accept the concequences of that choice. This can only be solved by removing all laws that reflect government's "presumption of knowing better."

Therefore the NS Classic Liberal Party proposes:

A. To repeal all legislation against victimless crimes, including but not limited to:

i. Laws prohibiting the sale, use, production, or possession of all drugs.
ii. Laws prohibiting the sale and use of alcohol, as well as laws making seller liable for the actions of the purchaser of alcohol.
iii. Laws prohibiting the sale or possession of pornographic materials.
iv. Laws prohibiting prostitution.
v. Laws prohibiting gambling.
vi. Laws prohibiting suicide and euthenasia

We furthermore demand the release and exoneration of all individuals charged and convicted of such crimes.

B. To place government into the role of protector of, rather than threat to, sovereign individual rights. To accomplish this, we:

i. Oppose forced medical treatment of all individuals.
ii. Support the prohibition of excessive force by police officers.
iii. Oppose any conscription into the military or mandatory civil service.
iv. Support the rights of women to maintain control of her reproductive functions.

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

II. Statement of Economic Principles

As an extension of our demands for government recognition of property rights and free association, we respect the primacy of the free market economic model.

Therefore, where government exists, we demand that its economic role be limited to the protection of property rights and voluntary trade.

1. With the recognition that taxation is banditry, the theft of one's labor, but also with the recognition that intermediary pragmatism demands that tax be gathered, we must set priorities as we deal with this tricky subject. As theft is illegitimate in all forms, regardless of its ends, it is not the distribution of state appropriated funds that we should concern ourselves with, rather than the burden state appropriated funds place upon the individual.

With the monetary burden placed upon the collective determined by the fiscal policy, and inequal allotment of burden initiated by progressive income tax rates, we must concentrate on eliminating the non-monetary burden upon and eliminating the possibility of possible inequity of graduated income taxation.

Therefore, where government taxes the individual, we demand that it institute a National Retail Sales Tax.

This accomplishes two goals:

A) eliminates the forced monitoring, reporting, and general subserviency created by the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service.

B) provides for the equal taxation of true income: consumption.



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

Members:
Vittos the City Sacker
Wilgrove
Esternarx
Europa Maxima
Zaire
Colerica
Neu Leonstein
Zolworld
Vetalia
Deus Malum
Secret aj man

Associates:
Griell

I would add a provision regarding method of taxation. I do like what you've written so far, though.

Edit: I missed education, my bad

I would add a provision regarding method of taxation. I do like what you've written so far, though.

Edit: I missed education, my bad

Taxation is something that I will get back to once the Principles have been established.

I will probably recommend a negative income tax.

Therefore, where government exists, we demand that it must provide:

1. Prohibition of the use of force.

2. Prohibition of fraudulent activity.

You can have 1 or you can have 2. They are mutually exclusive, as the prohibition of fraudulent activity requires the use of force. (Unless you can show me how else the government prohibits something other than by making the use of force permited in that case.)

You can have 1 or you can have 2. They are mutually exclusive, as the prohibition of fraudulent activity requires the use of force. (Unless you can show me how else the government prohibits something other than by making the use of force permited in that case.)

Well, yes, I didn't mean that government couldn't use force, only private individuals. How could government enforce the prohibition of force, without using force?

I will sign up for the Classical Liberal party!

Well, yes, I didn't mean that government couldn't use force, only private individuals. How could government enforce the prohibition of force, without using force?

The government can not do anything (it has no physical existence) except through the licensing of individuals to act on its behalf.

So you are thus proposing that there should be either two categories of individuals - government agents and others, or that individuals should have different freedoms depending upon the capacity in which they are acting.

This may well be what you have in mind, and it is how society functions, but it is a severe limitation on the principle of equality that is implicit in the first demand.

I can only see two things wrong here, and it's the last two:

1. Provides equal utility and freedom to all of its citizenry in proportion to their comprehension of the obligations that these rights carry.

The wording of this sounds a lot like "You can't vote until you pass a civics exam"

If i'm misinterpreting this, say so, but if i'm not, I just want to say that IMO, everyone has the right to take part in the government. yes: even the idiots.

2. Administer the function of government at the lowest possible level, with democratic input being as direct as possible.

IMO, the "lowest possible level of government" is the individual.

There are things that the individual decides because it only effects the individual, and there are things that everyone decides because it effects everyone.
the guy living across the street should not have any more of a say in my life than the guy living across the country.

So far your principles seem to be a lot like those of The Autonomist Party. What makes this party distinct from that one? (I imagine you will get to this later, but I figured I'd ask now just to make sure.)

I will sign up for the Classical Liberal party!

Welcome aboard!

All of your input is welcome.

The government can not do anything (it has no physical existence) except through the licensing of individuals to act on its behalf.

So you are thus proposing that there should be either two categories of individuals - government agents and others, or that individuals should have different freedoms depending upon the capacity in which they are acting.

This may well be what you have in mind, and it is how society functions, but it is a severe limitation on the principle of equality that is implicit in the first demand.

I don't see any viable solution to it, but I don't see it as a big problem, either. As long as we are sure that no beneficial treatment comes out of civil service.

I don't see any viable solution to it, but I don't see it as a big problem, either. As long as we are sure that no beneficial treatment comes out of civil service.

ie: senators don't get to vote themselves pay raises anymore ;)

I can only see two things wrong here, and it's the last two:



The wording of this sounds a lot like "You can't vote until you pass a civics exam"

If i'm misinterpreting this, say so, but if i'm not, I just want to say that IMO, everyone has the right to take part in the government. yes: even the idiots.

No, all that states is that while we wish to extend equal rights to everyone, there are portions of the citizenry, children, mentally ill, that it we could not extend equal rights to in their own interest and the interest of others.

There could possibly be an exam that would allow for early voting, but I cannot see why every adult would not have the ability to vote.

IMO, the "lowest possible level of government" is the individual.

There are things that the individual decides because it only effects the individual, and there are things that everyone decides because it effects everyone.
the guy living across the street should not have any more of a say in my life than the guy living across the country.

That is why it is the most important section. The most responsive governmental form is self-government, and in all situations where the individual can effectively "govern" himself, he should be allowed to do so. Beyond that, it is kept as low as effectively possible to fight the emergence of bureaucracy.

So far your principles seem to be a lot like those of The Autonomist Party. What makes this party distinct from that one? (I imagine you will get to this later, but I figured I'd ask now just to make sure.)

Our party is more generic, to be blunt. the Autonomist Party takes a scattershot, but specific, view on its policy proposals.

The Autonomy Party's foremost interest, as you could guess, is autonomy, while ours is slightly different. Where the Autonomist eschews dependence through charity, we encourage social responsibility and social dependency through charity, as long as it is free association and beneficial to both parties.

The Autonomist Party also takes a firm stance against the corporation, where as this party does worry about the effects of corporate personhood and does wish to eliminate limited tort liability but still recognizes the validity of the corporation as a natural collection of investors and owners.

No, all that states is that while we wish to extend equal rights to everyone, there are portions of the citizenry, children, mentally ill, that it we could not extend equal rights to in their own interest and the interest of others.



Might want to expand on this. As someone who has a mental illness, I don't think I have less interest or understanding of government than anyone else here. Do I have to take a psyche test to be able to vote?

Might want to expand on this. As someone who has a mental illness, I don't think I have less interest or understanding of government than anyone else here. Do I have to take a psyche test to be able to vote?

I think it depends on the severity of the illness.

OCD does not hamper your ability to make a critical decision between two candidates.
Thinking that you are Napoleon does.

Might want to expand on this. As someone who has a mental illness, I don't think I have less interest or understanding of government than anyone else here. Do I have to take a psyche test to be able to vote?

While I admit that there would be no perfect system of rights, some may be afforded rights that they cannot handle, some may be denied rights that they are perfectly capable ot handling.

I suppose that the burden of proof rests with the state in denying these rights, not with the individual (while the individual or guardian can given them up voluntary). So unless there is an abundance of evidence of incapability, there will be no hindrance of rights.

It is good to see you on here again, BK. I didn't know you were still around.

*snip*

Hopefully we will see some contributions from you again, even if real life only allows you a limited role.

What's the CL's monetary policy?

What's the CL's monetary policy?

A clarification of the question please.

A clarification of the question please.

Well, what do you think of monetary policy, like printing of money, reserve ratios, interest rate manipulation, presence of central bank, etc.?

What's the CL's monetary policy?

That was a point of division amongst the old NSCL.

I, personally, support the complete elimination of the Federal Reserve, the complete elimination of legal tender laws, complete elimination of government minting and government controls over minting (except, of course, laws against fraud), as well as a total separation between banking and state.

All of these government interventions are unnecessary limitations to the actions of free traders and have, in the past, been manipulated to provide unequal utility amongst the citizenry. As such I would deny any government intervention into money markets as it is a severe hindrance to self-determination.

A clarification of the question please.

A very good explanation of monetary policy:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MonetaryPolicy.html

What about international policy? Military, trade, and immigration?

What about international policy? Military, trade, and immigration?

Stolen directly from the old Libertarian Platform, it was always the best summary of my views on foreign policy that I have ever seen:

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

Sounds good. I'm on board with everything except the monetary policy, and possibly the voting eligibility of the mentally ill:
I suppose that the burden of proof rests with the state in denying these rights, not with the individual (while the individual or guardian can given them up voluntary). So unless there is an abundance of evidence of incapability, there will be no hindrance of rights.
What if the guardian decides to disenfranchise an otherwise fully capable voter? Just a minor point, as I don't think this situation would come up often, but still one to consider.

That was a point of division amongst the old NSCL.

I, personally, support the complete elimination of the Federal Reserve, the complete elimination of legal tender laws, complete elimination of government minting and government controls over minting (except, of course, laws against fraud), as well as a total separation between banking and state.

All of these government interventions are unnecessary limitations to the actions of free traders and have, in the past, been manipulated to provide unequal utility amongst the citizenry. As such I would deny any government intervention into money markets as it is a severe hindrance to self-determination.

Even though I won't be a member of your party, I want you to know that I think that's the best monetary policy. I'm tired of this money socialism and all the problems it brings (dissaving, rapid accumulation of debt, destruction of purchasing power, inflationary booms and recessionary busts, etc.). Plus, it gives govt. a free hand to spend like crazy and inflation acts as a subtle tax on everyone except those who get the newly printed money first.

Sounds good. I'm on board with everything except the monetary policy, and possibly the voting eligibility of the mentally ill:

What if the guardian decides to disenfranchise an otherwise fully capable voter? Just a minor point, as I don't think this situation would come up often, but still one to consider.

The guardian would not have the right to revoke the rights of someone capable of showing the ability to comprehend those rights. The purpose of a guardian is
totally undermined by capable individuals.

What do you not like about the monetary policy?

Also, would you like to be listed as a member?

Even though I won't be a member of your party, I want you to know that I think that's the best monetary policy. I'm tired of this money socialism and all the problems it brings (dissaving, rapid accumulation of debt, destruction of purchasing power, inflationary booms and recessionary busts, etc.). Plus, it gives govt. a free hand to spend like crazy and inflation acts as a subtle tax on everyone except those who get the newly printed money first.

I couldn't agree more with what you have said.

So, how can I help out as member?

I have edited the original post to include a section on individual rights into the platform.

Let me know if you disagree, agree, or feel that anything is missing.

That was a point of division amongst the old NSCL.

I, personally, support the complete elimination of the Federal Reserve, the complete elimination of legal tender laws, complete elimination of government minting and government controls over minting (except, of course, laws against fraud), as well as a total separation between banking and state.

All of these government interventions are unnecessary limitations to the actions of free traders and have, in the past, been manipulated to provide unequal utility amongst the citizenry. As such I would deny any government intervention into money markets as it is a severe hindrance to self-determination.

Does this mean that the party supports private currencies?

Is there a government-funded safety net incase one of these currencies fails and the people who depended on it go down with it?

is counterfiting covered by the anti-fraud laws, or does "complete elimination of government minting and government controls over minting" mean that anyone can print their own money (sounds like a quick trip to inflation hell, IMO)? if not everyone can print their own money, how is it decided who can or cannot?

So, how can I help out as member?

Right now the most important things are providing input to the platform, joining in on the discussion, and generally improving the visibility of the party.

Right now the most important things are providing input to the platform, joining in on the discussion, and generally improving the visibility of the party.

What we could do is point to some real world leaders that would be considered classical liberals, such as William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater.

Does this mean that the party supports private currencies?

It means that I do. I will leave the party's stance open for the future.

Is there a government-funded safety net incase one of these currencies fails and the people who depended on it go down with it?

On a side-note, there is no such thing as "government funded", it is always citizen funded.

I imagine that monetary insurance will have a niche in the market, and that the chance of monetary failure would be quite small.

is counterfiting covered by the anti-fraud laws, or does "complete elimination of government minting and government controls over minting" mean that anyone can print their own money (sounds like a quick trip to inflation hell, IMO)? if not everyone can print their own money, how is it decided who can or cannot?

Counterfeiting, as in imitating another currency without permission, would be the central reason for the anti-fraud laws.

And yes, we allow anyone to print their own money, but we also allow anyone to refuse to accept any currencies that they do not want. Hyperinflation, therefore, may occur within individual currencies, but that would only result in its disappearance from the market.

What we could do is point to some real world leaders that would be considered classical liberals, such as William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater.

I consider Buckley to be a conservative rather than a Classic Liberal.

But if you can seperate Barry Goldwater from his standing as arch-republican, and concentrate on his libertarian views, then that could work.

I do fear that neither of those names will spark much interest around here, though.

I consider Buckley to be a conservative rather than a Classic Liberal.

But if you can seperate Barry Goldwater from his standing as arch-republican, and concentrate on his libertarian views, then that could work.

I do fear that neither of those names will spark much interest around here, though.

You are right, we need more modern names to identify ourselves with. We could also use a symbol. The Democrats have the donkey, the Republican have elephants, we need something.

if you want to attach famous people as examples of what the party would do if it were in power, the first step is to hammer out a solid party platform: where we stand as a whole, and where we stand on all the issues.

Then you look at people through history and see which of them coincide with the party's stance.

Could someone give me a rundown of the relationship between the NSCL and the HRP? I'm thinking if our platforms are similar we could perhaps join together or form a coalition to boost our influence in the government.

You are right, we need more modern names to identify ourselves with.

Yes, as dead or old conservatives aren't too popular on NSG.

We could also use a symbol. The Democrats have the donkey, the Republican have elephants, we need something.

Yes, symbols and mottos cannot be underestimated, we need some.

Could someone give me a rundown of the relationship between the NSCL and the HRP? I'm thinking if our platforms are similar we could perhaps join together or form a coalition to boost our influence in the government.

Can you provide us with a link to your platoforms?

A comment on the new, edited, OP

iv. Support the rights of women to maintain control of her reproductive functions.

I realize that you are supporting a pro-choice government, and that I completely support.

However, I cannot say that the woman having complete control over the choice is completely suitable.

Abortion is for when the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child. If one parent wishes to abort the child, and the other is willing and able to care for it, the child should be carried to term and left under the guardianship of the other parent.

The child is the man's just as much as it is the woman's, and if he wishes to care for the child when the mother is not, he should be allowed.

If you are to say that the child is the full responsability of the mother (and put the decision entirely in her hands), then I have to say that a lot of happy men are going to stop paying alimony.

after all, if it's entirely the woman's choice, why should the father have to live with the consequences?

abortion is an issue to be decided by the parents.

not the government, because it has nothing to do with them, and not just the mother, because it is the father's responsability as well.

Yes, as dead or old conservatives aren't too popular on NSG.



Yes, symbols and mottos cannot be underestimated, we need some.

It would have to be an anilam known for solitude.

"Your life, your liberty", or something of the sort.

"Control your own destiny."

"Give us the government, and we'll give you the reins"

It would have to be an anilam known for solitude.

"Your life, your liberty", or something of the sort.

"Control your own destiny."

"Give us the government, and we'll give you the reins"

I like this one the best. :)

For the symbol, how about an Eagle flying over the country? It could symbolize the freedom that Classical Liberalism wants to give to it's people. The eagle could also be shown breaking out of chains.

A comment on the new, edited, OP



I realize that you are supporting a pro-choice government, and that I completely support.

However, I cannot say that the woman having complete control over the choice is completely suitable.

Abortion is for when the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child. If one parent wishes to abort the child, and the other is willing and able to care for it, the child should be carried to term and left under the guardianship of the other parent.

The child is the man's just as much as it is the woman's, and if he wishes to care for the child when the mother is not, he should be allowed.

If you are to say that the child is the full responsability of the mother (and put the decision entirely in her hands), then I have to say that a lot of happy men are going to stop paying alimony.

after all, if it's entirely the woman's choice, why should the father have to live with the consequences?

abortion is an issue to be decided by the parents.

not the government, because it has nothing to do with them, and not just the mother, because it is the father's responsability as well.

You do touch on some good points. I have argued for paper abortions for men who wish to opt out of responsibility for the pregnancy if done in a timely manner.

However, as I stated in my proposed platform, this isn't a issue of parenthood, it is an issue sovereignty over oneself. If we are to allow this sovereignty, we cannot allow a woman's control over her own body to be dictated by the decision of another. It is true that the father should share responsibility in the resulting child, but the woman should have complete control over her own body, and as an extension, the pregnancy.

The most accessible comparison is slavery. If slavery is instituted, it is the removal of the slave's control over his own body. Therefore, his life is devalued to commodity status, namely labor.

If we remove the woman's control over her body in this situation, we, in effect, devalue her life to that of "baby maker."


EDIT: Can I assume that you wish to be listed as a member?

Could someone give me a rundown of the relationship between the NSCL and the HRP? I'm thinking if our platforms are similar we could perhaps join together or form a coalition to boost our influence in the government.

I have no problem with a coalition, although my main reason for starting this party was to attempt to renew a more central face to libertarian and neoliberal policies. Fractional parties only serve to split voters, split efforts, and eventually lower representation.

With that said, I believe the only way a coalition would work would be through a merging of parties, with a open discussion of platform resulting in compromise.

There has been far too little open discussion of policy, as most simply resort to starting a new party. While it is paradoxical that I approach this issue by starting a new party (reinventing and old one), I did so with four months to prepare for the new election. I hope that by then that there will be a leading party from our side of the spectrum, whether it be the NSCL or another party.

It would have to be an anilam known for solitude.

"Your life, your liberty", or something of the sort.

"Control your own destiny."

"Give us the government, and we'll give you the reins"

Those are all good, put one in your signature.

The old NSCL party color was orange, it seemed like a good choice.

I have no problem with a coalition, although my main reason for starting this party was to attempt to renew a more central face to libertarian and neoliberal policies. Fractional parties only serve to split voters, split efforts, and eventually lower representation.

With that said, I believe the only way a coalition would work would be through a merging of parties, with a open discussion of platform resulting in compromise.

There has been far too little open discussion of policy, as most simply resort to starting a new party. While it is paradoxical that I approach this issue by starting a new party (reinventing and old one), I did so with four months to prepare for the new election. I hope that by then that there will be a leading party from our side of the spectrum, whether it be the NSCL or another party.

Here Here. Who knows, maybe the NSCL Party will pick up a few seats. :)

Those are all good, put one in your signature.

The old NSCL party color was orange, it seemed like a good choice.

Maybe we can have an Eagle fly over an orange sunrise, for the symbols?

Maybe we can have an Eagle fly over an orange sunrise, for the symbols?

If you can put one together, I would have no problem with it. I am no good with graphics or anything like that.

3. Avenues for all to recieve the education and healthcare necessary to escape the cycle of socioeconomic marginalization.

Sounds a lot like public schools and socialist healthcare, which happen to be rather unclassical liberal subjects... could you elaborate?

Sounds a lot like public schools and socialist healthcare, which happen to be rather unclassical liberal subjects... could you elaborate?

I actually wondered about that too...

Sounds a lot like public schools and socialist healthcare, which happen to be rather unclassical liberal subjects... could you elaborate?

Classical liberalism or neoliberalism is progressive as a free market and a free society allow ample opportunity for the individual to support themselves and be, to an extent, independent.

None of us live in a free market, nor can we immediately transition into a completely free market structure due to the cartelization of modern business.

Therefore there must be a transitional, positive role for government to reach a truly free market. Once a truly free market, then policy supporting the provision of basic education and healthcare will disappear with the disappearing need.

In the end, we cannot separate ourselves from the present corporatism that has befallen our society without acknowledging the wrongs it has committed and prescribing policy aimed at correcting them.

The party seems good to me, and I would be willing to join up so long as it endorses Austrian economics alongside whatever else it may endorse. One thing - it seems a little geared towards minarchism; this is fine, but aren't market anarchists also classical liberals?

Three cheers for Austrian Economics! I'll join the party, not that it will do much good... but still, consider me a member.

Therefore there must be a transitional, positive role for government to reach a truly free market. Once a truly free market, then policy supporting the provision of basic education and healthcare will disappear with the disappearing need.
This I can agree with - it would be as foolish as a Communist society going straight into a free-market economy (e.g. Russia). Therefore a transitive stage would be necessary to ensure that the libertarian system does not implode on itself at a later stage.

