Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Elections => Topic started by: Verily on August 26, 2007, 04:20:33 PM



Title: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 26, 2007, 04:20:33 PM
Membership
Verily
Bullmoose88
AndrewCT
afleitch
Straha
Bacon King
Peter
Fabian
Colin Wixted
Mr. Moderate

Anyone, of course, is welcome to participate in the discussion. Since no one wants to discuss chairmanship, I thought we'd just move right along to hammering out platform planks. Just so we can do this in an orderly fashion, I'll suggest areas in which we should probably have a coherent position and then we can all discussion. Hopefully we can come to a reasonable consensus on everything; if not, we may have to hold votes on some particularly contentious issues.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 26, 2007, 04:25:36 PM
First up is international trade.


My own position is one that generally supports international markets as a positive force in the Atlasian economy, and vice versa. Overall, the expansion of international trade benefits far more people, both in Atlasia and worldwide, than it harms. Therefore, I would support the expansion of free trade proposals and the reduction and/or elimination of non-punitive tariffs. However, we must retain our current standards for imported goods, and environmental and quality clauses in free trade agreements are both reasonable.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 26, 2007, 05:06:51 PM
First up is international trade.


My own position is one that generally supports international markets as a positive force in the Atlasian economy, and vice versa. Overall, the expansion of international trade benefits far more people, both in Atlasia and worldwide, than it harms. Therefore, I would support the expansion of free trade proposals and the reduction and/or elimination of non-punitive tariffs. However, we must retain our current standards for imported goods, and environmental and quality clauses in free trade agreements are both reasonable.

Though I'm not 100% totally supportive of free trade (though much more supportive of it than the alternative), it's the inevitable direction of the world economy.  Fighting it is largely futile.

My largest issue with free trade is countries like China, but I see the plank already has a mention of the environmental concerns.  (I'm also against unfettered free trade with countries that offer subsidies for their own goods, like I believe China does extensively.)

(Just for the record, Atlasia already has free trade agreements with virtually every country under the sun.)


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 26, 2007, 08:13:53 PM
Yup. but the problem with those are that rather than pacts they were largely unilateral surrenders in the trade wars.  I'm very pro-free trade, but not to the point of ignoring the ill effects from other countries subsidies of their own products on Atlasian manufacturers and farmers.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 26, 2007, 08:17:45 PM
First up is international trade.


My own position is one that generally supports international markets as a positive force in the Atlasian economy, and vice versa. Overall, the expansion of international trade benefits far more people, both in Atlasia and worldwide, than it harms. Therefore, I would support the expansion of free trade proposals and the reduction and/or elimination of non-punitive tariffs. However, we must retain our current standards for imported goods, and environmental and quality clauses in free trade agreements are both reasonable.

Though I'm not 100% totally supportive of free trade (though much more supportive of it than the alternative), it's the inevitable direction of the world economy.  Fighting it is largely futile.

My largest issue with free trade is countries like China, but I see the plank already has a mention of the environmental concerns.  (I'm also against unfettered free trade with countries that offer subsidies for their own goods, like I believe China does extensively.)

Well, that would fall under the category of punitive tariffs, I think, though honestly we'd have a job proving that China subsidizes their companies; China's state-run economy has turned into more of an economy-run state (well, it makes for a nice turnaround; business-run state would be more accurate).

Quote
(Just for the record, Atlasia already has free trade agreements with virtually every country under the sun.)

Most of the Americas, Australia, Singapore, Bahrain, Morocco, Israel, New Zealand, Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia, Georgia, Switzerland, South Africa and the Philippines, to be precise.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 26, 2007, 08:21:54 PM
Yup. but the problem with those are that rather than pacts they were largely unilateral surrenders in the trade wars.  I'm very pro-free trade, but not to the point of ignoring the ill effects from other countries subsidies of their own products on Atlasian manufacturers and farmers.

Of course. Largely, the issue of domestic agricultural subsidies was already dealt with by the Farm Subsidies Abolition Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Farm_Subsidies_Abolition_Act), so the need to reduce our own unfair practices is less pressing than it once was.

Again, this falls under punitive tariffs, which cannot be wholly ruled out.

I do think Atlasia should follow up on additional free trade proposals, however, such as extending free trade to EFTA, Indonesia, and South Korea, which have shown some inclination to agree.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Hash on August 26, 2007, 09:12:35 PM
The position of this party on immigration, secularism will most likely determine if I decide to stay.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Peter on August 27, 2007, 10:20:03 AM
I generally agree with the esteemed Acting Chairman, however, I would not actually make it a goal of the party to pursue expansion of the free trade agreements because they are so dull for the Senate to consider.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 27, 2007, 10:57:54 AM
I generally agree with the esteemed Acting Chairman, however, I would not actually make it a goal of the party to pursue expansion of the free trade agreements because they are so dull for the Senate to consider.

Agreed.  I can think of few things less interesting to do on the Senate floor than to debate the issue of whether or not to offer a free trade agreement to Madagascar.  (No matter how wonderful their vanilla beans may be.)

I guess the position should be more towards defending existing free trade, and if it must be extended, then to do it in a bulk, regional agreement unlike the previously approached country-by-country format.  Ugh.

The position of this party on immigration, secularism will most likely determine if I decide to stay.

[Hopefully, I'm not out of line discussing these other topics—feel free to rule me out of line, here, Verily.]

I generally assume the consensus here would be to keep church and state as separate as possible, since it is a more socially-liberal-geared party.

Immigration is a much tougher issue.  I, for one, support increasing the allowable legal immigration, allowing illegal immigrants basic government services (such as emergency medical care and public schooling—after all, immigrants pay property taxes for public schools through rent, and a lot pay into the social security and medicare system via falsified SS numbers—money they'll never be able to get back), but I oppose the idea of "amnesty" as any kind of solution if we're going to keep the current system in place, since it merely re-inforces the idea that border policy is meaningless so long as you're lucky enough to skirt the rules.

In an ideal world, I would be for totally open borders, but I think we do need some kind of immigration policy in hand to help aid against terrorism and to protect our economy from a massive, sudden influx of Mexicans, Cubans, and assorted third-worlders.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Hash on August 27, 2007, 11:11:22 AM
My views on immigration are almost all influenced by immigration problems in France or Québec, and I'm pretty neutral on US immigration issues. But, I'm against regularization of illegal immigrants, I want immigrants to learn the language of the host country BEFORE coming, I want immigrants to follow the laws of the host country, including secularism and any laws concerning civil rights etc (especially some Muslims with women). And I'm most certainly opposed to any of the things going on in Québec that might be US issues, such as reasonable accomodations.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 11:57:35 AM
I generally agree with the esteemed Acting Chairman, however, I would not actually make it a goal of the party to pursue expansion of the free trade agreements because they are so dull for the Senate to consider.

Agreed.  I can think of few things less interesting to do on the Senate floor than to debate the issue of whether or not to offer a free trade agreement to Madagascar.  (No matter how wonderful their vanilla beans may be.)

I guess the position should be more towards defending existing free trade, and if it must be extended, then to do it in a bulk, regional agreement unlike the previously approached country-by-country format.  Ugh.

The position of this party on immigration, secularism will most likely determine if I decide to stay.

[Hopefully, I'm not out of line discussing these other topics—feel free to rule me out of line, here, Verily.]

Not a problem; it seems as if we've reached a rough consensus on our position on trade. We'll move on to immigration.

Quote
I generally assume the consensus here would be to keep church and state as separate as possible, since it is a more socially-liberal-geared party.

I don't foresee anyone objecting to that.

Quote
Immigration is a much tougher issue.  I, for one, support increasing the allowable legal immigration, allowing illegal immigrants basic government services (such as emergency medical care and public schooling—after all, immigrants pay property taxes for public schools through rent, and a lot pay into the social security and medicare system via falsified SS numbers—money they'll never be able to get back), but I oppose the idea of "amnesty" as any kind of solution if we're going to keep the current system in place, since it merely re-inforces the idea that border policy is meaningless so long as you're lucky enough to skirt the rules.