The party seems good to me, and I would be willing to join up so long as it endorses Austrian economics alongside whatever else it may endorse. One thing - it seems a little geared towards minarchism; this is fine, but aren't market anarchists also classical liberals?

I certainly have no problem endorsing Austrian economics, albeit it will probably not be explicit endorsement in the platform, as I don't think we need to take a stance on particular Economic schools.

I can guarantee that my contributions to the platform will be very reflective of the Austrian school.

I have been drawing a good deal from the old Libertarian Party Platform, which owes a great debt to Rothbard.


The thing about the term Classic Liberal, is that the actual classic liberals had a wide spectrum. This means that there are a million different political branches that now can claim the term "Classic Liberal." So yes, market-anarchists (I am somewhere inbetween minarchist and market anarchist, depending on the day) can be considered Classic Liberals.

I think the key to being a classic liberal is establishing autonomy and liberty for the individual through a system of interdependence. Whatever prescriptive steps you take, if this is your goal, I could consider you a classic liberal.

Three cheers for Austrian Economics! I'll join the party, not that it will do much good... but still, consider me a member.

I am glad you want to become a member, and I hope you do become a valuable contributer.

I certainly have no problem endorsing Austrian economics, albeit it will probably not be explicit endorsement in the platform, as I don't think we need to take a stance on particular Economic schools.
Yes, I realise this. There are many of them that would fit in this party.


I think the key to being a classic liberal is establishing autonomy and liberty for the individual through a system of interdependence. Whatever prescriptive steps you take, if this is your goal, I could consider you a classic liberal.
Fine, then count me in. :)

This I can agree with - it would be as foolish as a Communist society going straight into a free-market economy (e.g. Russia). Therefore a transitive stage would be necessary to ensure that the libertarian system does not implode on itself at a later stage.

Yes, the oligarchy that ruined Russia following the privatization would probably be small to what would occur if we turned our Frankenstein monster of a corporate system loose.

And like I said, if we achieve our ideal system (which would be easier through moderation), there would be no need for this positive role for government anyway.

Fine, then count me in. :)

Fuckin' A

Yes, the oligarchy that ruined Russia following the privatization would probably be small to what would occur if we turned our Frankenstein monster of a corporate system loose.

And like I said, if we achieve our ideal system (which would be easier through moderation), there would be no need for this positive role for government anyway.

Indeed. A voucher system where the parents have the control over their tax money and can choose to spend it on the public or private school of their choice is a good transition step.

Can you provide us with a link to your platoforms?

Here you go (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499165)

Indeed. A voucher system where the parents have the control over their tax money and can choose to spend it on the public or private school of their choice is a good transition step.

I hate public school system because they are institutionalized, standardized, and worst of all, mandatory detention centers for children.

Privatize the school system, but make sure that those who would utilize an education could recieve one, as nothing is more marginalizing than a poor or no education.

I hate public school system because they are institutionalized, standardized, and worst of all, mandatory detention centers for children.

Why do you think private schools would be all that much better in those respects?

Why do you think private schools would be all that much better in those respects?

Because they would not be a hulking, top-down, overlegislated, science-excluding, bureaucratic morass.

Because they would not be a hulking, top-down, overlegislated, science-excluding, bureaucratic morass.

Have you ever attended a private school?

Have you ever attended a private school?

Actually yes, I attended a private Lutheran school throughout my elementary education.

I left after fifth grade to attend public school. Even though Wednesday mornings were devoted to attending the church across the street, every afternoon included bible studies, and the fifth and sixth grades were combined (and still totaled only 12 students), I entered public school and was immediately one of the better students.

However, this is a matter of apples and oranges, as private schools under our system and private schools under the present system would be drastically different.

I don't even know if the term "private school" even applies anymore.

The party seems good to me, and I would be willing to join up so long as it endorses Austrian economics alongside whatever else it may endorse



Three cheers for Austrian Economics!



I certainly have no problem endorsing Austrian economics, albeit it will probably not be explicit endorsement in the platform, as I don't think we need to take a stance on particular Economic schools


See, it's right about here that some of us start feeling claustrophobic. :D


Because they would not be a hulking, top-down, overlegislated, science-excluding, bureaucratic morass.


I can point out several religious organizations, and their associated "private" schools, within close distance to my current location who most likely all engage in some kind of science-excluding. Plus, the hulking, top-down, bureaucratic morass is hardly unknown in the "private" sector. I put the word "private" in quotes on purpose; "public" and "private" are the same bureaucratic top-down mess, you just pay taxes to one of them. That's pretty much the difference.

All of that makes it all the more interesting that I am a church hating, strong-agnostic, borderline nihilistic libertarian.

Actually yes, I attended a private Lutheran school throughout my elementary education.

I left after fifth grade to attend public school. Even though Wednesday mornings were devoted to attending the church across the street, every afternoon included bible studies, and the fifth and sixth grades were combined (and still totaled only 12 students), I entered public school and was immediately one of the better students.

Left after eighth grade from a Jewish private school; I was "immediately one of the better students" as well, but I was at the top of my class at the private school too, so that is hardly significant. One reason the private schools do better in terms of turning out good students is that they can get rid of bad and disruptive ones; that is no argument for universal private education.

The public schools in wealthy neighborhoods are actually quite decent; the problem is both a lack of funding and of accountability for public schools in poorer areas, but since the poor (as well as those difficult to educate) are the people a private system would be least capable of dealing with, that is hardly an argument for privatization.

However, this is a matter of apples and oranges, as private schools under our system and private schools under the present system would be drastically different.

What regulations would you eliminate to make them better?

I entered public school and was immediately one of the better students.


I went from nearly flunking out of public K-12 ("passed" Algebra 2 with a D-...) to making multiple honor rolls and high GPAs in the public community college/university system. Obviously, the difference isn't the public bit, as that remains constant. What did change, however, was the compulsory nature. In public k-12, the "teacher" is a glorified babysitter. In the public community college/university system, I perform or get tossed to the curb.

The problem with the K-12 system is not that it is publically administered. The problem is that the state forces attendence. Public Education - compulsory attendence = problems solved.

One reason the private schools do better in terms of turning out good students is that they can get rid of bad and disruptive ones;


Exactly.


that is no argument for universal private education.


Ditto. (not that I support state education, mind you; but the conclusion is true nonetheless)

Originally Posted by Europa Maxima
The party seems good to me, and I would be willing to join up so long as it endorses Austrian economics alongside whatever else it may endorse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esternarx
Three cheers for Austrian Economics!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittos the City Sacker
I certainly have no problem endorsing Austrian economics, albeit it will probably not be explicit endorsement in the platform, as I don't think we need to take a stance on particular Economic schools


It'd be a shame if I didn't chip in. Austrian economics, f**k yeah! :D

Does this mean that the party supports private currencies?

Is there a government-funded safety net incase one of these currencies fails and the people who depended on it go down with it?

is counterfiting covered by the anti-fraud laws, or does "complete elimination of government minting and government controls over minting" mean that anyone can print their own money (sounds like a quick trip to inflation hell, IMO)? if not everyone can print their own money, how is it decided who can or cannot?

I'd like to answer this question. I think the logical thing to do is prevent fraud, but allow people to take whatever they want as payment. Since gold has proven itself to be the most desirable medium of exchange (high value to weight ratio, distinguishability, divisibility, etc.), it would be logical that most coins would be gold. The thing that would keep a check on inflation would be A.) A prohibition on fraud (so that if you mint a coin that says "99.99% Gold", it has to actually be gold, and B.) The various anti-counterfeiting/depreciating techniques that have developed (If you have a US quarter, you could look at the ridges and lettering near the edges- that's in place to prevent "clipping" of coins to inflate the money supply, though no one nowadays would clip those coins since they're made of base metals).

I can point out several religious organizations, and their associated "private" schools, within close distance to my current location who most likely all engage in some kind of science-excluding. Plus, the hulking, top-down, bureaucratic morass is hardly unknown in the "private" sector. I put the word "private" in quotes on purpose; "public" and "private" are the same bureaucratic top-down mess, you just pay taxes to one of them. That's pretty much the difference.

I see the bureaucracy of our present corporatist system as a direct result of the relation between business and government.

Big business has established a system in which they have cartelized the market into a "taylorized" bureaucratic mechanism closely resembling government, as they must have to have recieved government's endorsement and support.

Think about it, for every safety or product regulation, there are three more levels of bureaucracy required for a business, and 10,000 small businesses who are squeezed out because they lose their competitive advantage.

Schools are no different. For every regulation that government passes down, that is three more tuitioned teachers required, or two more coaches required, and small private schools lose any advantage they had.

And I don't mind if a school is science-excluding, it is when that is combined with institutionalized and standardized that I get up in arms.

I would love to join. :D

Please sign me up as "Zaire."

One reason the private schools do better in terms of turning out good students is that they can get rid of bad and disruptive ones; that is no argument for universal private education.

True.

What regulations would you eliminate to make them better?

All of those that eliminate competition and choice among the education market.

The problem with the K-12 system is not that it is publically administered. The problem is that the state forces attendence. Public Education - compulsory attendence = problems solved.

No, attendance is economically compulsory whatever the law says.

I would agree that the authoritarian nature of public education is degrading and harmful, but private schools are just as bad in that respect, even though no one is forced to attend.

I went from nearly flunking out of public K-12 ("passed" Algebra 2 with a D-...) to making multiple honor rolls and high GPAs in the public community college/university system. Obviously, the difference isn't the public bit, as that remains constant. What did change, however, was the compulsory nature. In public k-12, the "teacher" is a glorified babysitter. In the public community college/university system, I perform or get tossed to the curb.

I excelled through middle school and high school, then almost flunked out (mainly because I dropped out) of college.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The problem with the K-12 system is not that it is publically administered. The problem is that the state forces attendence. Public Education - compulsory attendence = problems solved.

The problem with the K-12 system is that it is a standardized system with no competition between curriculums and no choice for parents and students.

Even college is so over-regulated that one has to take 2 1/2 years of worthless studies before actually learning about your career.

All of this not only excuses bureaucracy, but creates it. It not only discourages some students from getting a decent education in science, it makes it impossible.

No, attendance is economically compulsory whatever the law says.


Yes, but that is attending to education in general. My attendence at a specific campus is not compulsory, and, if I don't perform academically or cause trouble, can be terminated (thereby wasting a great deal of money; individualized risk is another motovation to excel, actually). That is my point.

All of those that eliminate competition and choice among the education market.

Even so... my guess is that you would have a stratified system, with wealthy and upper middle class students attending an expanded system of expensive suburban private schools and everyone else attending relatively cheap schools of varying quality, with those most lacking in money or highest in cost attending fairly bad-quality religious private schools run out of charity.

It would be preferable to have a public education system that offered students and parents choice of school, with random selection on the part of the schools with demand exceeding capacity, and that offered a wider selection of courses, especially in high school.

Even college is so over-regulated that one has to take 2 1/2 years of worthless studies before actually learning about your career.


I don't see education as simply preparation for a career. In fact, I can't think of any of my studies as being "worthless;" be it languages, politics, history, biology, art, or any other of the topics I have studied, all have grabbed me by the throat and forced me to confront a very serious and very real, but very simple fact: there is a world out there beyond the inch thick layer of hot air around my body. Language, politics and history in particular are especially vital in this regard; for christ's sake, Americans my age are hard pressed to find Canada on a map, and yet these jokers are entrusted with voting to establish the most powerful politician on the surface of the planet. God save us.

At any rate, exposure to different subjects at the very least helped me pick a major. I would prefer, given the time and money, to stay on campus and finish every major and earn every degree there is to earn. The universe provides all this knowledge in so many subjects, but I have to pick one or maybe two. It's not right.

But yeah, I would consider any "private" school that didn't insist on years of "useless" study intollerable and insufficient.

Even so... my guess is that you would have a stratified system, with wealthy and upper middle class students attending an expanded system of expensive suburban private schools and everyone else attending relatively cheap schools of varying quality, with those most lacking iny money or highest in cost attending fairly bad-quality religious private schools run out of charit.

This, of course, assumes that economic class would be as devisive as it is under our current system.

And all of this ignores that the platform says:

Therefore, where government exists, we demand that it must provide:

3. Avenues for all to recieve the education and healthcare necessary to escape the cycle of socioeconomic marginalization.

We have not worked out a specific system to ensure this, but there is some consensus concerning the principle.

It would be preferable to have a public education system that offered students and parents choice of school, with random selection on the part of the schools with demand exceeding capacity, and that offered a wider selection of courses, especially in high school.

Which is not true choice or competition.

I don't see education as simply preparation for a career. In fact, I can't think of any of my studies as being "worthless;" be it languages, politics, history, biology, art, or any other of the topics I have studied, all have grabbed me by the throat and forced me to confront a very serious and very real, but very simple fact: there is a world out there beyond the inch thick layer of hot air around my body. Language, politics and history in particular are especially vital in this regard; for christ's sake, Americans my age are hard pressed to find Canada on a map, and yet these jokers are entrusted with voting to establish the most powerful politician on the surface of the planet. God save us.

At any rate, exposure to different subjects at the very least helped me pick a major. I would prefer, given the time and money, to stay on campus and finish every major and earn every degree there is to earn. The universe provides all this knowledge in so many subjects, but I have to pick one or maybe two. It's not right.

Education is only worthwhile if you care about it. If you care about it, you will learn on your own, the avenues are there, you don't need 2 1/2 years of "electives" to learn them. Thats what I do, I didn't take biology in college, but I am reading Richard Dawkins. Twenty bucks says that I will have a far more detailed knowledge of evolution and the evolution of the human species in two years than the person who took biology as the obligatory science elective.

The only valuable thing that college provides is an in depth training into your career of choice. That and a little peice of paper that might as well say "Look! I'm trainable!"

We have not worked out a specific system to ensure this, but there is some consensus concerning the principle.

Why not just allow complete financial aid, like Harvard does? It simply provides all the funding required for your education. It even gives you money if your parents are wealthy... If you need it, you get it, regardless of your socio-economic standing. And not just allow it, but let people know about it --- advertise all over the place.

If all educational institutions were allowed to do this, the results would, theoretically, be wonderful.

Thats what I do,


The time I "wasted" in statistics and science classes tells me that a single unique and isolated case doesn't really prove anything in particular. :)

This, of course, assumes that economic class would be as devisive as it is under our current system.

Yes, it does. Absent either the abolition of inheritance or an end to capitalist rule (say, something akin to mutualism emerging), I don't see why any great change in the class structure would occur - especially with the near-elimination of redistributive programs.

And all of this ignores that the platform says:



We have not worked out a specific system to ensure this, but there is some consensus concerning the principle.

No one says they are in favor of the "cycle of socioeconomic marginalization," and most people (short of propertarian fundamentalists) would agree that something should be done about it.

Without a "specific program," it is meaningless.

Which is not true choice or competition.

Nor is private education, or anything that requires others to do something as well as you. But that is in the nature of society.

The time I "wasted" in statistics and science classes tells me that a single unique and isolated case doesn't really prove anything in particular. :)

The time I wasted in bars with other college students tells me that my apathy towards electives was not the unique case.

Why not just allow complete financial aid, like Harvard does? It simply provides all the funding required for your education. It even gives you money if your parents are wealthy... If you need it, you get it, regardless of your socio-economic standing. And not just allow it, but let people know about it --- advertise all over the place.

If all educational institutions were allowed to do this, the results would, theoretically, be wonderful.

And who pays the teachers?

The time I wasted in bars with other college students tells me that my apathy towards electives was not the unique case.

I'm with you, man. Electives were the reason I didn't start going to the community college here, because electives were all they had, and it's still that way. Well, I'm exaggerating, but their other courses are almost completely pointless.

And who pays the teachers?

It's not like everybody would be getting a huge amount of financial aid. Most students would still have to pay full tuition; financial aid isn't just for one purpose.

The time I wasted in bars with other college students tells me that my apathy towards electives was not the unique case.

That was not the unique case to which I was referring. (the time I "wasted" in philosophy/debate-oriented classes helped me recognize the attempt to switch "I learn just fine on my own" with "college students don't like going to class." ;) )

That was not the unique case to which I was referring. (the time I "wasted" in philosophy/debate-oriented classes helped me recognize the attempt to switch "I learn just fine on my own" with "college students don't like going to class." ;) )

My central point was never "I learn just fine on my own", it was "those things I am interested in, I will learn on my own. Those things I am not interested in, I will not learn."

You can't deny that apathetic students, even if they wish to maintain a good GPA, will not learn anything from their classes. The vast majority of business students do not care in the slightest for biology, and those that do not need forced electives to learn about it.

In response to slipping support of libertarian policy within the NS Parliament, I have decided to reorganize the Classic Liberals. I am posting a Statement of Principles without any specific stances listed. Feel free to respond to any percieved flaw, strength, or implication that you see within the Statement,

The meat of the statement is fine. The point of view of the statement is where it leaves me behind. It describes government as an entity seperate and distinct from the citizens (and perhaps a little adversarial to citizens) rather than as something comprised solely of citizens. So it reads a bit like the taming of a lion or the management of a vanquished foe rather than a statement of the best possible system of governing men.

I'd sign to that. Though, I myself find some necessity in the age limits imposed on alcohol. Not twenty-one, mind you, but eighteen. Some things aren't meant for younger ages in my personal opinion. Other than that, I'm all for the ideas outlined.

So it reads a bit like the taming of a lion or the management of a vanquished foe rather than a statement of the best possible system of governing men.
Well, what is government, at least in its traditional form? It's a group of privileged individuals which are put into a position of extraordinary power at the top of a bureaucratic apparatus equipped with a monopoly on violence.

At least government in its traditional form is a foe that should be vanquished. As an alternative, government should be much more direct. Strongly limited by a constitution modelled along the lines of the statement of principles, the few functions that government can legitimately take over should be controlled not by some sort of exclusive club, but perhaps a direct democracy. Similar ideas seem to work well enough in Switzerland, and one can run that sort of thing efficiently these days thanks to technology.

Vittos...count me in.

Why not just allow complete financial aid, like Harvard does? It simply provides all the funding required for your education. It even gives you money if your parents are wealthy... If you need it, you get it, regardless of your socio-economic standing. And not just allow it, but let people know about it --- advertise all over the place.

If all educational institutions were allowed to do this, the results would, theoretically, be wonderful.
You have that starry-eyed look again. :p

Some institutions could give aid, yes. The Ivy Leagues do because they can afford to - they receive massive endowments, contribute significantly to research (for which they are paid), and have many wealthier students. Definitely many private institutions will be able to offer such aid - but not to the same extent as the Ivy League can.

How come they give money to those from wealthy families by the way? Is it in the case that their family won't be financing their education?

The meat of the statement is fine. The point of view of the statement is where it leaves me behind. It describes government as an entity seperate and distinct from the citizens (and perhaps a little adversarial to citizens) rather than as something comprised solely of citizens. So it reads a bit like the taming of a lion or the management of a vanquished foe rather than a statement of the best possible system of governing men.

Government is very much that. Without a serious commitment to the limitation of government (possibly constant revolution), government will evolve into more complicated and detached systems and forms.

For example, the US likes to assume it is democratic (representative democracy, at least). Yet it has resulted more in a dictatorship of a system in that, even were we to replace the whole of the legislative and executive branch down to munipal administration, the legislative system would still be entrenched with decades of work required to remove it.

In a sense, government, without a commitment to control it, will grow to be representative of centuries worth of power struggles, rather than representative of present citizens. That is why the viewpoint of a "separated government" is very useful and currently valid.

I'd sign to that. Though, I myself find some necessity in the age limits imposed on alcohol. Not twenty-one, mind you, but eighteen. Some things aren't meant for younger ages in my personal opinion. Other than that, I'm all for the ideas outlined.

Yes, the platform does call for limitation of rights based on diminished capability, so there is precedent for such legislation.

The rights of the youth is a topic that should be discussed before being scribed into the platform.

Vittos...count me in.

Gladly

I'm with you, man. Electives were the reason I didn't start going to the community college here, because electives were all they had, and it's still that way. Well, I'm exaggerating, but their other courses are almost completely pointless.

The most important thing that needs to be addressed concerning education is the lack of competing forms of higher education. It should be easy to tell that I think higher education should be mainly career oriented (with the possibility of those interested in other higher learning enrolling in other courses), which makes the present norm extremely superflous.

I think it seems logical that there should be a large portion of higher education done through apprenticeship, but most business doesn't rely on this.

Does anyone have any insight onto whether apprenticeship would have a higher prevalence within a natural society? What government policies could have limited this form of education? How standardized universities have become so entrenched?

We should address our economic system, as that will likely be our defining feature as a party.