In an ideal world, I would be for totally open borders, but I think we do need some kind of immigration policy in hand to help aid against terrorism and to protect our economy from a massive, sudden influx of Mexicans, Cubans, and assorted third-worlders.

Atlasia has already issued amnesty quite recently, and I'm not of the opinion that amnesty is more than a quick-fix solution, so I basically agree with this position.

Legal immigration should be eased, moving away from the current family-based model to a more demand-based model (though obviously still allowing people to bring in close relatives) in which immigrants are considered primarily for their desire to enter the United States.

On this line, increased border security is also important, including increased monitoring of the Straits of Florida as well as the Rio Grande and the rest of the US-Mexico border. (Obviously this applies ot the US-Canada border, too, but, being realistic, that's not where illegal immigration happens.) A wall would be ineffective and absurdly expensive.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Hash on August 27, 2007, 12:43:11 PM
I'm all in favor of legal immigration, considering these immigrants meet my points I stated in my above post. However, I'm more sceptic of immigrants bringing in with them relatives.
I would recommend a sort of "point system" for immigrants, giving those asking for entry extra points if they speak English, if they have proffesional training, if they have a clean criminal record, if they could find a productive job soon after entry etc. Instead of having immigrants come in and living on welfare for quite a time due to the absence of training to take up employment.

BTW, I'm officialy not a NLC member, but if Verily okays it, my "Democratic Centre" will affiliate with the NLC with conditions of automatic support for NLC candidates etc.

(note: i'm supposed to leave for Ottawa soon and I'll be absent, so I'll comment on anything this assembly passes upon return, so wait for me :P)


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 27, 2007, 12:55:52 PM
Legal immigration should be eased, moving away from the current family-based model to a more demand-based model (though obviously still allowing people to bring in close relatives) in which immigrants are considered primarily for their desire to enter the United States.

On this line, increased border security is also important, including increased monitoring of the Straits of Florida as well as the Rio Grande and the rest of the US-Mexico border. (Obviously this applies ot the US-Canada border, too, but, being realistic, that's not where illegal immigration happens.) A wall would be ineffective and absurdly expensive.

I think I agree with all of this.  With due respect to supporters of the idea, building a wall across our borders is one of the most retarded public policy ideas ever dreamt up.  This is not East Germany, and good luck building a wall around tens-of-thousands of miles of ocean.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 04:00:50 PM
BTW, I'm officialy not a NLC member, but if Verily okays it, my "Democratic Centre" will affiliate with the NLC with conditions of automatic support for NLC candidates etc.

(note: i'm supposed to leave for Ottawa soon and I'll be absent, so I'll comment on anything this assembly passes upon return, so wait for me :P)

Not a problem in my book.


Okay, I think we've got immigration covered now. Before we go on, I'm going to go through a quick list of social issue positions, none of which I expect anyone to object to (but, if there are objections, feel free to mention them).

-Embryonic stem cell research funding
-Same-sex marriage or blanket civil unions replacing legal marriage
-Prayer allowed in public schools but not sanctioned; no "prayer time", no proselytizing
-Support legal abortions when mother's life is in danger, in situations of rape, and when the child will not survive past birth; no position taken (yet) on other circumstances (as we will probably want to discuss that further)
-Legalize euthanasia through living wills and active consent


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 27, 2007, 04:40:35 PM
[Okay, I think we've got immigration covered now. Before we go on, I'm going to go through a quick list of social issue positions, none of which I expect anyone to object to (but, if there are objections, feel free to mention them).

-Embryonic stem cell research funding
You mean biotechnology corporate welfare?  I have mild objections to this unless we have any patents resulting from the research be owned by the government as well so that they can be used by a wider group of users.