Issues to discuss:

Monetary Policy
Taxation
Wage Control
Central Banking
Investment Regulation
Public Utilities
International Trade
Collective Bargaining
Corporate Rights

Monetary Policy
Central Banking


Just to throw out some ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_monetary_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LETS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_credit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative#Cooperative_banking_.28Credit_unions_and_Cooperative_savings_banks.29


Taxation



The Autonomist Party calls:
* For the agencies of tax collection to be constructed and to operate as close to the People as possible; this means the application of decentralization and democratic control as with any other government agency, in order to maximize accountability, minimize waste, and to keep collected and spent funds as close to those from whom it was collected.
* For requiring that any and all efforts to raise tax rates, to implement a new tax, or to change the nature of an existing tax, must be approved by referendum, a direct vote of all the People who will be affected by such new policy.
* For exploration, discussion, and education regarding implementation of alternative methods of tax collection, including sales taxes, flat taxes, negative income taxes, user fees, etc.
* For continued exploration and development of new ways to enhance the role of voluntary, community, and cooperative organizations and institutions, as described under sections "The Nature of Economics" and "The Nature of Social Welfare," with the aim of making provision of public services to the People more efficient, less costly, and ultimately less dependent on taxation in the first place.




Wage Control
Collective Bargaining
Public Utilities



[The Autonomist Party calls...]
* For replacement of state ownership and the corporation with employee owned and controlled entities taking any number of possible shapes, for profit or not for profit; mutuals, cooperatives, sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.
* For an endorsement of the virtue of competition and free enterprise, and the establishment of a genuine free market, where "free" represents the freedom from statist coercion, protection, or augmentation; an end to all subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, and other burglary of the full product of the People's labor for the sake of a few well connected tyrants.
* For continued exploration and development of new ways to enhance the role of voluntary, community, and cooperative organizations and institutions, as described under sections "The Nature of Economics" and "The Nature of Social Welfare," with the aim of making provision of public services to the People more efficient, less costly, and ultimately less dependent on taxation in the first place.


In short, let the people own, control, and decide :)



International Trade



[The Autonomist Party calls...] for peaceful relationships with foreign governments, including the pursuit of free trade without tariff or other coercive measures, cultural exchange, educational pursuits, and other similar activities where ever possible. Such efforts will promote constructive partnerships built of peace; the citizens of the world should exchange ideas, cultures, cuisines, knowledge, and good and services, not bullets and bombs.



Corporate Rights


I don't recognize the legitimacy of the concept as it currently exists, so I don't think I can really help here.

Just to throw out some ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_monetary_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LETS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_credit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative#Cooperative_banking_.28Credit_unions_and_Cooperative_savings_banks.29

I do support any monetary or lending system based on the free association of individuals. All of these are attractive options.

As for taxation, the platform does call for the government to be as local as possible, so taxation and spending would also be.

I am torn between negative income taxation and a consumption tax (or possibly a combination). I am reading to find a more conclusive position.

I should post this before I go to bed and everything slides back in my brain:

For concerns of tax policies, I think that there should be two principles that we should concern ourselves with:

1. That government must provide equal treatment in terms of costs and utilities applied to its citizens. (This is an open statement)

2. That the forceful collection of any taxation amounts to theft. Therefore it is not the distribution of tax dollars that we should be principally concerned with, but the limitation of the burden placed upon the taxpayer, not limited to financial costs, but including forced maintenance of financial records and subjection to monitoring by the government.



I personally feel at this point that a consumption tax succeeds in terms of principle #2, as an NRST frees the individual from the watchful eyes of government taxmen, but I fear that it fails to live up to principle #1 in placing an unfair "permission to live" tax upon the poor.

but I fear that it fails to live up to principle #1 in placing an unfair "permission to live" tax upon the poor.
They get permission to live? The nerve! :eek:

I should post this before I go to bed and everything slides back in my brain:

For concerns of tax policies, I think that there should be two principles that we should concern ourselves with:

1. That government must provide equal treatment in terms of costs and utilities applied to its citizens. (This is an open statement)

2. That the forceful collection of any taxation amounts to theft. Therefore it is not the distribution of tax dollars that we should be principally concerned with, but the limitation of the burden placed upon the taxpayer, not limited to financial costs, but including forced maintenance of financial records and subjection to monitoring by the government.



I personally feel at this point that a consumption tax succeeds in terms of principle #2, as an NRST frees the individual from the watchful eyes of government taxmen, but I fear that it fails to live up to principle #1 in placing an unfair "permission to live" tax upon the poor.

You can fulfill #1 by giving everyone a certain rebate to cover taxes up to a certain point.

You can fulfill #1 by giving everyone a certain rebate to cover taxes up to a certain point.
Friedman-style...just give every person (including children) a few thousand dollars free. So a household with four people would get 4 * $X, even if there is only one income earner.

That makes having kids more attractive too.

http://img194.echo.cx/img194/5504/ratattack7zk.jpg

I am torn between negative income taxation and a consumption tax (or possibly a combination). I am reading to find a more conclusive position.
Rothbard makes a simple, yet devastating critique of the -ve income tax.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty8.asp

The Negative Income Tax

Unfortunately, the recent trend—embraced by a wide spectrum of advocates (with unimportant modifications) from President Nixon to Milton Friedman on the right to a large number on the left—is to abolish the current welfare system not in the direction of freedom but toward its very opposite. This new trend is the "guaranteed annual income" or "negative income tax," or President Nixon's "Family Assistance Plan." Citing the inefficiencies, inequities, and red tape of the present system, the guaranteed annual income would make the dole easy, "effi*cient," and automatic: The income tax authorities will pay money each year to families earning below a certain base income—this automatic dole to be financed, of course, by taxing working families making more than the base amount. Estimated costs of this seemingly neat and simple scheme are supposed to be only a few billion dollars per year.

But there is an extremely important catch: the costs are estimated on the assumption that everyone—the people on the universal dole as well as those financing it—will continue to work to the same extent as before. But this assumption begs the question. For the chief problem is the enormously crippling disincentive effect the guaranteed annual income will have on taxpayer and recipient alike.

The one element that saves the present welfare system from being an utter disaster is precisely the red tape and the stigma involved in going on welfare. The welfare recipient still bears a psychic stigma, even though weakened in recent years, and he still has to face a typically inefficient, impersonal, and tangled bureaucracy. But the guaranteed annual income, precisely by making the dole efficient, easy, and automatic, will remove the major obstacles, the major disincentives, to the "supply function" for welfare, and will lead to a massive flocking to the guaran*teed dole. Moreover, everyone will now consider the new dole as an automatic "right" rather than as a privilege or gift, and all stigma will be removed.

Suppose, for example, that $4,000 per year is declared the "poverty line," and that everyone earning income below that line receives the difference from Uncle Sam automatically as a result of filling out his income tax return. Those making zero income will receive $4000 from the government, those making $3,000 will get $1,000, and so on. It seems clear that there will be no real reason for anyone making less than $4,000 a year to keep on working. Why should he, when his nonworking neigh*bor will wind up with the same income as himself? In short, the net income from working will then be zero, and the entire working popula*tion below the magic $4,000 line will quit work and flock to its "rightful" dole.

But this is not all; what of the people making either $4,000, or slightly or even moderately above that line? The man making $4,500 a year will soon find that the lazy slob next door who refuses to work will be getting his $4,000 a year from the federal government; his own net income from forty hours a week of hard work will be only $500 a year. So he will quit work and go on the negative-tax dole. The same will undoubtedly hold true for those making $5,000 a year, etc.

The baleful process is not over. As all the people making below $4,000 and even considerably above $4000 leave work and go on the dole, the total dole payments will skyrocket enormously, and they can only be financed by taxing more heavily the higher income folk who will continue to work. But then their net, after-tax incomes will fall sharply, until many of them will quit work and go on the dole too. Let us contem*plate the man making $6,000 a year. He is, at the outset, faced with a net income from working of only $2,000, and if he has to pay, let us say, $500 a year to finance the dole of the nonworkers, his net after-tax income will be only $1,500 a year. If he then has to pay another $1,000 to finance the rapid expansion of others on the dole, his net income will fall to $500 and he will go on the dole. Thus, the logical conclusion of the guaranteed annual income will be a vicious spiral into disaster, heading toward the logical and impossible goal of virtually no one work*ing, and everyone on the dole.

In addition to all this, there are some important extra considerations. In practice, of course, the dole, once set at $4000, will not remain there; irresistible pressure by welfare clients and other pressure groups will inexorably raise the base level every year, thereby bringing the vicious spiral and economic disaster that much closer. In practice, too, the guar*anteed annual income will not, as in the hopes of its conservative advo*cates, replace the existing patchwork welfare system; it will simply be added on top of the existing programs. This, for example, is precisely what happened to the states' old-age relief programs. The major talking point of the New Deal's federal Social Security program was that it would efficiently replace the then existing patchwork old-age relief pro*grams of the states. In practice, of course, it did no such thing, and old-age relief is far higher now than it was in the 1930s. An ever-rising Social Security structure was simply placed on top of existing programs. In practice, finally, President Nixon's sop to conservatives that able-bodied recipients of the new dole would be forced to work is a patent phony. They would, for one thing, only have to find "suitable" work, and it is the universal experience of state unemployment relief agencies that almost no "suitable" jobs are ever found.45

The various schemes for a guaranteed annual income are no genuine replacement for the universally acknowledged evils of the welfare sys*tem; they would only plunge us still more deeply into those evils. The only workable solution is the libertarian one: the abolition of the welfare dole in favor of freedom and voluntary action for all persons, rich and poor alike.

I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion - I think it's unrealistic. But his critique is a rather well-thought out reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, a consumption tax might be best, especially with rebates in mind.

That was a point of division amongst the old NSCL.

I, personally, support the complete elimination of the Federal Reserve, the complete elimination of legal tender laws, complete elimination of government minting and government controls over minting (except, of course, laws against fraud), as well as a total separation between banking and state.Speaking of fraud, you will need a strict legal definition determining the difference between fraud and caveat emptor.

You can fulfill #1 by giving everyone a certain rebate to cover taxes up to a certain point.

Friedman-style...just give every person (including children) a few thousand dollars free. So a household with four people would get 4 * $X, even if there is only one income earner.

That makes having kids more attractive too.

If we are to do this, why would we even institute and NRST, considering it would maintain all of the method-specific problems of the income tax?

Rothbard makes a simple, yet devastating critique of the -ve income tax.

I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion - I think it's unrealistic. But his critique is a rather well-thought out reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, a consumption tax might be best, especially with rebates in mind.

When has Rothbard not been extremely critical of any tax? It is his thinking that prompted my second principle, as it is plain that he believes all taxation is invalid, and that the concentration should not be on forms, but on amount.

Here is an essay where he attempts to show the impossibility of the consumption tax.

http://www.mises.org/story/1768

It should be noted that I disagree with his stance on the ability of market price to increase with the implementation of a general sales tax. If investment/saving preference is unaffected by a consumption tax, and we assume that an elimination of the income tax increases the amount of disposable income, we can assume that the increase in demand will support the increase in prices.

Perhaps, as you are more familiar with Austrian Economics, you can explain the error in my thinking.

I also disagree with Rothbard's assessment of the social stigma of welfare in the article you posted. It is not drawing welfare income that is stigmatized, more specifically the drawing of unearned income. I see no difference in that matter between welfare and the negative income tax.

Speaking of fraud, you will need a strict legal definition determining the difference between fraud and caveat emptor.

I would imagine the difference would lie in the use of willful misrepresentation as a form of coersion.

When has Rothbard not been extremely critical of any tax? It is his thinking that prompted my second principle, as it is plain that he believes all taxation is invalid, and that the concentration should not be on forms, but on amount.
He is a market anarchist, so this is natural. :) Still, the fact that he is rigidly opposed to all forms of taxation means he can give some valuable critiques that proponents might otherwise not have seen.

Here is an essay where he attempts to show the impossibility of the consumption tax.

http://www.mises.org/story/1768

It should be noted that I disagree with his stance on the ability of market price to increase with the implementation of a general sales tax. If investment/saving preference is unaffected by a consumption tax, and we assume that an elimination of the income tax increases the amount of disposable income, we can assume that the increase in demand will support the increase in prices.

Perhaps, as you are more familiar with Austrian Economics, you can explain the error in my thinking.
I see no error in your thinking. Keep in mind for Rothbard, no compromise was good enough - he saw minarchism as an unfulfilled stage of market anarchism. I'm not too well-read with regard to Rothbard though, so I'll get back to you on this at a later stage.

I also disagree with Rothbard's assessment of the social stigma of welfare in the article you posted. It is not drawing welfare income that is stigmatized, more specifically the drawing of unearned income. I see no difference in that matter between welfare and the negative income tax.
He wrote this piece of work decades ago though - during his time there was likely a greater stigma associated with it.

In response to slipping support of libertarian policy within the NS Parliament, I have decided to reorganize the Classic Liberals. I am posting a Statement of Principles without any specific stances listed. Feel free to respond to any percieved flaw, strength, or implication that you see within the Statement, and also propose possible stances to issues. All input and all perspective members are welcome.

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

Statement of Principles

We, the Classic Liberal Party of NationStates General, stand on the belief that the only role of government is to afford the individual the dignity of self-determination. In this we must deny the right of government to interfere into the free and voluntary speech, beliefs, and actions of the individual. Government has long sought to control the lifestyles and associations of those unlucky enough to be subject to it.

Therefore, where government exists, we demand that it must respect:

1. The right to free expression of, and access to, ideas, beliefs, and information.

2. The right to free association.

3. The right to property as an extension of oneself and one's labor.

The affordance of self-determination does, however, provide a positive role in the life of the individual, as no individual should live without the means to the basic opportunities to exert dominion over their own lives; nor should it the individual be subordinated to the forceful or fraudulent actions of others.

Therefore, where government exists, we demand that it must provide:

1. Prohibition of the use of force between citizens.

2. Prohibition of fraudulent activity.

3. Avenues for all to recieve the education and healthcare necessary to escape the cycle of socioeconomic marginalization.

Most importantly, government must be equally responsive to all of its citizens.

Therefore where government imparts these provisions and prohibitions, we damand that it:

1. Provides equal utility and freedom to all of its citizenry in proportion to their comprehension of the obligations that these rights carry.

2. Administer the function of government at the lowest possible level, with democratic input being as direct as possible.

Through all of this, we hope to allow people the autonomy to live their life as they please, while providing for themselves and others freely, through their own labor, and as free traders of the product of that labor.


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

I. The Rights of the Individual

1. The most egregious error of government throughout history has been the "presumption of knowing better." Those in power have always presumed that they were better inclined than the individual to make life choices for that individual. We must accept that, while we may not agree with the choice another makes, we must allow them the right to make that choice, if we are to claim that right for ourselves.

Therefore, this error must be remedied by allowing the individual the freedom of choice and the freedom to accept the concequences of that choice. This can only be solved by removing all laws that reflect government's "presumption of knowing better."

Therefore the NS Classic Liberal Party proposes:

A. To repeal all legislation against victimless crimes, including but not limited to:

i. Laws prohibiting the sale, use, production, or possession of all drugs.
ii. Laws prohibiting the sale and use of alcohol, as well as laws making seller liable for the actions of the purchaser of alcohol.
iii. Laws prohibiting the sale or possession of pornographic materials.
iv. Laws prohibiting prostitution.
v. Laws prohibiting gambling.
vi. Laws prohibiting suicide and euthenasia

We furthermore demand the release and exoneration of all individuals charged and convicted of such crimes.

B. To place government into the role of protector of, rather than threat to, sovereign individual rights. To accomplish this, we:

i. Oppose forced medical treatment of all individuals.
ii. Support the prohibition of excessive force by police officers.
iii. Oppose any conscription into the military or mandatory civil service.
iv. Support the rights of women to maintain control of her reproductive functions.



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

Members:
Vittos the City Sacker
Wilgrove
Nevered
Esternarx
Europa Maxima
Zaire
Colerica
Neu Leonstein


I want to join! Youve summed up my politics perfectly.

He is a market anarchist, so this is natural. :) Still, the fact that he is rigidly opposed to all forms of taxation means he can give some valuable critiques that proponents might otherwise not have seen.

Certainly, he will be very influential in whatever scheme this party accepts.

Zolworld, you are added.

All opinions are welcome, silence is respected. Provide as little or as much input as you feel comfortable.

Certainly, he will be very influential in whatever scheme this party accepts.
Not overly influential though. ;) I prefer Hoppe to him. And for a party aiming at a broader platform, Mises (or Hayek, or Friedman of the non-Austrians) is yet more preferrable. It's worthwhile evaluating the work of any Austrians (or even non-Austrians) one may come across though - many of them have useful input.

EDIT: Can I assume that you wish to be listed as a member?

sorry to be so late in responding, but no: don't list me as a member.

I'm mainly taking part in this discussion because I'm bored, but as a whole, i'm not really taking part in the NS general parties.

If i was to take a part, I would join this one, though :p

Speaking of fraud, you will need a strict legal definition determining the difference between fraud and caveat emptor.

I'd imagine something along the lines of implicit contract, using arbitration and somewhat flexible guidelines. Implicit contract would be like the following- If I pay you money to buy cornflakes, and you give me a box marked "Cornflakes" that actually only has paper tissue in it, you've broken implicit contract. If you give me the cornflakes but have thoroughly covered them in ciyanide, you've also broken implicit contract. It's kind of simple, but I don't want to get deep into it right now.

If we are to do this, why would we even institute and NRST, considering it would maintain all of the method-specific problems of the income tax?

The advantage of the NRST is that it is A.) A flat rate for all goods that is only collected at one level and reduces tax accounting to retail, as opposed to every individual, and B.) The rebate is a set amount of money that does not penalize people through progressivity for working more, yet still is not punitive to the poor.

Not overly influential though. ;) I prefer Hoppe to him. And for a party aiming at a broader platform, Mises (or Hayek, or Friedman of the non-Austrians) is yet more preferrable. It's worthwhile evaluating the work of any Austrians (or even non-Austrians) one may come across though - many of them have useful input.

I prefer Rothbard to all of them as it concerns politics. Mises is great for a rationalization of our principles, and Friedman may provide insight to more practical policy, but I find Rothbard superior.

I prefer Rothbard to all of them as it concerns politics. Mises is great for a rationalization of our principles, and Friedman may provide insight to more practical policy, but I find Rothbard superior.
He was Mises' most cherished student. :) And a damn good economist too - I like Hoppe better though; we have many similar viewpoints, and he did after all lead me to Libertarianism. ^^

He was Mises' most cherished student. :) And a damn good economist too - I like Hoppe better though; we have many similar viewpoints, and he did after all lead me to Libertarianism. ^^

A couple of Mexican Army soldiers with M16s at a drug checkpoint led to to libertarianism. That and the contrast between the fat police and the mostly starving general population. This was back when I had convinced myself of the virtues of state socialism; didn't sleep much that night.

The advantage of the NRST is that it is A.) A flat rate for all goods that is only collected at one level and reduces tax accounting to retail, as opposed to every individual

Yes, it is my opinion, that if we consider the net taxation the same for all forms of possible tax policy, then we must consider those policies which limit the indirect burden on the individual to be superior.

The rebate is a set amount of money that does not penalize people through progressivity for working more, yet still is not punitive to the poor.

I would say, rather, that a consumption tax taxes true income, capital goods, instead of wages.

That the NRST is not punitive to the poor is debatable. Rothbard states in the article I posted:

The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.

This fee would seem to be much more ponderous upon the poor.

A couple of Mexican Army soldiers with M16s at a drug checkpoint led to to libertarianism. That and the contrast between the fat police and the mostly starving general population. This was back when I had convinced myself of the virtues of state socialism; didn't sleep much that night.
Meh, I was leaning towards fascism at a point in time - after reading Hoppe's works though (he basically performs a reductio ad absurdum on the status quo), it became patently clear to me that I'm libertarian. Essentially, the book helped me better focus my beliefs.

This was back when I had convinced myself of the virtues of state socialism; didn't sleep much that night.

Mexico has what to do with state socialism?

Yes, it is my opinion, that if we consider the net taxation the same for all forms of possible tax policy, then we must consider those policies which limit the indirect burden on the individual to be superior.

w00t! Glad we agree. (You get a gold star ;))

I would say, rather, that a consumption tax taxes true income, capital goods, instead of wages.

Mmmm, I'd rather say that the tax taxes consumption, which is the end point of all economic activity (whether it be individual consumption or government consumption). It is goes with the final step of economic progress, affecting only true wealth, as opposed to making the entire process of making that wealth difficult.

That the NRST is not punitive to the poor is debatable. Rothbard states in the article I posted:



This fee would seem to be much more ponderous upon the poor.

Yes, consumption taxes are hardest on the poor, because the poor consume more of their money than they save or spend. If left unadjusted, the tax would be regressive- taxing the poor a greater percentage of their income than the rich. However, with a rebate, the tax is no longer punitive to them, but the rates remain the same and everyone can get the same rebate, thus having the tax law treat everyone equally.

Edit: Can I be an associate to the party? I don't want to be a full-member, seeing as how I am leading the FRP, as well as disagreeing with one pivotal part of the platform, but I agree with a lot of what y'all say and hope I am contributing to the development of the CL.

Government is very much that. Without a serious commitment to the limitation of government (possibly constant revolution), government will evolve into more complicated and detached systems and forms.

For example, the US likes to assume it is democratic (representative democracy, at least). Yet it has resulted more in a dictatorship of a system in that, even were we to replace the whole of the legislative and executive branch down to munipal administration, the legislative system would still be entrenched with decades of work required to remove it.

In a sense, government, without a commitment to control it, will grow to be representative of centuries worth of power struggles, rather than representative of present citizens. That is why the viewpoint of a "separated government" is very useful and currently valid.


Yes I get that power corrupts and absolute pow...blah blah blah. I get that a government left to its own devices goes mad and becomes the worst and least humane thing humans construct. however since this government you are constructing from scratch is meant to cure some of these evils and serve the people it should be regarded as such. If you want any group of people to act evil just treat them like they are evil and you will get your wish. This includes the group collectively known as the government. The government is not as you suggest demons waiting for a chance at our throats when we arent looking. The "government" is citizens. If you want a government to treat it's citizens as always on the verge of a civil war or an attempted coup then write the constitution in a way that has only contempt for the government and no respect or trust that your ideas are sound enough to keep the government in check with respect. Of course government needs to be watched to prevent abuse, but at the same time the people in it deserve the same respect given to any other citizen. If anyone in government is to be held in suspicion and contempt simply because they are involved in government then youve shot your government in the foot and declared civil war on yourself before your government ever passes a single law.

Mexico has what to do with state socialism?

What I described started pre-2000, before the Partido Acción Nacional got into power. The Partido Revolucionario Institucional is (supposed to be) left-wing/socialist (Wikipedia describes it as "democratic" socialist, as well as a member of the Socialist International (http://www.socialistinternational.org/2Members/who.html#full)). But this isn't really the point; state socialist was becoming more and more my conviction (including attempts to justify it with strong individualist convictions), until I visited a country with a highly corrupt and throughly undemocratic government, where upon my trust in government was basically exploded overnight.

What I described started pre-2000, before the Partido Acción Nacional got into power. The Partido Revolucionario Institucional is (supposed to be) left-wing/socialist (Wikipedia describes it as "democratic" socialist, as well as a member of the Socialist International (http://www.socialistinternational.org/2Members/who.html#full)).

The Socialist International should not be taken seriously. Tony Blair's party is a member, after all.

The PRI was hardly even nominally left-wing for its last two decades in power, anyway.

But this isn't really the point; state socialist was becoming more and more my conviction (including attempts to justify it with strong individualist convictions), until I visited a country with a highly corrupt and throughly undemocratic government, where upon my trust in government was basically exploded overnight.

I can understand it exploding your trust in "highly corrupt and thoroughly undemocratic" governments, but why extend the sentiment generally?

My own anti-statism comes from observation of the abuses of the rulers of this country - with all of our supposed democracy and liberalism.

The Socialist International should not be taken seriously. Tony Blair's party is a member, after all.

The PRI was hardly even nominally left-wing for its last two decades in power, anyway.


Like I said, "(supposed to be)."


I can understand it exploding your trust in "highly corrupt and thoroughly undemocratic" governments, but why extend the sentiment generally?


Because hearing about corruption and abuse of power is one thing, and seeing it with one's own eyes is another thing entirely. Even as almost infinitely better life is here north of the border, what I observed on the other side created a little "splinter in the brain," if you will, leaving me wondering...


My own anti-statism comes from observation of the abuses of the rulers of this country - with all of our supposed democracy and liberalism.


...just what do they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician) really want, and who's going to stop them? One already has doubts, and stepping outside and into the reservation to meet with a Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_new_world) only enhances the effect.

Of course government needs to be watched to prevent abuse, but at the same time the people in it deserve the same respect given to any other citizen.
Certainly - for this purpose:

i) Public law should not take precedence over private law - all citizens should be subject to the same laws. Then the government no longer enjoys a position of privilege. It should simply have enough power to carry out its work, and that is all. Law in its current form gives the government immense powers to abuse.

ii) This illusion that democracy is "government of, by and for the people" should be dispelled. One must recognise that in representative democracies a group is governing on behalf of the people, no more than a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or whatever, is doing so. Once one enters government they are the governing body, and not the governed. This distinction is essential. We should not, indeed, view the governors with hostility, but for our own sakes, we should definitely view them with suspicion.

i) Public law should not take precedence over private law


What exactly constitutes "private law?" What exactly is the difference between it and "public law?"

I've a feeling there isn't any, but...

The government is not as you suggest demons waiting for a chance at our throats when we arent looking.

Yes, it is. At every point in history where responsible individuals have loosened the slack on government, the government goes for throats.

That is the nature of the beast, when the majority become complacent, the extremes gain far more power.

The "government" is citizens. If you want a government to treat it's citizens as always on the verge of a civil war or an attempted coup then write the constitution in a way that has only contempt for the government and no respect or trust that your ideas are sound enough to keep the government in check with respect. Of course government needs to be watched to prevent abuse, but at the same time the people in it deserve the same respect given to any other citizen. If anyone in government is to be held in suspicion and contempt simply because they are involved in government then youve shot your government in the foot and declared civil war on yourself before your government ever passes a single law.

Is this more of a rant against libertarians and anarchists, or is this actually stemming from our manifesto?

While our manifesto does make a point to list the dangers of government and makes limitations on what those that compose government can and cannot do in relation to the individual, it is also supportive of government that does not overstep, rather protecting those boundaries.

What exactly constitutes "private law?" What exactly is the difference between it and "public law?"

I've a feeling there isn't any, but...
Public law is that which governs the actions of governmental officials and government in general - an example of a typical form of public law is criminal law - it pressuposes the State is superior in some regards. Private law concerns individuals - a typical example is contract law. The distinction is becoming blurry, but public law gives governmental officials many immunities and powers they oughtn't enjoy. It becomes problematic when it begins consuming more "territory" than private law.

Bump

Public law is that which governs the actions of governmental officials and government in general - an example of a typical form of public law is criminal law - it pressuposes the State is superior in some regards. Private law concerns individuals - a typical example is contract law. The distinction is becoming blurry, but public law gives governmental officials many immunities and powers they oughtn't enjoy. It becomes problematic when it begins consuming more "territory" than private law.

I was confused because I've always heard the above described in terms of "criminal" and "civil" law. I just finished reading a chapter in one of my textbooks on the Canadian government that describes "public" vs. "private" law; I understand the new terminology much better now. Occasionally, the local "libertarians" like to write "letters to the editor" in the newspaper about how law should be privatised and administered by a private for-profit court system. Besides being an insane idea, I initially thought that this what was meant by "private" law.

I was confused because I've always heard the above described in terms of "criminal" and "civil" law. I just finished reading a chapter in one of my textbooks on the Canadian government that describes "public" vs. "private" law; I understand the new terminology much better now. Occasionally, the local "libertarians" like to write "letters to the editor" in the newspaper about how law should be privatised and administered by a private for-profit court system. Besides being an insane idea, I initially thought that this what was meant by "private" law.
Oh, no. It's a distinction that exists within legal systems.

As for private courts, the assumption usually is that the State provides courts in tandem with these competing courts, but that the Court of last appeal is always state owned. Given the burden that current courts face worldwide, and the fact that they are becoming inefficient, it's a good idea. After all, there is always a court of last resort. The law itself is not privatised - just the fora by which it is provided. Very few would argue for the court system to be entirely privatised. Even if they did though, the courts would have to abide by the laws of the nation, and would still be binded to the decisions of the highest court.

So, can I be added to the rolls as an associate? :D

Griell, you have been added.

Griell, you have been added.

w00t! Austrian economics FTW!

It seems there is a movement towards a new election commencing, and I would not like to fall behind.


BUMP

All right, well you know that I'm in on this with you.

Election shmelection. We're not going to win in this commie-infested hellhole and you know it.

We have to take action!

I say that when the election is over, we storm NSG Parliament and take control by force. I got dibs on the Throne of Universal Power.

Fine by me. I'm more of am eminence grise type anyway. I'll be the one pulling your strings. :)

On taxes I do wonder which would actually be better. On income we have the apparatus to acquire it which is expensive and hard to deal with, while on consumption we have issues with possible black markets arising. The real question ends up being on which one really poses the most threat.

I would support central banking more though than previous posters have stated a support of, if only because such would provide a center of stability and because such is more mainstream and has more broad appeal. It can be noted that this does go against individuals but it can avoid a lot of legislative abuse and still aid towards keeping a relatively stable economy, which would be important given the other massive changes. We also do need a common medium of exchange for purposes of efficiency, even if imposed by government fiat, as to maintain certain important systems.

What is the stance on health care? How are we dealing with the conflict between individual interests, and those of efficiency. It can be noted that health insurance is a market where it is argued asymmetrical information does some damage, but that does lead to questions on proper policy.

Are we going to push for certain changes in the legal system? Including issues on the death penalty, punishment, how legal systems are set up. Is there any work that needs to be done in order to improve legal efficacy such as tort reform and other things?

I'd like to join the party; I think I did in the past but I might have forgotten. Either way I support the platform in question.

Election shmelection. We're not going to win in this commie-infested hellhole and you know it.

We have to take action!

I say that when the election is over, we storm NSG Parliament and take control by force. I got dibs on the Throne of Universal Power.

Screw force, that costs too much.

Lets revolt and profit from it, too. (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geup.6IMVFgxUBqEVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3cXRxamdyBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANERkQ1X zExMg--/SIG=122lio773/EXP=1170633274/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics)

I'm in, even though I'm not a fan of the Austrians. :p

I would support central banking more though than previous posters have stated a support of, if only because such would provide a center of stability and because such is more mainstream and has more broad appeal. It can be noted that this does go against individuals but it can avoid a lot of legislative abuse and still aid towards keeping a relatively stable economy, which would be important given the other massive changes. We also do need a common medium of exchange for purposes of efficiency, even if imposed by government fiat, as to maintain certain important systems.

I question the stability that central banking provides, but I don't question that it is widely percieved that central banking does provide stability.

I would not oppose the government maintaining a central bank, however, it must do so under market principles by allowing private banking and eliminating legal tender laws.

If there is a need for a common medium for exchange, and if the government provides the best service, then it need not enforce its monopoly through violence.

What is the stance on health care? How are we dealing with the conflict between individual interests, and those of efficiency. It can be noted that health insurance is a market where it is argued asymmetrical information does some damage, but that does lead to questions on proper policy.

I was vague in the manifesto, for healthcare I stated:

"[Government should provide] avenues for all to recieve the education and healthcare necessary to escape the cycle of socioeconomic marginalization."

I will fully acknowledge that the mercantilist/corporatist progression towards modern times (and the subsequent dialetical regulatory progression) have entrenched

Are we going to push for certain changes in the legal system? Including issues on the death penalty, punishment, how legal systems are set up. Is there any work that needs to be done in order to improve legal efficacy such as tort reform and other things?

There is a lot that can be done to improve the legal system, some may argue complete privatization. I don't believe it would be practical to fit that into the platform or run the party around it, but I wouldn't know where to start on the problems of the current system.

I'm in, even though I'm not a fan of the Austrians. :p
Eh, you'll come to like us in time. :) Given that it's a classical liberal "party" though, Chicagoites are more than welcome.

Hi, longtime NSG lurker, finally decided to actually start posting.

I'd like to join NSCL

I added two new members and a section on taxation.

Hi, longtime NSG lurker, finally decided to actually start posting.

I'd like to join NSCL

Welcome to the party and NSG, Deus.

I question the stability that central banking provides, but I don't question that it is widely percieved that central banking does provide stability. Even this perception is important though. I tend to view a stable currency a necessity for functioning economic policies though, and think that such does help.

I would not oppose the government maintaining a central bank, however, it must do so under market principles by allowing private banking and eliminating legal tender laws.The question with that is an issue of stability, a central bank's power is weakened by such measures and you KNOW it is weakened by such measures. The issue of legal tender though ends up leading to conflicts with taxation policies though, and this entanglement is difficult to deal with. I am not an Austrian, Austrianism and Austrian ideas only have appeal to me based upon how close they actually get to more mainstream thought.

If there is a need for a common medium for exchange, and if the government provides the best service, then it need not enforce its monopoly through violence. There is a need if one is going to collect taxes. Most versions of governments do have to collect taxes, therefore a common currency is best. Whether or not others agree with this means little in terms of a working system, people do not make choices considering only measures such as efficiency, but efficiency is a high need for any system and I don't think that the average person will trust their fellow man to choose the most efficient system for transactions and this can lead to exchange rate problems and such.


I was vague in the manifesto, for healthcare I stated:

"[Government should provide] avenues for all to recieve the education and healthcare necessary to escape the cycle of socioeconomic marginalization."

I will fully acknowledge that the mercantilist/corporatist progression towards modern times (and the subsequent dialetical regulatory progression) have entrenched That is very vague and tells me nothing. It is likely to be a voucher system for both then given the spirit of the party and the claims in the manifesto. Is there going to be any regulation of any form to determine where these vouchers go to?



There is a lot that can be done to improve the legal system, some may argue complete privatization. I don't believe it would be practical to fit that into the platform or run the party around it, but I wouldn't know where to start on the problems of the current system.If it is complete privatization then no it would not be wise. I am not going to vote for the NS Anarcho-Capitalists, I would not be surprised if those who are not as deeply entrenched into Austrian thought will feel the same.

I am not an Austrian, Austrianism and Austrian ideas only have appeal to me based upon how close they actually get to more mainstream thought.
Laissez-faire economics in general tends to be rather far off "mainstream" thought, including so-called Chicago economics (the only way in which it is mainstream is its basis on empirical methodology). In what sense are you a classical liberal?

If it is complete privatization then no it would not be wise. I am not going to vote for the NS Anarcho-Capitalists, I would not be surprised if those who are not as deeply entrenched into Austrian thought will feel the same.
I doubt there are non-Austrian anarcho-capitalists on NSG, although it's always a possibility (Chicagoites can go that far too).

(To Vittos: Why don't the other radical libertarian parties on the boards simply join forces with us?)

Therefore where government imparts these provisions and prohibitions, we damand that it:


I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but notice a rather glaring typo here. Shouldn't it be demand?

Laissez-faire economics in general tends to be rather far off "mainstream" thought, including so-called Chicago economics (the only way in which it is mainstream is its basis on empirical methodology). In what sense are you a classical liberal? Hasn't the Chicago school gotten more credibility though given the number of Nobel Prizes won? And haven't many of Milton Friedman's ideas gotten more respect with time? Considering that many ideas in many countries within the mainstream do fall in line with Chicagoite ideas, even in developed countries such as the US, I would consider them more mainstream. As well, doesn't the mainstream also acknowledge the importance of free trade, some simplicity in tax structures, the possibility of damage by certain regulations, the importance of some property rights structures and even the dislike of some aspects of paternalism? I consider myself Classical Liberal in that I do think that for the most part individual rights are important and that government should let individuals decide their actions and deal with the ramifications of such. I think that by simplifying our tax structures we will benefit. I think that decriminalization of certain activities can benefit our economy. I think that more left-winged economic policies can lead to clashes between the individual's rights or responsibilities and the state's control. I think that more right winged social policies tend to be too authoritarian. I think that the market does work for the most part. Really, the areas where the most clash was coming in was in areas where policies were leaning quite far from mainstream, unless you remember Chicagoite Milton Friedman being an advocate for a completely private banking system? I remember those ideas being Austrian and promoted by thinkers such as Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek.

I doubt there are non-Austrian anarcho-capitalists on NSG, although it's always a possibility (Chicagoites can go that far too). I know, I read a Price Theory book by David Friedman and have read a few articles by Bryan Kaplan and both are not Austrians.

Even this perception is important though. I tend to view a stable currency a necessity for functioning economic policies though, and think that such does help.

First off, why do you think private currencies would be unstable, and why do you think that a government currency necessarily is?

The question with that is an issue of stability, a central bank's power is weakened by such measures and you KNOW it is weakened by such measures. The issue of legal tender though ends up leading to conflicts with taxation policies though, and this entanglement is difficult to deal with. I am not an Austrian, Austrianism and Austrian ideas only have appeal to me based upon how close they actually get to more mainstream thought.

There is nothing barring the government from collecting taxes through the federal currency, even if legal tender laws are eliminated.

And yes I do realize that the central bank is weakened, that is the point.

There is a need if one is going to collect taxes. Most versions of governments do have to collect taxes, therefore a common currency is best. Whether or not others agree with this means little in terms of a working system, people do not make choices considering only measures such as efficiency, but efficiency is a high need for any system and I don't think that the average person will trust their fellow man to choose the most efficient system for transactions and this can lead to exchange rate problems and such.

I don't agree with any of this.

It is quite possible for government to issue the requisite currency with which to collect their taxes. It is then up to the individual to obtain this standard currency in order to pay the government back.

As for exchange rate problems, I need not trust my fellow man nor worry about efficiency as technology has made systems of currency and bartering that makes hard currency obsolete.

That is very vague and tells me nothing. It is likely to be a voucher system for both then given the spirit of the party and the claims in the manifesto. Is there going to be any regulation of any form to determine where these vouchers go to?

This hasn't been discussed. I believe low or zero real interest loans for education should be provided. Healthcare could be handled through vouchers and bankruptcy protection. With both, I do not support regulation on how individuals might spend this on, as long as they don't get a blank check on continued spending.

In other words, give them a lump sum, let them do with it as they see fit, and when its gone, its gone.

If it is complete privatization then no it would not be wise. I am not going to vote for the NS Anarcho-Capitalists, I would not be surprised if those who are not as deeply entrenched into Austrian thought will feel the same.

And I never intended for this party to be ancap, the manifesto wasn't an ancap manifesto. I more or less consider this a transitional party.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but notice a rather glaring typo here. Shouldn't it be demand?

Fixed.

If that was a "glaring typo" to you, you are a very keen observer.

Hasn't the Chicago school gotten more credibility though given the number of Nobel Prizes won? And haven't many of Milton Friedman's ideas gotten more respect with time? Considering that many ideas in many countries within the mainstream do fall in line with Chicagoite ideas, even in developed countries such as the US, I would consider them more mainstream.
You'd be surprised by just how many "mainstream" economists acknowledge and use Austrian theories without their knowing it (and even Austrian methodology). That said, you are correct, the CS is relatively more mainstream - but again, its more extreme ideas are hardly mainstream either. Anything heavily laissez-faire isn't.

Really, the areas where the most clash was coming in was in areas where policies were leaning quite far from mainstream, unless you remember Chicagoite Milton Friedman being an advocate for a completely private banking system? I remember those ideas being Austrian and promoted by thinkers such as Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek..
Definitely, but Friedman is hardly the only Chicagoite out there.

Anyway, given what you said you seem to belong here, so nice to have you over. :)

First off, why do you think private currencies would be unstable, and why do you think that a government currency necessarily is? Government currency is more stable because it is designed specifically for stability. Private currencies may end up having problems with this aspect such as Gold or other things because of the fact that outside circumstances will affect their workability by a lot. As well, I distrust private currency because it seems more problematic than one currency even if it is fiat. Finally, I think that monetary policy is not a horrible thing to have either, so long as dealing with inflation is held as an important goal, and so long as the position is depoliticized. Can you really give me too many non-ideological stances, or non-Austrian stances on why the federal reserve is a bad system? After all, I think that a large part of the real issue of desiring private money in the first place was the fact that governments too often sought ill-sighted inflationary policies which was one of the reasons why the Gold standard was promoted despite its inferiority on certain issues.


There is nothing barring the government from collecting taxes through the federal currency, even if legal tender laws are eliminated. Except that it leads to issues with federal collection of such things. We cannot get a sales tax on something if it is paid in beef jerky, and we need to get sales taxes in order to fund the government. To be honest, I don't see a need to rigidly enforce the legal tender, however, because of necessary governmental intervention in tax collection we do need to enforce it in matters that affect that.

And yes I do realize that the central bank is weakened, that is the point. It is also the problem with such an idea. I don't want to weaken the central bank, if anything the central bank should be the last item to go anyway. Really, I don't think that most people who are not Austrian will really agree with this either. This is a 5 point question on Bryan Caplan's "are you a libertarian test" it is given the same weight as saying that you are an anarcho-capitalist.


I don't agree with any of this.

It is quite possible for government to issue the requisite currency with which to collect their taxes. It is then up to the individual to obtain this standard currency in order to pay the government back. And significantly less efficient, and because taxations are based upon transactions, non standard monetary transactions lead to problems in terms of collection. I don't agree with your point on non-standard money. I think we will be fine with government fiat currency so long as we maintain it at a stable level.

As for exchange rate problems, I need not trust my fellow man nor worry about efficiency as technology has made systems of currency and bartering that makes hard currency obsolete. Yeah, no, it still leads to inefficiency. We still use hard currency all the time.


This hasn't been discussed. I believe low or zero real interest loans for education should be provided. Healthcare could be handled through vouchers and bankruptcy protection. With both, I do not support regulation on how individuals might spend this on, as long as they don't get a blank check on continued spending. What level of education? I think that we should instead go for a voucher system for certain levels of education at minimum, so that way children can read and write and have some minor of knowledge on how the system is supposed to work. For higher level education though, I can see providing some loans, possibly to lower socio-economic backgrounds. It must not be forgotten though that education is a capital good that is a personal investment. I don't know about the complete lack of regulation thing though, should there not be some standards at the very least if we promote this? At least on the education given we are promoting a public good.