Quote
-Support legal abortions when mother's life is in danger, in situations of rape, and when the child will not survive past birth; no position taken (yet) on other circumstances (as we will probably want to discuss that further)

While I have no strong position on much of the abortion issue, I am stridently against exceptions for rape or incest.  The sole justification for restricting or prohibiting abortion is that one is safeguarding another human life by doing so.  The circumstances that lead to a pregnancy, no matter how tragic they may be, have no bearing or whether an embryo or fetus has yet reached the point at which it should be considered to be a human life or not.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 27, 2007, 05:35:16 PM
-Embryonic stem cell research funding

I'm supportive of stem cell research, at least as much as I'm supportive of all government research into diseases—I have no moral issues with it.  I'd prefer to see industry take a more active lead in research, though.

-Same-sex marriage or blanket civil unions replacing legal marriage

Right now we've got the latter, and I see no reason to change it.

-Prayer allowed in public schools but not sanctioned; no "prayer time", no proselytizing

I approve of that, so long as it doesn't have negative consequences toward the South's school choice program.

-Support legal abortions when mother's life is in danger, in situations of rape, and when the child will not survive past birth; no position taken (yet) on other circumstances (as we will probably want to discuss that further)

I'm pretty blanketly pro-choice so I wouldn't mind if the party went even farther than that.  I do oppose partial birth abortion (exception for health of the mother, of course) and support parental notification.

-Legalize euthanasia through living wills and active consent

Of course—why should the government have a say in whether or not you can kill yourself?


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 27, 2007, 05:40:14 PM
The NLC shouldn't take a position on abortion. While I'm relatively pro-choice myself this should remain a 'conscience' issue for each member to hold their own opinion. The same could also be said for embryonic stem cell research which I fully support. Of course if everyone is one side of the fence I can see why a position could be adopted :)


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 05:49:37 PM
Okay, I think we've got immigration covered now. Before we go on, I'm going to go through a quick list of social issue positions, none of which I expect anyone to object to (but, if there are objections, feel free to mention them).

-Embryonic stem cell research funding
You mean biotechnology corporate welfare?  I have mild objections to this unless we have any patents resulting from the research be owned by the government as well so that they can be used by a wider group of users.

The patents need not be owned by the government, just have there be no patent at all. Of course, as the companies themselves also invest money into the research, they should at least get some sort of benefits; it isn't simply the government paying for research, it's the government encouraging research through grants. I agree with you in principle about corporate welfare, but in the recent past it has been nigh impossible to get anyone to seriously research stem cells (or most anything else in the medical field) without substantial government input.

Quote
Quote
-Support legal abortions when mother's life is in danger, in situations of rape, and when the child will not survive past birth; no position taken (yet) on other circumstances (as we will probably want to discuss that further)

While I have no strong position on much of the abortion issue, I am stridently against exceptions for rape or incest.  The sole justification for restricting or prohibiting abortion is that one is safeguarding another human life by doing so.  The circumstances that lead to a pregnancy, no matter how tragic they may be, have no bearing or whether an embryo or fetus has yet reached the point at which it should be considered to be a human life or not.

Okay, I think it's time for the dying violinist to be dragged out again. It's an argument often offered in favor of abortion, and it's very compelling... until you realize it applies only in situations of rape. Anyway:

You wake up in a strange place. There is a person connected to you by tubes carrying blood between your bodies. A group of people stand around you. They explain to you that the person attached to you is a famous violinist, and they are his devout fans. He has a critical illness, so they have kidnapped you and attached you to his bloodstream to keep him alive. You both will survive with no ill effects if you agree to be confined with the man attached to you for nine months, but, if you choose to sever the connection, he will die. Are you obligated to maintain the connection?