In other words, give them a lump sum, let them do with it as they see fit, and when its gone, its gone. Ok.

And I never intended for this party to be ancap, the manifesto wasn't an ancap manifesto. I more or less consider this a transitional party.
Right, no, I just tend to be distrusting of the far-out nature of many of the proposals. I will not deny that Austrian economics has its interesting aspects, especially in keeping ideas of imperfect information alive, but I do think that the transition being pushed is rather abrupt.
You'd be surprised by just how many "mainstream" economists acknowledge and use Austrian theories without their knowing it (and even Austrian methodology). That said, you are correct, the CS is relatively more mainstream - but again, its more extreme ideas are hardly mainstream either. Anything heavily laissez-faire isn't. Right, well, I remember reading somewhere that James Buchanan, the economist who worked on public choice actually did work with some subjectivist ideas and things of that nature, there is an article on the mises institute about how Buchanan has some ideas in common with Austrian ideas. As well, I do know that Austrians have made some contributions to economics, one of the most recent ones being the recognition of their victory in the socialist calculation debate against the socialists. I do recognize that some of the ideas of the Chicago school are not that mainstream, however, the number is less than it was considering how conservatives talk about their idea of vouchers and how flat taxes and other things are being looked at much more carefully.
Definitely, but Friedman is hardly the only Chicagoite out there.Well, I will admit that even though I am probably more familiar with ideas behind anarcho capitalism than most folk I do not know all of the anarcho capitalists.

Government currency is more stable because it is designed specifically for stability.

So would private currencies.

Private currencies may end up having problems with this aspect such as Gold or other things because of the fact that outside circumstances will affect their workability by a lot.

What do you mean?

As well, I distrust private currency because it seems more problematic than one currency even if it is fiat.

How would it seem that way if you have never experienced it?

Finally, I think that monetary policy is not a horrible thing to have either, so long as dealing with inflation is held as an important goal, and so long as the position is depoliticized. Can you really give me too many non-ideological stances, or non-Austrian stances on why the federal reserve is a bad system? After all, I think that a large part of the real issue of desiring private money in the first place was the fact that governments too often sought ill-sighted inflationary policies which was one of the reasons why the Gold standard was promoted despite its inferiority on certain issues.

Its a long one, but here you go:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/banking-bunkum.html


As for me, it is a matter of ideology. It is a government sanctioned private monopoly, and with every act it institutes an unnatural redistribution of wealth, almost always benefitting the very wealthy.

It is also the problem with such an idea. I don't want to weaken the central bank, if anything the central bank should be the last item to go anyway.

I want to weaken every branch of government.

Really, I don't think that most people who are not Austrian will really agree with this either. This is a 5 point question on Bryan Caplan's "are you a libertarian test" it is given the same weight as saying that you are an anarcho-capitalist.

And that matters because?

I will admit that some sort of pragmatism must be percieved in our policy proposals, but if we weigh all of our principals against "Will most people agree with us?" we become a rather vacuous party.

And significantly less efficient, and because taxations are based upon transactions, non standard monetary transactions lead to problems in terms of collection. I don't agree with your point on non-standard money. I think we will be fine with government fiat currency so long as we maintain it at a stable level.

You are simply enabling a parasitic status quo with your repeated calls for a "stable" currency. Furthermore, you haven't even shown why private currencies and free banking would be unstable.

Yeah, no, it still leads to inefficiency. We still use hard currency all the time.

In what situations is hard currency not of lesser efficiency than electronic currency?

What level of education? I think that we should instead go for a voucher system for certain levels of education at minimum, so that way children can read and write and have some minor of knowledge on how the system is supposed to work.

What system?

That last clause really struck me.

I don't know about the complete lack of regulation thing though, should there not be some standards at the very least if we promote this? At least on the education given we are promoting a public good.

Education is no more a public good than a pair of shoes.

As for the lack of regulation, I am all for giving people the means to escape the poverty cycle, but I am not for behavioral restriction.

Right, no, I just tend to be distrusting of the far-out nature of many of the proposals. I will not deny that Austrian economics has its interesting aspects, especially in keeping ideas of imperfect information alive, but I do think that the transition being pushed is rather abrupt.

I don't consider myself to be an austrian, nor do I consider this party to follow Austrian principles. I consider it to be neoclassical; any similarities to Austrian political philosophy is not intentional.

I'm not very good with economics or history, but isn't a lack of market regulation what generally leads to large monopolies the likes of which existed in the late 1800s? For instance, the oil barons. Won't increased privatization and deregulation of the market lead to this?

So would private currencies.
Because the sudden shift away from central banking done by President Jackson went oh so well. Look, I don't really buy it that much and I definitely don't think that the average person would either.


What do you mean? I mean that gold, the currency of choice on many occasions does not work that well. The anti-central bank group also tends to be pro-gold, however, the major argument for these less efficient currencies.

How would it seem that way if you have never experienced it? How would you consider it better if you have never experienced it? The point that I really get at is that money supply is important, if anything it should be the last thing to ever be privatized. You know why? If we screw it up then the consequences are more dire than some school choice program. I cannot see any reason to go towards this private scheme than because of some Austrian theory, nothing even remotely close to the mainstream would indicate doing this.

Its a long one, but here you go:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/banking-bunkum.html

As for me, it is a matter of ideology. It is a government sanctioned private monopoly, and with every act it institutes an unnatural redistribution of wealth, almost always benefitting the very wealthy. Incredibly long by a man who isn't an economist, a bit too long for me to read in a casual debate.

As for me it seems a matter of pragmatism. Stable money and money supply are vitally important for the issues of a functioning economy.


I want to weaken every branch of government. To me it does not matter, I am not arguing a love of government, however, weakening government should not be a religion, rather it should be done with careful interest to stability and welfare.


And that matters because? Because it is a sign of being on the extreme fringe of the ideology. The one point questions on the test are basic libertarian thoughts while once one gets to the five pointers it is rather far.

I will admit that some sort of pragmatism must be percieved in our policy proposals, but if we weigh all of our principals against "Will most people agree with us?" we become a rather vacuous party.
I do not claim it should be done on all counts, but rather point at the fact that this is WAY far. This is not center-libertarian, or mid-libertarian but rather fringe libertarian. A platform is usually meant to get voters on the margins to vote a specific way, I am not asking for something in the complete dead center, if I were then I would be attacking a lot more issues, however, if something seems way way far away to me then I really must address that.


You are simply enabling a parasitic status quo with your repeated calls for a "stable" currency. Furthermore, you haven't even shown why private currencies and free banking would be unstable. Because the currency would be managed by skilled economists based upon lots of experience. As well, private currency does not seem to have a good record based upon past banking history while national banking has been very stable for the most part with one screw up that we have learned from. What suggests that private banking is any better but Austrian theory?


In what situations is hard currency not of lesser efficiency than electronic currency? Throwing pennies in the fountain. Or in terms of keeping money divided for personal purposes, such as to avoid a loss of it all, or to keep consumption down to a certain level.


What system?

That last clause really struck me. The capitalist system, the system of society, political systems, whatever systems currently exist. Are you claiming that we will abolish all systems? Keep in mind here that there are people who are not anarcho-capitalists here.


Education is no more a public good than a pair of shoes. Dependent upon whether or not low education standards can lead to problems of crime, and of problems with democracy, and problems with social mobility which will oft-times lead to problems in crime and a call for populists who will do great damage. There are obviously some positive externalities that education provides and therefore education does do the public some good. It is not a public good in terms of economic terminology but I was not using it as such.

As for the lack of regulation, I am all for giving people the means to escape the poverty cycle, but I am not for behavioral restriction. Decent reading, writing, and 'rithmetic are important things for education no matter what type is given.


I don't consider myself to be an austrian, nor do I consider this party to follow Austrian principles. I consider it to be neoclassical; any similarities to Austrian political philosophy is not intentional. Because the neo-classical school has such a great problem with central banking? Or because the neo-classical school does not recognize the importance of externalities? So many of the conclusions are similar to that of the most extreme minds of the Austrian school I could not help but wonder. Even if it is neo-classical it seems that the direction goes way way way too far in a certain direction. I do believe in economic liberalization and believe that capitalism/markets/trade works to a great extent, however this seems to be going very far. The idea is to catch additional voters, not target the smallest group.

Because the neo-classical school has such a great problem with central banking? Or because the neo-classical school does not recognize the importance of externalities? So many of the conclusions are similar to that of the most extreme minds of the Austrian school I could not help but wonder.
As I said previously, neoclassical economists (and especially Monetarists, aka Chicagoites), agree with the Austrian School on many things (even methodology in some cases - the Quantity Theory of Money for instance is axiomatic on a certain level). The true disparities arise with regard to the epistemology Economics should be using - this is where argument arises between neoclassicals and Austrians.

As I said previously, neoclassical economists (and especially Monetarists, aka Chicagoites), agree with the Austrian School on many things (even methodology in some cases - the Quantity Theory of Money for instance is axiomatic on a certain level). The true disparities arise with regard to the epistemology Economics should be using - this is where argument arises between neoclassicals and Austrians.
Monetarists argue for central banking. I do recognize that some people on the far end of these schools do end up with Austrian conclusions but once again, they are not the norm, this is ridiculously far from the norm.

as a libertarian by nature,i like most of what i read.

if there is room for someone that believes in minimal govermental interference in the citizens day to day life,a scaled value added tax,freemarket economics,minimal interference in other countries business(politically or economically),a robust military for national defence only,the right to self defence for all citizens,the right to health care for all citizens..regardless of their wealth,trade on a country by country basis(if you levy an import tax on our products,we will levy the same on your imports),no forced education...but available education to all citizens.

then sign me up.

I'm not very good with economics or history, but isn't a lack of market regulation what generally leads to large monopolies the likes of which existed in the late 1800s? For instance, the oil barons. Won't increased privatization and deregulation of the market lead to this?

Successful market competition and successful government intervention against competition leads to monopolies. One is made by providing the best by cost service; one is made by sealing off possible advantages new entrants might enjoy through government regulation. One is a natural business model; one is an unnatural cartel.

Because the sudden shift away from central banking done by President Jackson went oh so well.

It is better to change floors by stairs than by open elevator shaft.

Look, I don't really buy it that much and I definitely don't think that the average person would either.

I'm not concerned with the average person's ideas. Whether this party is remains to be seen, but I doubt it will be.

I mean that gold, the currency of choice on many occasions does not work that well. The anti-central bank group also tends to be pro-gold, however, the major argument for these less efficient currencies.

The supporters of private currency tend to believe that the market will strive to offer whatever currency most satisfies the utility desires of the consumer.

Fiat money is perfectly fine if it manages free and natural circulation.

How would you consider it better if you have never experienced it?

I have never said that private currency "seems" better. I have offered reasons why it would most likely be better.

The point that I really get at is that money supply is important, if anything it should be the last thing to ever be privatized. You know why? If we screw it up then the consequences are more dire than some school choice program. I cannot see any reason to go towards this private scheme than because of some Austrian theory, nothing even remotely close to the mainstream would indicate doing this.

Why do you keep bringing up Austrian theory or mainstream thought?

Incredibly long by a man who isn't an economist, a bit too long for me to read in a casual debate.

Even if the man wasn't well versed in economics and policy this would still be an ad hominem.

As for me it seems a matter of pragmatism. Stable money and money supply are vitally important for the issues of a functioning economy.

With no argument stating why a government provide money monopoly is more stable.

To me it does not matter, I am not arguing a love of government, however, weakening government should not be a religion, rather it should be done with careful interest to stability and welfare.

Of course, enabling one tyrant by eradicating another is not wise, but that doesn't mean we should appease the old tyrant.

Because it is a sign of being on the extreme fringe of the ideology. The one point questions on the test are basic libertarian thoughts while once one gets to the five pointers it is rather far.

I am on the extreme fringe.

I do not claim it should be done on all counts, but rather point at the fact that this is WAY far. This is not center-libertarian, or mid-libertarian but rather fringe libertarian. A platform is usually meant to get voters on the margins to vote a specific way, I am not asking for something in the complete dead center, if I were then I would be attacking a lot more issues, however, if something seems way way far away to me then I really must address that.

Political parties that sell out for margin voters are hideous miscarriages of democracy. I believe we should stick to our principles and we will represent those that agree with us.

This is not some populist quest for political power.

Because the currency would be managed by skilled economists based upon lots of experience. As well, private currency does not seem to have a good record based upon past banking history while national banking has been very stable for the most part with one screw up that we have learned from. What suggests that private banking is any better but Austrian theory?

There has never been a time in history where the wealthy have not tried to undermine a private currency.

I have already offered a detailed explanation but you didn't want to read it.

Or in terms of keeping money divided for personal purposes, such as to avoid a loss of it all, or to keep consumption down to a certain level.

What?

Doesn't this sort of prove that electronic money is more liquid and efficient?

The capitalist system, the system of society, political systems, whatever systems currently exist. Are you claiming that we will abolish all systems? Keep in mind here that there are people who are not anarcho-capitalists here.

You are advocating indoctrination.

I am simply claiming that we allow people to determine their systems, not vice versa.

Decent reading, writing, and 'rithmetic are important things for education no matter what type is given.

Then there will be a demand for them, and they will be provided.

I am on the extreme fringe.
:fluffle:

I'm not concerned with the average person's ideas. Whether this party is remains to be seen, but I doubt it will be.

This is not some populist quest for political power.

Well said. :)

as a libertarian by nature,i like most of what i read.

if there is room for someone that believes in minimal govermental interference in the citizens day to day life,a scaled value added tax,freemarket economics,minimal interference in other countries business(politically or economically),a robust military for national defence only,the right to self defence for all citizens,the right to health care for all citizens..regardless of their wealth,trade on a country by country basis(if you levy an import tax on our products,we will levy the same on your imports),no forced education...but available education to all citizens.

then sign me up.

Not a perfect fit, but close enough. Welcome aboard.

Bump for Membership

Successful market competition and successful government intervention against competition leads to monopolies. One is made by providing the best by cost service; one is made by sealing off possible advantages new entrants might enjoy through government regulation. One is a natural business model; one is an unnatural cartel.

So if the unnatural cartel is a bad thing, shouldn't there be at least some regulations in place to prevent the formation of such harmful monopolies? I mean if we're advocating total unregulation it seems like it would ultimately lead this way.

So if the unnatural cartel is a bad thing, shouldn't there be at least some regulations in place to prevent the formation of such harmful monopolies? I mean if we're advocating total unregulation it seems like it would ultimately lead this way.

Harmful monopolies are created by government regulation.

Harmful monopolies are created by government regulation.

How so?

How so?

I'll let Vittos answer that, but I'd like to note that the fact that 90% of antitrust suits being brought up by private litigants (i.e. mostly competing companies) certainly does make anti-trust look suspicious in its claims of maintaining competition.

How so?

The leading opposing force against monopolies (at least those monopolies we do not want, who opposes a monopoly that is maintained by offering the best service or lowest cost) is competition. If a company fails in the competition of best satisfying the consumer base, it cannot possibly maintain a monopoly.

Government regulation is inherently opposed to good competition, and the effects are twofold:

1: For every instance of government regulation, a possible competitive advantage that can be experienced by entrants to the market, ie flexible production lines, more direct negotiation and interaction with employees, more hands-on quality control, is lost. For every regulation, those established companies have one less avenue they must excel at to maintain their competitive advantage. For every regulation, those established companies (and their owners) become more entrenched in their privelege.

2. Competitive advantages shift away from best serving the customer to best exploiting and manipulating government regulation. For every government regulation there exists a new bad competitive advantage for those businesses and industries that have government's ear over those businesses and industries that do not.

In response to slipping support of libertarian policy within the NS Parliament, I have decided to reorganize the Classic Liberals.This sentence confuses me. Are you libertarians or classic liberals? Because certainly the two are not the same.

Of course, I have seen before the attempt to associate modern minarchist libertarianism with classic liberalism--I presume this is because association with such significant names as Adam Smith lends some apparent legitimacy to the new philosophically and empirically unsupported ideology.

But the fact remains: classic liberalism and libertarianism are not the same. First of all, classic liberals accept (and even encourage) much more extensive government intervention in market society than modern libertarians advocate. Have any of you actually read Adam Smith? Yes, he supports a free market in general, but The Wealth of Nations is replete with exception after exception after exception. Perhaps more importantly, he thought that government plays a vital role in cultivating the kind of citizen that can actually function peacefully in such a market.

For that matter, I'm not so sure you really want to be "classic liberals." Locke and his followers, right up through Smith and Ricardo, were perfectly fine with the criminalization of victimless crimes such as drug use and prostitution; their focus on structural guarantees of liberty (in the form of representative government) left them open to government intervention in broad areas of private life, so long as people were properly represented.

Read The Second Treatise. Read The Wealth of Nations. Show me any point at which "liberty" denotes anything more than economic liberty.

EDIT: Locke did advocate religious toleration, but try actually reading his letter on the subject. He makes his argument from a strictly Christian position, which means among other things that he explicitly excludes the protection of atheists. Why? Because he concludes that a person who does not believe in God cannot possibly function as a moral human being. /EDIT

In fact, Locke implicitly and Smith explicitly assert a view that modern libertarians tend to downplay because they want to deny (rightly or wrongly) that libertarianism would situate power squarely in the hands of the "haves" at the expense of the "have-nots." (At least in my experience, libertarians tend to insist that the "invisible hand" would somehow magically make things "work out" for even the worst off.) Smith, at least, certainly had no such delusion. As he writes, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor” (Wealth of Nations, V.i.b.12).

So, my question again is this: are you minarchist libertarians, or classic liberals? You may rightly claim that modern libertarianism derives from or is inspired by classic liberalism, but you can hardly maintain that they are really the same.

We, the Classic Liberal Party of NationStates General, stand on the belief that the only role of government is to afford the individual the dignity of self-determination.See, this is a problem if you are trying to associate yourself with classic liberalism. In classic liberal theory, individuals had the dignity of self-determination before instituting government. Classic liberals rejected, after all, the Hobbesian formulation that the "state of nature" outside government control is "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short." Indeed, classic liberals maintained that human beings are capable of engaging in most social and economic activities without supervision--it was only with the advent of economic inequality that matters changed, because from thenceforward the propertied demanded public protection from people without property.

In this we must deny the right of government to interfere into the free and voluntary speech, beliefs, and actions of the individual.Classic liberals allowed extensive interference into the speech, beliefs, and actions of individuals; they only really opposed interference into the economic speech, beliefs, and actions of individuals. You might be able to find a theoretical loophole by attempting to argue that all speech, beliefs, and actions are somehow "economic," but in doing so you would be distancing yourself from actual classic liberals... and you would have an uphill battle with that argument, regardless.

It was not classic liberalism that secured the broad rights and liberties that most of us, today, hold dear. These took hold as part of constitutional and republican doctrines that appeared independently of liberalism, though in many places (particularly the United States) they intermingled with it (producing, perhaps, an independent school of thought that should be called liberal republicanism or liberal democracy).

Most importantly, government must be equally responsive to all of its citizens.This is a real problem for classic liberalism, which held (explicitly, for most) that government should be most responsive to citizens possessing material wealth. Indeed, this was the reason that classic liberals advocated a property requirement for voters.

2. Administer the function of government at the lowest possible level, with democratic input being as direct as possible.I cannot think of a single classic liberal who would support this proposal, noble though it may be. The closest you'll get in the (roughly) "liberal" canon is Jefferson or Rousseau, both of whom maintained that property is a positive (not natural) right, thus distancing them significantly from the "classic" (English/Scottish) liberals.

1. The most egregious error of government throughout history has been the "presumption of knowing better." Those in power have always presumed that they were better inclined than the individual to make life choices for that individual. We must accept that, while we may not agree with the choice another makes, we must allow them the right to make that choice, if we are to claim that right for ourselves.The closest you can get to a classic liberal who thinks this is John Stuart Mill, and you would have to make a case for classifying him as a classic liberal. He was too committed to democracy, for one thing; and his utilitarian theory, while allowing for broad personal rights, makes a solid base for extensive government interference in the economic marketplace.

A. To repeal all legislation against victimless crimes, including but not limited to:

i. Laws prohibiting the sale, use, production, or possession of all drugs.Certainly classic liberals would oppose such legalization! Looking at things from the perspective of employers, they worried that licentiousness in the masses would contribute to inefficiency at work, absenteeism, ill health, etc.

To accomplish this, we:

i. Oppose forced medical treatment of all individuals.This is suspect, considering that classic liberals (and your platform, apparently) is willing to call some people unfit to make political decisions; generally this opinion extends to a willingness to tell people when they are being "irrational" generally, and to force them to do things that they "would" do if they were "thinking clearly."

In fact, the same argument works to curtail religious rights (such as the refusal of treatment) under some circumstances, and it is difficult to see how you can logically have it both ways.

1. With the recognition that taxation is banditry,You will not find this opinion ANYWHERE among classic liberals. They held, to borrow the convenient American phrase, that there should be "no taxation without representation." Taxation itself they considered perfectly legitimate, because (unlike libertarianism) classic liberalism included a strong concept of "the public" and public ends. Indeed, one might argue that classic liberalism would oppose certain aspects of libertarianism on principle--to the extent that liberalism consciously distinguished itself from a feudal system that focused political power in private hands, it was thoroughly concerned with expounding a "public trust," a "compact" or similar construct that could legitimately rule over the property of all. That this government was instituted precisely for the protection of property entailed some limitations, but classic liberals considered taxation to be the legitimate means by which public protections were maintained. It was not a "necessary evil," it was "the greatest invention of mankind," to borrow a classic liberal phrase.

No, all that states is that while we wish to extend equal rights to everyone, there are portions of the citizenry, children, mentally ill, that it we could not extend equal rights to in their own interest and the interest of others.This has always been a problem for liberal theory, because it has never been clear just where or how to draw these kinds of lines.

For Locke, only acquisitive property-holders were "rational," so only they were included as full citizens of the social contract. The poor were, by definition, "irrational," and therefore "in but not of" the social contract, to use Macpherson's apt characterization of Locke.

There could possibly be an exam that would allow for early voting, but I cannot see why every adult would not have the ability to vote.Once again, then, I cannot see how you can associate yourself with classic liberalism. At the very least, it is the classic liberal formulation that maintains that convicted felons should lose the right to vote (regardless of the felony and regardless of their having served their time). The basis for this limitation can be the basis for similar limitations against any group that the public decides has "broken" the social contract or has otherwise proven itself "irrational."

OCD does not hamper your ability to make a critical decision between two candidates.
Thinking that you are Napoleon does.Why? Wouldn't Napoleon have the right to vote?

I suppose that the burden of proof rests with the state in denying these rights, not with the individual (while the individual or guardian can given them up voluntary). So unless there is an abundance of evidence of incapability, there will be no hindrance of rights.Just how many people do you think this will affect?

If it is a very, very small minority, then I see no reason to prevent them from voting at all.

Think of it this way. The only time their vote would make a difference is when there are two fairly equally matched candidates--that is, it is a very close election. In that case, whatever they decide their conclusion itself is unlikely to be severely detrimental to the state, unless we presume that almost 50% of the "rational" population should also have been excluded from the vote.

So why are we afraid of "crazy" or "incompetent" people voting, unless we think that there is a fairly large number of them--that they could sway an election, that is, even when most of the "rational" majority votes "correctly."

If there is a fairly large number of "incompetent" people, in your view, then you are already slipping away from genuine democracy. You are already defining distinct "classes" with different rights.

I, personally, support the complete elimination of the Federal Reserve, the complete elimination of legal tender laws, complete elimination of government minting and government controls over minting (except, of course, laws against fraud), as well as a total separation between banking and state.Then you are decidedly NOT a classic liberal. You are a libertarian. Why are you afraid to use the more accurate term?

The guardian would not have the right to revoke the rights of someone capable of showing the ability to comprehend those rights. The purpose of a guardian is
totally undermined by capable individuals.It would seem to me that the vast, vast majority of people have "the ability to comprehend" their rights. Indeed, most people show much greater facility at understanding rights and entitlements than at understanding almost anything else. People are very good at figuring out their due.

So supposing there is a tiny, tiny minority that does NOT "comprehend" their rights, why is it so important for the government to take them away? Why not just let it be?

Certainly this is a small price to pay for a stronger guarantee of right--one that denies the legitimacy of the government's "taking away" a right at all. We pay some social price for most rights: criminal procedural protections undoubtedly set at least some criminals free, free speech entails certain inconveniences, and so on. Why should a general right to vote be any different? Why does it have to be "perfect" in the sense that it does not extend to anyone "unfairly"?

Abortion is for when the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child.No. Abortion is for when a woman is unable or unwilling to carry a fetus to term. There is no child to care for.

If one parent wishes to abort the child, and the other is willing and able to care for it, the child should be carried to term and left under the guardianship of the other parent.No. Father's arguably have some claim over a child, but they have no claim over a woman's body.

The child is the man's just as much as it is the woman's, and if he wishes to care for the child when the mother is not, he should be allowed.Okay, suppose the child is partly the man's. Suppose even the fetus is partly the man's. That doesn't mean the woman's body is the man's, and it doesn't mean he has a right to tell her what to do with it.

Suppose we plant a seed together. I claim that it is partly mine and partly yours, because we did the planting together... but for whatever reason, I cannot come by to cultivate the seed (though I would if I could), so that its cultivation is entirely your responsibility. You decide you're not that interested in the plant after all, so you decide not to water it. I demand that you water it, because it is partly mine and I do not want it to die... but demand all I want, I have no claim over your labor. I cannot force you to cultivate my plant.

Surely you would have an even greater right to self-determination with respect to your own body.

EDIT: If you want, look at it this way. Assuming that we agree, for a particular case, that a father bears responsibility for his child, we would also likely agree that the state cannot force him to be a father. The most it can do is compel him to pay some compensation in lieu of his fatherly responsibilities. Likewise, the MOST the state could force a woman to do is to somehow repay a man for the child she refused to bring to term. It cannot force her actually to give birth to the child. /EDIT

(Now, you might point out that if we had a contractual relationship vis-a-vis the aforementioned plant, I could demand that you fulfill your part of the bargain. Even so, at least under American common law I could not force you to actually cultivate the plant: the most I could do is claim some quantifiable loss due to your breach of contract and demand that you repay it.

With respect to a developing fetus, very rarely do individuals have a contractual relationship. Often enough, the result was unintended. Even if it was planned, planning to do something together does not constitute a legally binding contract.

If you are to say that the child is the full responsability of the mother (and put the decision entirely in her hands), then I have to say that a lot of happy men are going to stop paying alimony.You mean child support, and the argument for child support does not rest on a man's having a claim to the child. Indeed, this should be obvious from the fact that father's are often required to pay child support even when the mother is granted full custody of the child. If responsibility were dependent on claim, this could not be.

after all, if it's entirely the woman's choice, why should the father have to live with the consequences?Because it was his choice to have sex with her, knowing full well that this could lead to pregnancy and thereby birth. It is precisely because he has no say in whether a conception is carried to term that his obligation arises from his sexual activity.

Let's consider three cases to make this clear:

1) A man has sex with a woman who is pro-life or who otherwise expresses her intention to carry a child to term. Unless she expressly relieves him of his obligation, he is responsible for any child which may result because he knowingly helped to bring about its existence.

2) A man has sex with a woman without bothering to find out her intentions with respect to a possible conception. (Alternatively, she tells him that she's "not sure" what she would do.) Well, it's his own fault then if he's "surprised" by the outcome. He has no right to insist that she should abort the child, so he is bound to her decision: by having sex with her without knowing her mind, he hands the decision over to her.

3) A man has sex with a woman who avows that she would not carry a pregnancy to term. A pregnancy results, and she changes her mind: she wants to have the child. At this point, I think that a man can legitimately claim that he was deceived and that he should bear no responsibility for the child. The burden of proof, however, should be on the man to demonstrate that the woman relieved him of his responsibility by asserting her attention to abort.

You do touch on some good points. I have argued for paper abortions for men who wish to opt out of responsibility for the pregnancy if done in a timely manner.If by "timely manner" you mean "prior to sex," then I would agree. A man should be allowed to submit a statement indicating that he will not care for any child that might arise from his sexual activity with a particular woman. He should need to get this signed by the woman to verify that she was aware of his stance. If she has sex with him anyway, she assumes full responsibility for any child that may result.

Of course, such contracts could take a variety of forms. Perhaps a woman will agree under the condition that the man pays for the abortion. Or perhaps the contract will set terms for withdrawal: a man need not decide in advance that he will not support a child, but a pre-sex contract could state that he has until eight weeks into the pregnancy (still allowing time for a safe abortion) to state his intention--otherwise his responsibility will be assumed.

Therefore there must be a transitional, positive role for government to reach a truly free market.Oh good lord, suddenly you sound like Lenin.

Once a truly free market, then policy supporting the provision of basic education and healthcare will disappear with the disappearing need.Shit. You really sound like Lenin.

Your goals are diametrically opposed, but the rhetoric regarding government intervention in a "transitional" period is identical.

I think the key to being a classic liberal is establishing autonomy and liberty for the individual through a system of interdependence. Whatever prescriptive steps you take, if this is your goal, I could consider you a classic liberal.This is an interpretive problem, I think, that arises because too few people actually read classic liberals; instead, they read sound-byte versions of their theories.

In the sound-byte version, you read a lot about the word "liberty" and how important it is that government protect individual liberty. Unwittingly you commit an equivocation fallacy by assuming that classic liberals meant by "liberty" what modern liberalism means: personal autonomy broadly speaking.

In fact, if you actually read classic liberals, you find that they were talking almost exclusively about economic liberty, as evidenced by their usage of the term. To see that usage, you need to read more than some out-of-context citations. More importantly, you need to begin with an open mind before reading them: if you go in assuming that what they mean by "liberty" is what you mean by liberty, it will be easy enough to gloss over the many contradictions that entails.

I hate public school system because they are institutionalized, standardized, and worst of all, mandatory detention centers for children.First of all, it is difficult to imagine any kind of school system, private or otherwise, that would not be "institutionalized" in some way. Just look at the (largely private) university system.

Secondly, a market-responsive private system is likely to produce increased standardization, not less. Local democratic control of school systems does much more to produce differences than a competitive marketplace that tends to find its own common denominators.

As for school being a "mandatory detention center" for children, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Certainly people today have the option of putting their children in private schools, and many people home-school their children with the full blessing of the state.

Perhaps you mean to have no laws that require children to attend school (whether home-school or otherwise)? This is a dangerous route, I think. Parents--especially poor parents--may be tempted to remove their children from school at an early age to put them to work; especially, I think, if there is no provision for free public education.

The point of mandatory attendance laws is not to "detain" children, it is to compel parents to give their child an education at a time when the child has no choice in the matter one way or the other--it is up to the parents.

As you insist, lacking an education can be a severe detriment to a child. The question is whether the state is prepared to leave the decision of whether to educate a child up to the parents, or whether the state should insist that parents provide for some reasonable education for the best interests of the child. The child has no say in the matter either way, so it is pointless to complain about the "mandatory detention" of children.

Privatize the school system, but make sure that those who would utilize an education could recieve one, as nothing is more marginalizing than a poor or no education.Unfortunately, "poor" education is a relative term. Probably the worst-educated American children get a significantly better education than, say, medieval peasants. This does not mean they can compete effectively with individuals who get a much, much better education.

Privatization will encourage super-schools on the one hand and cheap McDonalds-esque degree factories on the other. Unless you do something to reduce the material inequalities that produce market disadvantages in the first place, public education is likely to produce the better results overall (as, historically, it has).

Because they would not be a hulking, top-down, overlegislated, science-excluding, bureaucratic morass.As for "hulking" and "top-down," these are relatively recent developments in (American) education... and oddly enough, they result from policies instituted by the same politicians who favor increased privatization through "voucher" systems. One wonders whether they are trying to save education, or whether they are trying to sabotage a public school system that they detest.

As for "science-excluding," I think we should assume that in a privatized system there will be plenty of schools catering to Creation-minded parents. Indeed, across the Bible belt it may be extremely difficult for the secular-minded minority to find acceptable private schools at all. At least in a democratically controlled system they have a fighting chance of changing policy (if only through appeals to the courts, which have been rather successful so far).

Finally, private schools do not eliminate bureaucracy. In fact, to the extent that they attempt to remain exclusive they add an entire admissions and financial aid bureaucracy that public schools do without.

By the way, advocates of private education often compare the supposedly low costs of private schools to the high costs of public schools. What they fail to notice is that only the parochial schools beat the public schools in this respect, largely because they are subsidized by their respective churches. Secular private schools actually cost much more (per student) than public schools. So unless you expect that generalized secular privatization will result in widespread corporate subsidies, you will force most students to choose between a religious education that they do not desire and decent secular schools that they cannot afford.

My central point was never "I learn just fine on my own", it was "those things I am interested in, I will learn on my own. Those things I am not interested in, I will not learn."This sounds more like obstinacy than objective fact. Evidence? Your next statement...

You can't deny that apathetic students, even if they wish to maintain a good GPA, will not learn anything from their classes.The hidden assumption here is that earning a good GPA does not indicate that a person has learned something. If that's the case, I assume you intend to do away with GPA altogether, because it is an apparently meaningless indicator.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that GPA still measures something like "ability to produce acceptable work according to given standards"--the "I am trainable" standard you suggested above. But if that were the case, it should not matter whether I was a math major or an English major when employers are considering me for a job--even a specialized job. If GPA indicates trainability but not knowledge in a subject, then majors--indeed, even course titles--are completely meaningless and arbitrary.

I suspect you would not agree to this after all. I suspect that you would agree that a person who gets an "A" in calculus probably knows more about calculus than a person who gets a "C" in the same class--even if the "C" student found the subject much, much more interesting.

The vast majority of business students do not care in the slightest for biology, and those that do not need forced electives to learn about it.Your assumption here is that "students should not learn anything in which they are not personally interested." If you want to defend your conclusion that general requirements should be dropped, you should begin by defending this assumption.

That will be particularly difficult, since even within a major field I may be required to take courses which are necessary for my professional development but which I do not find particularly interesting. That is, it is entirely possible that I am interested in my field broadly speaking, but less interested in a particular subject which may, however, be necessary in order to understand other aspects of my profession.

It is not at all clear to me that there are no classes which are necessary for students regardless of whether they like them. Introductory courses in writing and analytical reading are a great example: few students fall in love with their first-year English requirements, but it seems likely that they should improve their reading and writing skills nevertheless.

The most important thing that needs to be addressed concerning education is the lack of competing forms of higher education.But there ARE competing forms of higher education.

There are plenty of very career-oriented schools out there. There are "correspondence" schools that let their students take pretty much whatever they want. The problem is that they are not accredited.

What is accreditation? It is a validation by professional organizations (with a government sanction) to declare whether a school adheres to certain academic norms and standards. These include factors analyzing the general education that a university provides.

Now, students are under no obligation to attend accredited universities, but they generally prefer to do so. Why? Because businesses prefer to hire students who have graduated from accredited universities. Why? Certainly not because they are required to--no, it is the result of a free market in which businesses have concluded that they are more likely to get qualified, reliable employees from accredited universities.

EDIT: Note that even in narrowly defined technical fields, employers will actually pay more for a student with a four-year degree than for one with a professional or associate degree--even if the latter is from an accredited institution. For instance, my mother originally went to a nursing school rather than a four-year college. Eventually, however, she decided to get a bachelor's degree in nursing, which actually didn't involve much course work in nursing at all--her many years of experience exempted her or tested her out of most of that. No, she took courses in anthropology, sociology, wine appreciation--general electives.

Not only did her hospital pay for this, but they gave her a substantial raise when she got her diploma. They wanted her to have a general education in addition to a professional education, because they thought it would make her a better nurse, a better employee. /EDIT

Remember when I said that markets increase standardization rather than decreasing it? Case in point.

It should be easy to tell that I think higher education should be mainly career oriented (with the possibility of those interested in other higher learning enrolling in other courses), which makes the present norm extremely superflous.Then all you need to do is convince businesses that non-accredited, career-oriented higher education supplies employees that are just as good as more broadly educated students.

They are not likely to so agree, however, since the empirical evidence is against this view. Students with broad educational experience are preferred for management positions, for instance, because they are found to be more creative, more generally knowledgeable, and better able to work with a diverse staff (and clients). Indeed, several years ago I read that philosophy majors actually wind up doing very well in management--and that businesses were actually preferring them in hiring and promotions to narrow-minded business majors.

Does anyone have any insight onto whether apprenticeship would have a higher prevalence within a natural society?Historically, it was the free market that killed apprenticeship, which was a prevalent form of pre-capitalist education.

Why does a free market kill apprenticeship? Because in the free market it is more important that employees (like parts) should be interchangeable than that they should be ideal. The labor market demands standardized employee education so that businesses do not need to do a detailed search for every employee (including evaluating her mentor and/or examining material evidence of her ability rather than standardized grades), and so that they can replace any given employee very easily.

Extending the parts/employees analogy, it is a widely accepted fact that hand-crafted, expert-generated tools are of a higher quality than assembly line, molded parts. The advantage of the latter (for the capitalist market) is not that they are better, but that they are identical.

Sweet Jesus.

Sweet Jesus.

My thoughts exactly. I'm no fan of liberarianism but his guy has too much time on his hands. :p

Sweet Jesus.
S'amuse bien. :p

My thoughts exactly. I'm no fan of liberarianism but his guy has too much time on his hands. :p

I have never been one to let someone else get the last word, so just wait.

Thank god its a weekend.

I have never been one to let someone else get the last word, so just wait.

Thank god its a weekend.

I didn't think you would. I'm glad I'm not you. :D

This sentence confuses me. Are you libertarians or classic liberals? Because certainly the two are not the same.

Of course, I have seen before the attempt to associate modern minarchist libertarianism with classic liberalism--I presume this is because association with such significant names as Adam Smith lends some apparent legitimacy to the new philosophically and empirically unsupported ideology.

But the fact remains: classic liberalism and libertarianism are not the same. First of all, classic liberals accept (and even encourage) much more extensive government intervention in market society than modern libertarians advocate. Have any of you actually read Adam Smith? Yes, he supports a free market in general, but The Wealth of Nations is replete with exception after exception after exception. Perhaps more importantly, he thought that government plays a vital role in cultivating the kind of citizen that can actually function peacefully in such a market.

For that matter, I'm not so sure you really want to be "classic liberals." Locke and his followers, right up through Smith and Ricardo, were perfectly fine with the criminalization of victimless crimes such as drug use and prostitution; their focus on structural guarantees of liberty (in the form of representative government) left them open to government intervention in broad areas of private life, so long as people were properly represented.

Read The Second Treatise. Read The Wealth of Nations. Show me any point at which "liberty" denotes anything more than economic liberty.

EDIT: Locke did advocate religious toleration, but try actually reading his letter on the subject. He makes his argument from a strictly Christian position, which means among other things that he explicitly excludes the protection of atheists. Why? Because he concludes that a person who does not believe in God cannot possibly function as a moral human being. /EDIT

In fact, Locke implicitly and Smith explicitly assert a view that modern libertarians tend to downplay because they want to deny (rightly or wrongly) that libertarianism would situate power squarely in the hands of the "haves" at the expense of the "have-nots." (At least in my experience, libertarians tend to insist that the "invisible hand" would somehow magically make things "work out" for even the worst off.) Smith, at least, certainly had no such delusion. As he writes, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor” (Wealth of Nations, V.i.b.12).

So, my question again is this: are you minarchist libertarians, or classic liberals? You may rightly claim that modern libertarianism derives from or is inspired by classic liberalism, but you can hardly maintain that they are really the same.

To begin with, I have never envisioned, even at its conception, that this party become a strictly libertarian party, but I have also never sought to distance this party from the considerable draw it will have towards libertarian voters. While I have, in the past, made appeals for universal healthcare, universal provision of education, and even stated my support for affirmative action and reparations, this party is predominantly "libertarian" in make-up (as am I).

Now, I don't think that you would argue that there is one central modern extension of classic liberal thought, as the enlightenment was hardly a uniform advancement of political theory. What I think we can derive from the classic liberal movement was the general belief in the merit of the individual and how he should be recognized as a soveriegn in himself.

This "merit of the individual" actually is a theme amongst most of these parties, in which the goal is a society free, peaceful, and equitable to all persons. Where our party tends to separate from those is in the acceptance of free trade and the mutual benefit of commercial partners to bring this society about.

This belief is one of the central arguments for free markets proposed by classic liberals, as Adam Smith, John Locke, Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant, Alexis de Toqueville, and many others noted the trend. That we have extended this belief to an extreme is not an abandonment of the principles of the liberal movement, but a dialetical progression, of sort, to counter the threats of the totalitarianism and corporatism that so dominated the last century.

It seems ludicrous to me to propose that Hayek abandoned his liberal influence when pointing out the totalitarian inevitability of socialist central planning, when it is so obvious that he seeks to protect the advancement of liberal sentiments in the face of a corrupting force.

The fact of the matter is that the liberalism did not remain in the past, it advanced out of the enlightenment era, and continues to face stern opposition and tragic misapplications.

If classic liberalism is to exist today, it must have adapted to fight and overcome these new challenges, where they exist, and this is the party that I believe will do that.

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

As for a defense of Locke and his denigration of atheism, one must only look at the effects charges of atheism had on the careers of his contemporaries. Leibniz grew to great fame and power as "God's Attorney" while Spinoza feared enough for his safety to never publish his own masterwork.

It is much more likely that Locke's espousal of religious tolerance was stifled by the flammability of the topic among government and social circles, rather than his own ideals.

Yes, liberalism has grown and developed from its roots in Locke and Montesquieu to reflect the concerns of a fully modern world.

However, if you consider yourself a liberal in the sense of one who embraces the full development of modern liberalism, there is no reason to call yourself a "classic liberal" in contradistinction to the historical development of the movement.

Of course, liberalism has not developed only one strain, so it does make sense to add descriptive adjectives that distinguish your particular concerns. However, there is a real problem in attempting to claim for your branch of liberalism the title "classic liberalism."

The problem is that you reduce classic liberals to the formulations that you consider central for your brand of liberalism. But if "free market" liberalism and New Deal liberalism (along with various other strains) derive from the same source--which they do--then they could all make a claim to the name "classic liberalism" by stressing different points of commonality with classic liberals. It will always be an argument about what is "essential" in classic liberalism.

(And is the essential a specific advocacy of a free market, or a deep concern for an autonomy that may, in the final analysis, be threatened by the market? I think the latter is probably the fairer read, which would entail that interventionist liberals are actually much more devoted to the ideals of classic liberalism than are libertarian-oriented liberals such as you.)

In any case, you can only accomplish a close identification with classic liberalism by doing severe violence to the theories of classic liberals. These represent an irreducible tension between individualism and a new conception of legitimate authority, and it is this tension that has generated a dialectical progression that resulted in the ideals of liberalism turning to increased interventionism in the face of advanced industrial capitalism. To arbitrarily privilege the individual is not only to misread the deep dilemmas informing classic liberal thought, it is to kill the very dialectic that promotes progress in the idea.

Your name is appropriate in this sense only: by invoking a historical sentimentalism you seek to freeze the dialectic of historical development by claiming a return to lost roots, a restoration of fundamentals.

Such a return would, at least, be intellectually interesting... if you were aiming at a proper intellectual target--namely, the ideals of classic liberalism (which are really the ideals of all liberalism) rather than specific prescriptive doctrines (e.g. free trade) developed in response to specific historical contingencies that no longer exist.

It is much more likely that Locke's espousal of religious tolerance was stifled by the flammability of the topic among government and social circles, rather than his own ideals.No, Locke was a very avowedly committed Protestant. I don't think there is much doubt that his religious prescriptions were just that. I also think that it is a mistake to read The Second Treatise as if one can simply "gloss over" or ignore its religious content, which forms the foundation for Locke's entire political theory. If we are not, after all, "God's property" with a divine mandate to "be fruitful," many of Locke's arguments lose their force.

In particular, it would be a lot harder for him to justify the European colonization of American territory that was already occupied, and had been for thousands of years. Fortunately for Locke, it was easy to point out that the Native Americans were not complying with God's demand for productive, agricultural labor.

EDIT: More particular to his political theory as such, Locke could not explain the legitimacy of appropriation in the first place without a divine mandate to be productive. Yes, his labor theory gives him a leg up, but it does not get him over the hurdle because it does not explain why a community must (in Locke's view) agree to divvy up communal property to private workers in the first place--for that, he needs the additional argument that private appropriation is more productive, and therefore more godly, than collective production. /EDIT

I want to elaborate on the last point regarding Locke, since so often readers lose this part of his argument--and usually because they assume that they can just "gloss" its religious implications.

Locke argues that because we "own" our bodies and our labor, by mixing our labor with the common material of the Earth we appropriate the product of our labor--we make it "ours."

So far, so good. Few would deny that if I pluck an apple from a tree, the apple becomes in an important sense "mine."

Of course, Locke was more interested in the appropriation of land, so he extends this analogy: if I labor the Earth and it bears fruit, both the fruit and that patch of land are mine.

Here is where problems arise, because even Locke has to admit that not just any kind of labor serves to appropriate the land. To take the obvious case, suppose I rope off an acre of land, chop down all the trees, and pour deadly chemicals all over the ground so that it can no longer support life. Locke would agree that I have just destroyed a portion of the common stock, and I had no right to do that--no matter how much of my personal labor I invested.

No, Locke does not assert that simply "doing something" to a patch of land makes it "mine"--and he knows as well that any sane audience would find such an argument very unconvincing.

Instead, he argues that only by improving land can I appropriate it.

But here he faces a problem: what counts as improvement? He knows full well that some societies (e.g. North Americans) do not farm and rely more on gathering or hunting to sustain themselves. He knows that for any particular patch of ground, some people may consider a public park more of an improvement than a cornfield.

In order to establish a right to appropriation from the common stock, it is not enough for a person to fence off some land and farm it: because when he says, "This is mine, I have improved it," his fellows may disagree: like many Native Americans, they may contend that the land was "better" when it was left alone.

Locke needs a way to tell these people that they are wrong. He needs an objective standard of "improvement," at least within the context of the state of nature.

He finds this standard in the Scriptural mandates to be "fruitful" and to "subdue the Earth." He concludes that whatever Native Americans may think, whatever aesthetic appeal may reside in unblemished nature, whatever preferences other humans may have, God likes production.

And for Locke, as for most of his contemporaries, there is nothing more objective than the express word of God.

and he knows as well that any sane audience would find such an argument very unconvincing.

Why?

If we accept the subjectivity of value and the basic notions underlying appropriation by labor, then it hardly seems absurd that if I contribute my labor to something that I consider to be an improvement, however useless it is to someone else, then I have a right to the land.

Indeed, to say that we must meet some objective standard of "improvement" could easily be construed as a violation of individual rights. Perhaps I don't want any life on my property. What does meeting some standard of "improvement" have to do with anything - especially since, once the land is privatized, I'm going to have exclusive control over who reaps the benefit of the "improvement" anyway?

Why?Because we begin from a common stock. Where everyone has an equal claim to everything, we need to explain why reasonable individuals would agree to let private persons appropriate a portion of the common stock for themselves.

Since we have an equal right to the fruits of the Earth, no one has a right to destroy the common stock. If you build a sweat running around crapping up the place, that does not give you a right to claim it as your own--and it would be difficult to imagine a collection of reasonable people that you could convince otherwise. They would be angry at you, and rightly so.

We do accept the subjectivity of value, but in the context of a common stock the "subject" is necessarily public. This is precisely why Locke needed to reject the subjectivity of value by claiming an objective standard in the will of God.

EDIT: If he lets the subjectivity of value stand, then he has to admit that primitive communism is just as legitimate as capitalist appropriation--indeed, that virtually every other conceivable relation to property is permissible, depending on the values of the society that regulates property. His defense of private property becomes, at most, a defense of personal property. /EDIT

If you accept the subjectivity of value, it follows necessarily that property is a positive right, not a natural right. Natural right demands an objective foundation of value.

Because we begin from a common stock. Where everyone has an equal claim to everything, we need to explain why reasonable individuals would agree to let private persons appropriate a portion of the common stock for themselves.

Why does this not apply to apples as well?

At best, you have a quantitative difference of scarcity... but this is still relative to circumstances. Perhaps the community needs every apple to attain valuable life-saving medicines from a nearby community. If the apple is part of the "common stock," then what natural right do I have to pick it and claim it as my own?

It seems to me that either you must say that both the apple and the land are part of the common stock, in which case property rights over either are positive, and conditional on serving the public good... or that neither are part of the common stock, and that no one has any kind of claim on the fruits of the earth until they are appropriated by labor (and as such, any standard of improvement will do.)

Why does this not apply to apples as well?Quite simply, because a single apply falls as easily under the rubric of "personal" property as "private" property.

Perhaps the community needs every apple to attain valuable life-saving medicines from a nearby community. If the apple is part of the "common stock," then what natural right do I have to pick it and claim it as my own?In this case, you would not have such a right. But here you are talking about a particular community with established property laws regarding its apples, not the generalized "common stock" of State of Nature theories.

Once actual property laws exist, I probably cannot take any apple without permission, unless I happen to own the tree.

It seems to me that either you must say that both the apple and the land are part of the common stock, in which case property rights over either are positive, and conditional on serving the public good.I would be inclined to say that all property rights ARE, in fact, positive; or at least that there is necessarily a social tension present in all appropriation. The tension may be very slight in the case of plucking an apple from a tree, or with regard to personal property in general: most societies do not have much interest in totalizing their control over the minutiae of personal lives. But at least in theory, I would agree to society's right to claim virtually any form of property... provided it makes that claim through legitimate mechanisms such as fair, democratic decision-making.

I think there is a much stronger case to be made for a natural right to self-determination in the form of a shared right to public authority. The case for a natural right to property is relatively weak.

or that neither are part of the common stock, and that no one has any kind of claim on the fruits of the earth until they are appropriated by labor (and as such, any standard of improvement will do.)This is incoherent.

What does it mean to say that "no one has any kind of claim," and how does this differ operationally from "everyone has an equal claim"?

I would be inclined to say that all property rights ARE, in fact, positive; or at least that there is necessarily a social tension present in all appropriation. The tension may be very slight in the case of plucking an apple from a tree, or with regard to personal property in general: most societies do not have much interest in totalizing their control over the minutiae of personal lives. But at least in theory, I would agree to society's right to claim virtually any form of property... provided it makes that claim through legitimate mechanisms such as fair, democratic decision-making.

I think there is a much stronger case to be made for a natural right to self-determination in the form of a shared right to public authority. The case for a natural right to property is relatively weak.

I agree with all of this... but I think the natural right to self-determination has at least one implication for property rights, public or private: that I must not be forcefully subordinated by my basic needs for food, water, and other easily-provided goods. Either I must be permitted free access to enough of the means of production to provide for myself, or my basic needs must be provided for unconditionally by society as compensation for its monopolization of those means.

This is incoherent.

What does it mean to say that "no one has any kind of claim,"

Simply that nobody has any authority over resources that have not been appropriated by labor.

According to that line of reasoning, I cannot say, "Why have you taken for yourself that which belonged to all?", because it belonged to no one. In order for me to have a claim over it, I must appropriate it with labor first.

Edit: You are making the assumption that everything prior to appropriation is "common stock"... and all I am saying is that this does not follow simply from the observation that it has not yet been made into private property.

The claim of the public can be questioned just as the claim of the individual can be.

and how does this differ operationally from "everyone has an equal claim"?

Everyone does have an equal claim according to that formulation, at least prior to appropriation by labor - none at all.

See, this is a problem if you are trying to associate yourself with classic liberalism. In classic liberal theory, individuals had the dignity of self-determination before instituting government. Classic liberals rejected, after all, the Hobbesian formulation that the "state of nature" outside government control is "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short." Indeed, classic liberals maintained that human beings are capable of engaging in most social and economic activities without supervision--it was only with the advent of economic inequality that matters changed, because from thenceforward the propertied demanded public protection from people without property.

While I do not know what to think of the issue personally, I do believe that most of the members of this party do believe that people have natural rights by way of their nature as rational human beings.

Classic liberals allowed extensive interference into the speech, beliefs, and actions of individuals; they only really opposed interference into the economic speech, beliefs, and actions of individuals. You might be able to find a theoretical loophole by attempting to argue that all speech, beliefs, and actions are somehow "economic," but in doing so you would be distancing yourself from actual classic liberals... and you would have an uphill battle with that argument, regardless.

You cannot deny the trend of advancing social freedoms that was present in liberalism.

I do not accept that our refusal to accept the unfortunate limitations of classic liberal thinkers in the application of their principles creates a great distance between us and them.

It was not classic liberalism that secured the broad rights and liberties that most of us, today, hold dear. These took hold as part of constitutional and republican doctrines that appeared independently of liberalism, though in many places (particularly the United States) they intermingled with it (producing, perhaps, an independent school of thought that should be called liberal republicanism or liberal democracy).

I think you greatly downplay the role of liberalism in securing these broad right in continental Europe. I think that the places where liberalism and constitutionalism intermingled outnumber those where they didn't.

This is a real problem for classic liberalism, which held (explicitly, for most) that government should be most responsive to citizens possessing material wealth. Indeed, this was the reason that classic liberals advocated a property requirement for voters.

Then in that manner we differ.

I cannot think of a single classic liberal who would support this proposal, noble though it may be. The closest you'll get in the (roughly) "liberal" canon is Jefferson or Rousseau, both of whom maintained that property is a positive (not natural) right, thus distancing them significantly from the "classic" (English/Scottish) liberals.

It was an important part of liberal philosophy that government be both severely limited in the consolidation of power and that people be granted the ability to choose their government.

Certainly classic liberals would oppose such legalization! Looking at things from the perspective of employers, they worried that licentiousness in the masses would contribute to inefficiency at work, absenteeism, ill health, etc.

What causes you to derive this from their thought, considering their opinions on the liberalisation of property ownership, usage, and trade?

This is suspect, considering that classic liberals (and your platform, apparently) is willing to call some people unfit to make political decisions; generally this opinion extends to a willingness to tell people when they are being "irrational" generally, and to force them to do things that they "would" do if they were "thinking clearly."

We are declaring that some may be unfit to determine what constitutes just conduct between individuals, but that no one should be declared incompetent to control their own medical treatment.

Although, even as I type this I realize that this is something that should be addressed and considered further.

You will not find this opinion ANYWHERE among classic liberals. They held, to borrow the convenient American phrase, that there should be "no taxation without representation." Taxation itself they considered perfectly legitimate, because (unlike libertarianism) classic liberalism included a strong concept of "the public" and public ends. Indeed, one might argue that classic liberalism would oppose certain aspects of libertarianism on principle--to the extent that liberalism consciously distinguished itself from a feudal system that focused political power in private hands, it was thoroughly concerned with expounding a "public trust," a "compact" or similar construct that could legitimately rule over the property of all. That this government was instituted precisely for the protection of property entailed some limitations, but classic liberals considered taxation to be the legitimate means by which public protections were maintained. It was not a "necessary evil," it was "the greatest invention of mankind," to borrow a classic liberal phrase.

Notice that phrase was not followed by a call to outlaw taxation (although it is considered a necessary evil). Also notice that this manifesto is an attempt to create a rule of law that is limited to only what is necessary to maintain a society free of coersion, not an attempt to remove the rule of law.

As for my interpretation of taxes, I tend to refer to Say.

Who, by the way, referred to taxation as "the greatest invention of mankind?"

I agree with all of this... but I think the natural right to self-determination has at least one implication for property rights, public or private: that I must not be forcefully subordinated by my basic needs for food, water, and other easily-provided goods. Either I must be permitted free access to enough of the means of production to provide for myself, or my basic needs must be provided for unconditionally by society as compensation for its monopolization of those means.Fine, as long as we agree that none of this makes property a natural right.

Simply that nobody has any authority over resources that have not been appropriated by labor.Labor is neither as necessary nor as powerful as you maintain.

Imagine the most beautiful waterful in the world, shimmering down a mountainside into the valley below. The people who live in the surrounding area love the waterfall for its natural beauty. They enjoy playing and swimming in the pool below, they compose music and poetry in honor of their most cherished natural location.

For the sake of the argument, assume that they get drinking water and water for other necessities from a separate source. Assume also that it takes utterly no labor to preserve the waterfall: it simply is for itself.

Now, one day I am playing in the water and I find little gold flakes in the mud. I realize that precious ore is contained in the rock from which the waterfall flows, and I take to chipping away at it. Indeed, if I really want to be productive I start breaking apart the side of the mountain with the best machines I can find. In the process I destroy a waterfall which was a pure public good.... but hey, mine was the first labor applied to it.

Are you really prepared to commit to the idea that my destructive (but productive) act was perfectly legitimated by the simple fact that I was the first person to "work" the land? Are you really prepared to assert that the waterfall and the mountain from which it flowed are "mine" because I sweat over them?

Claims to right have another origin besides labor.

In order for me to have a claim over it, I must appropriate it with labor first.A necessary condition, perhaps. But certainly not sufficient.

Then you are decidedly NOT a classic liberal. You are a libertarian. Why are you afraid to use the more accurate term?

Please direct me to a classic liberal argument for central banking.

The hidden assumption here is that earning a good GPA does not indicate that a person has learned something. If that's the case, I assume you intend to do away with GPA altogether, because it is an apparently meaningless indicator.

I have no intention to alter GPA in any sense, that is up to the school. What I do believe is that GPA more often refers to ability to regurgitate rather than reuse.

Your assumption here is that "students should not learn anything in which they are not personally interested." If you want to defend your conclusion that general requirements should be dropped, you should begin by defending this assumption.

That will be particularly difficult, since even within a major field I may be required to take courses which are necessary for my professional development but which I do not find particularly interesting. That is, it is entirely possible that I am interested in my field broadly speaking, but less interested in a particular subject which may, however, be necessary in order to understand other aspects of my profession.

It is not at all clear to me that there are no classes which are necessary for students regardless of whether they like them. Introductory courses in writing and analytical reading are a great example: few students fall in love with their first-year English requirements, but it seems likely that they should improve their reading and writing skills nevertheless.

I also am of the opinion that someone who commits themselves to a standardized profession is setting themselves up for a vastly disappointing life as well.

But my point was not that they shouldn't learn what they cannot find interest in, only that they will most likely not learn.

So supposing there is a tiny, tiny minority that does NOT "comprehend" their rights, why is it so important for the government to take them away? Why not just let it be?

Certainly this is a small price to pay for a stronger guarantee of right--one that denies the legitimacy of the government's "taking away" a right at all. We pay some social price for most rights: criminal procedural protections undoubtedly set at least some criminals free, free speech entails certain inconveniences, and so on. Why should a general right to vote be any different? Why does it have to be "perfect" in the sense that it does not extend to anyone "unfairly"?

One unstable person possessing a gun, driving a car, flying a plane, or other activity with great potention to interact with others is a great risk, and most likely a greater risk than the one that a borderline case may be misjudged.

This is an interpretive problem, I think, that arises because too few people actually read classic liberals; instead, they read sound-byte versions of their theories.

In the sound-byte version, you read a lot about the word "liberty" and how important it is that government protect individual liberty. Unwittingly you commit an equivocation fallacy by assuming that classic liberals meant by "liberty" what modern liberalism means: personal autonomy broadly speaking.

In fact, if you actually read classic liberals, you find that they were talking almost exclusively about economic liberty, as evidenced by their usage of the term. To see that usage, you need to read more than some out-of-context citations. More importantly, you need to begin with an open mind before reading them: if you go in assuming that what they mean by "liberty" is what you mean by liberty, it will be easy enough to gloss over the many contradictions that entails.

And quite often it is through economic liberty that social freedom is to be had. When I refer to a "system of interdepence" it refers to a system of economic scheme, not social scheme (although the two are often interchangeable).

Oh good lord, suddenly you sound like Lenin.

Shit. You really sound like Lenin.

Your goals are diametrically opposed, but the rhetoric regarding government intervention in a "transitional" period is identical.

Lenin's idea of a transitional period is self-contradictory. The transitional government that he creates renders the citizen dependent, subservient, and ideologically allied with the ruling party. The result is a government that is supposed to dissolve into a collection of self-governing workers by creating a collection of workers increasingly dependent upon central party governance.

My goal is "diametrically opposed," as you said, and it makes all the difference. I wish to dissolve government into a collection of self-governing workers by creating a collection of workers increasing dependent upon each other, and not on central party governance.

You cannot deny the trend of advancing social freedoms that was present in liberalism.I do not. But that does not mean that these advancements can simply be spun back into classic liberalism without radically altering the sense of the classic liberal argument. As feminist critics of the philosophical canon have long maintained, it is not a simple matter to save them from themselves: it is not sufficient to "add women, and stir," because women were not incidentally excluded from the social contract: they were explicitly and intentionally excluded, and this exclusion was integral to how classic liberals (for example) conceived of political life.

And this is only one example.

I do not accept that our refusal to accept the unfortunate limitations of classic liberal thinkers in the application of their principles creates a great distance between us and them.It may not be that "great" a distance, but it is a distance. You are liberals advocating a strain within the broader liberal movement. You differ in important ways from the founders of liberalism--as do other strains of liberal thought today.

What arrogance it takes for you to selectively read the liberal founders and to assert that you are the "real" heirs of the liberal movement: you are, in fact, classic liberals... while other inheritors of the name liberal have diverged from their ideals. The fact of the matter is that they have not; indeed, arguably there are other strains of liberalism that remain closer to the core of the classic ideal.

One unstable person possessing a gun, driving a car, flying a plane, or other activity with great potention to interact with others is a great risk, and most likely a greater risk than the one that a borderline case may be misjudged.I've heard people make the same argument about letting a suspected criminal go free because of the Fourth Amendment. Isn't it more dangerous, they ask, to let a probable rapist roam the streets than it is to restrict government power?

Personally, a few crazies or incompetents roaming the streets seems a lot less dangerous than a government with the power to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

And quite often it is through economic liberty that social freedom is to be had.Yes. Meanwhile, the realization of liberal democracy in the context of late capitalism is that quite often it is through economic liberty that real human autonomy is destroyed.

If by "timely manner" you mean "prior to sex," then I would agree. A man should be allowed to submit a statement indicating that he will not care for any child that might arise from his sexual activity with a particular woman. He should need to get this signed by the woman to verify that she was aware of his stance. If she has sex with him anyway, she assumes full responsibility for any child that may result.

Of course, such contracts could take a variety of forms. Perhaps a woman will agree under the condition that the man pays for the abortion. Or perhaps the contract will set terms for withdrawal: a man need not decide in advance that he will not support a child, but a pre-sex contract could state that he has until eight weeks into the pregnancy (still allowing time for a safe abortion) to state his intention--otherwise his responsibility will be assumed.

Why should such responsibility be assumed?

Isn't "prior to sex" a rather arbitrary line to draw considering the state of modern medicine. Why should the father of a fetus be less responsible for the fetus when he denies responsibility prior to sex?

You have covered when and how, now address why.

(And is the essential a specific advocacy of a free market, or a deep concern for an autonomy that may, in the final analysis, be threatened by the market? I think the latter is probably the fairer read, which would entail that interventionist liberals are actually much more devoted to the ideals of classic liberalism than are libertarian-oriented liberals such as you.)

This seems counter to the analysis of classic liberalism you proposed before.

In any case, you can only accomplish a close identification with classic liberalism by doing severe violence to the theories of classic liberals. These represent an irreducible tension between individualism and a new conception of legitimate authority, and it is this tension that has generated a dialectical progression that resulted in the ideals of liberalism turning to increased interventionism in the face of advanced industrial capitalism. To arbitrarily privilege the individual is not only to misread the deep dilemmas informing classic liberal thought, it is to kill the very dialectic that promotes progress in the idea.

The conflict of classic liberal thought was between the just rule of law in determining and enforcing proper conduct and the benefit and freedom of the individual.

With this in mind, I think that you make two errors.

Firstly, and I do believe that it was more a matter of poor wording, the principles of classic liberalism were aimed at providing privilege to the individual. While it may had not been "arbitrary privilege", neither is ours a method of "arbitrary privilege". That is not what I think that you intended, rather I imagine that you are insinuating that we simply default to the individual against the public good, as if the individual alone is an intrinsic good and the collective is an intrinsic bad. However, not only does our manifesto not state any such thing, but it actually assumes something that is not true of this party (although it may be true of some individuals).

Your statement that we "misread the deep dilemmas informing classic liberal thought" is quite untrue, as it is through consideration of the extent to which rule of law is necessary for the proper conduct of individuals within society that we arrived at our principles. It is also not coincidence that our arguments often mirror that of the principle contributers of classic liberal throught.

Furthermore, it is certainly not a killing of the dialectic, but an extension, as the libertarian movement is most certainly a direct response to the growing trend of state regulation and acquisition of industry and the maladies that it brings with it.

Why should such responsibility be assumed?Because the entire basis of law is that people take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Isn't "prior to sex" a rather arbitrary line to draw considering the state of modern medicine.Because after sex, the man can no longer alter the course of events by his own actions: the choice is the woman's. By having sex with a woman, a man puts the determination for the consequences of his action in her hands, unless he wants to deny her the right to control her own body.

Of course, it is his right to state terms for their sexual encounter. He may assert that he will not have sex with a woman unless she agrees to abort a fetus if one is conceived, or that she should take full responsibility for it. But if he does not do so, then he is responsible for the consequences of his own free choice.

I'll offer a rough analogy. Suppose I am leaving for an extended stay in Antarctica, or the bottom of the ocean, or outer space, and I will be out of touch for some time. I might put someone in charge of my affairs, or certain particular affairs. I might authorize this person to spend my money. Of course, before I leave I might set particular limitations to her authority, and if she exceeded this authority I would not be liable for the consequences because I stated my opposition in advance. But if I remain silent and I put my affairs in someone else's hands, I cannot complain when I return that I should not be responsible for her decisions.

The case of pregnancy is analogous. I may not have been out of touch, but when I had sex with a woman I put control over the consequences in her hands--I cannot complain later that I am not responsible, unless I disclaimed responsibility beforehand and she agreed to a sexual contract under those terms.

Why should the father of a fetus be less responsible for the fetus when he denies responsibility prior to sex?Because after such a declaration, if a woman has sex with him she must consent to those terms. If she does not like the terms, she is perfectly free not to have sex with him. By having sex with him, she accepts full responsibility for the outcome because she accepts his renunciation of his share of responsibility.

Basic contract theory.

This seems counter to the analysis of classic liberalism you proposed before.Perhaps, although I think the problem lies largely in a confusion of means and ends. Allow me to elaborate more fully.

Liberals, broadly speaking, have two essential concerns: individual liberty and legitimate government. At some risk of over-generalizing, liberals describe a government as legitimate to the extent that a rational individual would consent to it. This definition is loaded with problems, and largely for this reason liberal theory has tended toward the idea that consent should be literalized in the form of a loosely democratic process, but this is by no means essential to liberal theory. Classic liberals were the least likely to advocate extensive or responsive democracy. Their emphasis was very much on government that rational individuals should prefer, not that to which they actually consent. Hence their frequent emphasis on "tacit" consent.

Over time, the liberal movement has grown, and it has also fragmented. On the one hand, some liberals strengthened and extended the classic concept of freedom to include more than just economic liberty abstractly conceived: they consider poverty and discrimination problems for liberal thought, as well as such issues as child care and family leave, working conditions, and harassment. Because they have asserted a liberal defense of liberty broadly conceived, they have discovered that liberalized markets often interfere with objective liberties, and they arrive at a costs-benefits balancing act between economic liberty and its impact on other varieties of human liberty.

Of course, this balancing act inheres in the liberal problem: from the very beginning liberals had to explain why individuals must give up some liberties by submitting to government control, and the explanation was inevitably, "to preserve liberty more broadly defined." To the extent that this strain of liberalism continues to expand the sphere of liberties worthy of protection (a movement begun by classic liberals), and they retain the logic of government intervention for the sake of these liberties, they have a perfectly valid claim to considering themselves classic liberals: they need only emphasize the historical movement over the specific historical concerns of classic liberalism.

On the other hand, modern libertarians retain (or, more appropriately, return to) an insistence on the primacy of economic liberty. They may be willing to include many social liberties among their concerns, but they are only willing to do so to the extent that they can redefine them as economic (usually at some considerable strain to the term). As a result, they are unwilling (and to a large extent theoretically unable) to favor certain freedoms over others, since they only understand "one kind" of freedom. This results in a decidedly anti-interventionist stance: since we cannot decide which liberties are most important, we should just step back and let the market work it out. If the market happens to produce a society in which no one suffers the unfreedom of poverty or racism, so be it; if the market happens to produce a highly stratified society in which some people are more free than most others, that's just how it goes.

This is certainly a more radical position for market freedom than we find among classic liberals, who still allowed for substantial public oversight and taxation of business activities--especially over the new institution of the corporation.

Nevertheless, if they want to privilege a liberalizing theory of the market over the movement to expand the meaning of liberty, then such theorists might lay a claim to allegiance to "classic liberalism." I just don't see how this claim is any more legitimate than that detailed above, since market liberty was, if anything, less "essential" to liberal theory than the commitment to individual liberty per se. The emphasis on the market, while certainly real, was arguably a particular historical manifestation of the movement rather than identical with the movement itself.

It reminds me of that old identity problem in philosophy. Suppose I have a boat--call it the AnarchyeL--and I run a ferry route from point A to point B every day. As my boat ages, I begin to replace it piece-by-piece with newer materials. Because I am sentimental, however, I keep the old planks in my garage--in fact, I start putting them together in their original configuration. Meanwhile, I continue to run my route in the ever-changing boat, which of course bears the name "AnarchyeL," a name which appears on its schedule and on the tickets, etc.

Eventually, I have replaced every plank in the boat and reassembled the original pieces in my garage. I now have two "AnarchyeL's"--one which has continued the functions and practice of the original boat, and another which is identical in every part with the original. Which is the "real" AnarchyeL? Form/function, or content/matter?

Of course, the platform you present here seems a bit contradictory in that it appears to borrow somewhat arbitrarily from various strains of modern liberalism. It therefore has much in common with classic liberalism, and it differs in many ways (as do the aforementioned poles), but I am not clear on the abstract principles which unify the platform and which would therefore indicate the relationship to classic liberalism. You have picked some of their doctrines that you like, and rejected others which you don't like.

It's as if you built your model ship with half of the original parts and half newer parts... but in either case you keep it in your garage.

Firstly, and I do believe that it was more a matter of poor wording, the principles of classic liberalism were aimed at providing privilege to the individual. While it may had not been "arbitrary privilege", neither is ours a method of "arbitrary privilege".I think you misunderstood what I meant by "privileging the individual." I was not referring to specific privileges conferred on individuals, I was referring to your privileging one prong of a dilemma over the other.

Furthermore, it is certainly not a killing of the dialectic, but an extension, as the libertarian movement is most certainly a direct response to the growing trend of state regulation and acquisition of industry and the maladies that it brings with it.If you were really concerned about advancing a liberal dialectic, you would understand that any kind of "return" to a "classic" position defeats your purpose. Dialectical theorists loathe sentimentalism.

Libertarianism side-steps the liberal dialectic by attempting to cast its opponents as non-liberal. Claiming a return to "classic" (by implication, "true") liberalism, libertarians attempt to establish a conceptual separation between regulation and liberty that obscures the historical emergence of the modern regulatory state out of specifically liberal concerns.

In other words, it attempts to externalize the dialectical progression within liberalism, pitting long-dead statism against the corpse of liberal thought. This is, in fact, exactly an unraveling of the dialectic in liberal thought. I am inclined to suspect that this unraveling is motivated by the fearful realization that the logical conclusion of the liberal dialectic is socialism--which was, after all, precisely Marx's point.

So, perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps you should call yourselves "classic liberals"--but if so the term should be taken in such a disastrously negative, regressive sense that I cannot imagine why you would want to. (After all, if you really mean to externalize the liberal dialectic, then you may find yourselves unintentionally breathing new life into old-fashioned statism so that the two of you can replay those particular battles, ultimately to produce a rejuvenated fascism in opposition to your abstracted individualism. Come to think of it, I have noticed increased sympathies for fascism of late, so it may be that you are succeeding.)

Because the entire basis of law is that people take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Because after such a declaration, if a woman has sex with him she must consent to those terms. If she does not like the terms, she is perfectly free not to have sex with him. By having sex with him, she accepts full responsibility for the outcome because she accepts his renunciation of his share of responsibility.

Basic contract theory.

These are givens.

However, neither copulation nor conception should be considered sufficient cause of childbirth. Childbirth is simply not a consequence of the man's actions, it is a consequence of the woman's action to carry the pregnancy to term. Certainly a man should be held responsible for the resolution of the pregnancy, be it abortion or bringing it to term, but abortion, completely in the hands of women as it should be, separates men from responsibility for the birth of child.

As you said, it is assumed that people are to be held responsible for their actions, but the inverse is true as well, as people should not be held responsible for actions that are not their own.

Because after sex, the man can no longer alter the course of events by his own actions: the choice is the woman's. By having sex with a woman, a man puts the determination for the consequences of his action in her hands, unless he wants to deny her the right to control her own body.

Of course, it is his right to state terms for their sexual encounter. He may assert that he will not have sex with a woman unless she agrees to abort a fetus if one is conceived, or that she should take full responsibility for it. But if he does not do so, then he is responsible for the consequences of his own free choice.

I'll offer a rough analogy. Suppose I am leaving for an extended stay in Antarctica, or the bottom of the ocean, or outer space, and I will be out of touch for some time. I might put someone in charge of my affairs, or certain particular affairs. I might authorize this person to spend my money. Of course, before I leave I might set particular limitations to her authority, and if she exceeded this authority I would not be liable for the consequences because I stated my opposition in advance. But if I remain silent and I put my affairs in someone else's hands, I cannot complain when I return that I should not be responsible for her decisions.

The case of pregnancy is analogous. I may not have been out of touch, but when I had sex with a woman I put control over the consequences in her hands--I cannot complain later that I am not responsible, unless I disclaimed responsibility beforehand and she agreed to a sexual contract under those terms.

As I said, the consequences of sex no longer include childbirth.

These are givens.

However, neither copulation nor conception should be considered sufficient cause of childbirth. Childbirth is simply not a consequence of the man's actions, it is a consequence of the woman's action to carry the pregnancy to term.Yes, but after he has sex with her the decision is entirely hers. It's too late for him to back out.

Certainly a man should be held responsible for the resolution of the pregnancy, be it abortion or bringing it to term, but abortion, completely in the hands of women as it should be, separates men from responsibility for the birth of child.You're contradicting yourself.

How can men "be held responsible for the resolution of the pregnancy, be it abortion or bringing it to term," if it is true that a woman's choice "separates men from responsibility for the birth of the child"?

You can't have it both ways.

As you said, it is assumed that people are to be held responsible for their actions, but the inverse is true as well, as people should not be held responsible for actions that are not their own.The effect of a man's action in having sex with a woman is to (potentially) give her a choice that she would not otherwise have had. He has every chance to avoid that responsibility by NOT having sex with her or by stating terms for their sexual engagement in advance, but once he has sex with her he is bound by her decision.

That is the only reasonable way to make sense of the sexual contract without either giving men a free ticket or asserting a man's right to influence the woman's decision to bear or abort the child. He makes his decision first.

As I said, the consequences of sex no longer include childbirth.No, but the last moment at which a man has any control over the consequences of sex is just before sex. After having sex, he is already invested in the result.

Is it really so hard to ask men to be responsible before they have sex?

It is a very easy matter NOT to have sex with a woman who disagrees with your position regarding a resulting fetus.

Perhaps, although I think the problem lies largely in a confusion of means and ends. Allow me to elaborate more fully.

Liberals, broadly speaking, have two essential concerns: individual liberty and legitimate government. At some risk of over-generalizing, liberals describe a government as legitimate to the extent that a rational individual would consent to it. This definition is loaded with problems, and largely for this reason liberal theory has tended toward the idea that consent should be literalized in the form of a loosely democratic process, but this is by no means essential to liberal theory. Classic liberals were the least likely to advocate extensive or responsive democracy. Their emphasis was very much on government that rational individuals should prefer, not that to which they actually consent. Hence their frequent emphasis on "tacit" consent.

Over time, the liberal movement has grown, and it has also fragmented. On the one hand, some liberals strengthened and extended the classic concept of freedom to include more than just economic liberty abstractly conceived: they consider poverty and discrimination problems for liberal thought, as well as such issues as child care and family leave, working conditions, and harassment. Because they have asserted a liberal defense of liberty broadly conceived, they have discovered that liberalized markets often interfere with objective liberties, and they arrive at a costs-benefits balancing act between economic liberty and its impact on other varieties of human liberty.

Of course, this balancing act inheres in the liberal problem: from the very beginning liberals had to explain why individuals must give up some liberties by submitting to government control, and the explanation was inevitably, "to preserve liberty more broadly defined." To the extent that this strain of liberalism continues to expand the sphere of liberties worthy of protection (a movement begun by classic liberals), and they retain the logic of government intervention for the sake of these liberties, they have a perfectly valid claim to considering themselves classic liberals: they need only emphasize the historical movement over the specific historical concerns of classic liberalism.

On the other hand, modern libertarians retain (or, more appropriately, return to) an insistence on the primacy of economic liberty. They may be willing to include many social liberties among their concerns, but they are only willing to do so to the extent that they can redefine them as economic (usually at some considerable strain to the term). As a result, they are unwilling (and to a large extent theoretically unable) to favor certain freedoms over others, since they only understand "one kind" of freedom. This results in a decidedly anti-interventionist stance: since we cannot decide which liberties are most important, we should just step back and let the market work it out. If the market happens to produce a society in which no one suffers the unfreedom of poverty or racism, so be it; if the market happens to produce a highly stratified society in which some people are more free than most others, that's just how it goes.

This is certainly a more radical position for market freedom than we find among classic liberals, who still allowed for substantial public oversight and taxation of business activities--especially over the new institution of the corporation.

Nevertheless, if they want to privilege a liberalizing theory of the market over the movement to expand the meaning of liberty, then such theorists might lay a claim to allegiance to "classic liberalism." I just don't see how this claim is any more legitimate than that detailed above, since market liberty was, if anything, less "essential" to liberal theory than the commitment to individual liberty per se. The emphasis on the market, while certainly real, was arguably a particular historical manifestation of the movement rather than identical with the movement itself.

It reminds me of that old identity problem in philosophy. Suppose I have a boat--call it the AnarchyeL--and I run a ferry route from point A to point B every day. As my boat ages, I begin to replace it piece-by-piece with newer materials. Because I am sentimental, however, I keep the old planks in my garage--in fact, I start putting them together in their original configuration. Meanwhile, I continue to run my route in the ever-changing boat, which of course bears the name "AnarchyeL," a name which appears on its schedule and on the tickets, etc.

Eventually, I have replaced every plank in the boat and reassembled the original pieces in my garage. I now have two "AnarchyeL's"--one which has continued the functions and practice of the original boat, and another which is identical in every part with the original. Which is the "real" AnarchyeL? Form/function, or content/matter?

Of course, the platform you present here seems a bit contradictory in that it appears to borrow somewhat arbitrarily from various strains of modern liberalism. It therefore has much in common with classic liberalism, and it differs in many ways (as do the aforementioned poles), but I am not clear on the abstract principles which unify the platform and which would therefore indicate the relationship to classic liberalism. You have picked some of their doctrines that you like, and rejected others which you don't like.

It's as if you built your model ship with half of the original parts and half newer parts... but in either case you keep it in your garage.

You continue to define the classic liberal movement quite accurately, and even if there were conflicts in terms of understanding, I would have to refer to your opinion, it is certainly better informed.

But I cannot see where you have shown that our party doesn't follow the trends set forth by classical liberalism. For every basis you provide, I show a mirrored consideration within this party.

You have shown a general difference in our approach mainly toward social norms and divine justification, but I can hardly say that it is a dramatic jump from Locke's God to our nature at the core, even if it causes a dramatic realignment of externalities.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "privileging the individual." I was not referring to specific privileges conferred on individuals, I was referring to your privileging one prong of a dilemma over the other.

If you were really concerned about advancing a liberal dialectic, you would understand that any kind of "return" to a "classic" position defeats your purpose. Dialectical theorists loathe sentimentalism.

Libertarianism side-steps the liberal dialectic by attempting to cast its opponents as non-liberal. Claiming a return to "classic" (by implication, "true") liberalism, libertarians attempt to establish a conceptual separation between regulation and liberty that obscures the historical emergence of the modern regulatory state out of specifically liberal concerns.

In other words, it attempts to externalize the dialectical progression within liberalism, pitting long-dead statism against the corpse of liberal thought. This is, in fact, exactly an unraveling of the dialectic in liberal thought. I am inclined to suspect that this unraveling is motivated by the fearful realization that the logical conclusion of the liberal dialectic is socialism--which was, after all, precisely Marx's point.

So, perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps you should call yourselves "classic liberals"--but if so the term should be taken in such a disastrously negative, regressive sense that I cannot imagine why you would want to. (After all, if you really mean to externalize the liberal dialectic, then you may find yourselves unintentionally breathing new life into old-fashioned statism so that the two of you can replay those particular battles, ultimately to produce a rejuvenated fascism in opposition to your abstracted individualism. Come to think of it, I have noticed increased sympathies for fascism of late, so it may be that you are succeeding.)

I knew what you meant in reference to privileging the individual, but my comments on that matter made for a decent segue.

I fully believe that the regulatory nature of socialism is truly a rival extension of classic liberal thought and I never cast this party as a "return" to the classic position, as you have said, to do so would be to abandon dialetical extension.

This was my point earlier when refering to the totalitarian threat, and more specifically Hayek's analysis of socialism. I feel that Hayek (and Mises) did very well to show the negation of socialism, particularly the way in which centralized planning leads to at worst totalitarianism and at best cartelization of industry, and at all points a state of affairs in opposition to liberal desires. This inability of government to provide this freedom through positive action is the sole reason for this party.

But I cannot see where you have shown that our party doesn't follow the trends set forth by classical liberalism. For every basis you provide, I show a mirrored consideration within this party.Your party follows some trends set forth by classic liberalism. Other liberals follow other trends set forth by classic liberalism.

How do you decide which set of trends has a better claim to the name?

I can hardly say that it is a dramatic jump from Locke's God to our nature at the core, even if it causes a dramatic realignment of externalities.At the very least, once you give up on Locke's God you need an original justification for a natural right to property appropriation.

Locke's argument required both the appropriative power of labor and a divine mandate favoring production. Libertarians and so-called modern "classic liberals," as far as I have seen, unreflectively rely on the labor theory as if the theological argument is irrelevant.

If Locke could have managed the argument without the help of God, he would have, since--even as a Christian--for rhetorical purposes he preferred to rely on God only as an argument of last resort. At least he was smart enough to recognize that he had no other way out, which is more than I can say for most modern libertarians. The argument just doesn't work without an objective standard of value--and if you don't want to borrow that from God, then you'll have to tell me where else you're going to find it.

I fully believe that the regulatory nature of socialism is truly a rival extension of classic liberal thought and I never cast this party as a "return" to the classic position, as you have said, to do so would be to abandon dialetical extension.Then it's not clear why you are so insistent on taking up a name that suggests just that. It's not even as if classic liberals actually called themselves that--indeed, most of them didn't even call themselves liberals, the term was coined (in this usage) after the fact. So everything about your choice of a name suggests return rather than development, stagnation rather than progress.

I always wonder why groups want to choose names that mean one thing, only to insist forcefully that this is not really what they mean. Since simple denotation does not explain the preference, I look for alternate explanations--and most commonly, I find that the best explanation is that the name has a desirable rhetorical effect even if it is conceptually inaccurate.

I continue to suspect the same subtext in the preference for the name "classic liberals."