The NLC shouldn't take a position on abortion. While I'm relatively pro-choice myself this should remain a 'conscience' issue for each member to hold their own opinion. The same could also be said for embryonic stem cell research which I fully support. Of course if everyone is one side of the fence I can see why a position could be adopted :)

I agree; if we can't find a consensus position on these sorts of things, it's okay to leave them out of our platform.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 27, 2007, 06:35:38 PM
Okay, I think we've got immigration covered now. Before we go on, I'm going to go through a quick list of social issue positions, none of which I expect anyone to object to (but, if there are objections, feel free to mention them).

-Embryonic stem cell research funding
You mean biotechnology corporate welfare?  I have mild objections to this unless we have any patents resulting from the research be owned by the government as well so that they can be used by a wider group of users.

The patents need not be owned by the government, just have there be no patent at all. Of course, as the companies themselves also invest money into the research, they should at least get some sort of benefits; it isn't simply the government paying for research, it's the government encouraging research through grants. I agree with you in principle about corporate welfare, but in the recent past it has been nigh impossible to get anyone to seriously research stem cells (or most anything else in the medical field) without substantial government input.

Largely because the medical community has become so dependent on government funding that it has forgotten there are other ways to raise research funds.  One good thing about the stem cell controversy has been that its gotten some off their duffs to find other funding sources.  Unfortunately most of them only see it as a stop gap until government returns to its usual practice.

Quote
Quote
Quote
-Support legal abortions when mother's life is in danger, in situations of rape, and when the child will not survive past birth; no position taken (yet) on other circumstances (as we will probably want to discuss that further)

While I have no strong position on much of the abortion issue, I am stridently against exceptions for rape or incest.  The sole justification for restricting or prohibiting abortion is that one is safeguarding another human life by doing so.  The circumstances that lead to a pregnancy, no matter how tragic they may be, have no bearing or whether an embryo or fetus has yet reached the point at which it should be considered to be a human life or not.

Okay, I think it's time for the dying violinist to be dragged out again. It's an argument often offered in favor of abortion, and it's very compelling... until you realize it applies only in situations of rape. Anyway:

You wake up in a strange place. There is a person connected to you by tubes carrying blood between your bodies. A group of people stand around you. They explain to you that the person attached to you is a famous violinist, and they are his devout fans. He has a critical illness, so they have kidnapped you and attached you to his bloodstream to keep him alive. You both will survive with no ill effects if you agree to be confined with the man attached to you for nine months, but, if you choose to sever the connection, he will die. Are you obligated to maintain the connection?
If you are the only person who can keep the person alive, then yes, even if he weren't famous.  The violinist is clearly a human being in this example, without any of the uncertainty of that fact that pertains to the analogous case.  Given what the two stark choices presented are, you are inconvenienced for nine months or he dies, the only ethical choice at this point would be to keep him alive.  That wouldn't keep you from seeking legal action, both criminal and civil against his fans.  Indeed, such action should be taken.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on August 27, 2007, 06:44:06 PM
I was just wondering what the National Liberal Coalition's policy is on Personal Tax and Buisness Tax. For my view on Personal Tax and Buisness Tax go to my Northeastern Senatorial Campaign Headquarters on the Fantasy Election board. Just like to remind people, I am AFFLIATED. I HAVEN'T JOINED YET


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Jaggerjack on August 27, 2007, 06:44:25 PM
Where can I join?


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 07:12:42 PM

I've added you to the party list. Be sure to re-register your party affiliation in the New Register Thread.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 07:15:24 PM
I was just wondering what the National Liberal Coalition's policy is on Personal Tax and Buisness Tax. For my view on Personal Tax and Buisness Tax go to my Northeastern Senatorial Campaign Headquarters on the Fantasy Election board. Just like to remind people, I am AFFLIATED. I HAVEN'T JOINED YET

We can tackle taxation as an issue next; I think that will be one issue on which we have a wide variety of different plans and positions for how to establish a reasonable taxation system (and I think there are many reasonable possibilities).


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Hash on August 27, 2007, 07:20:21 PM
-Prayer allowed in public schools but not sanctioned; no "prayer time", no proselytizing

That's the only part receiving my disapproval. Public schools should be 100% secular, and you do what you wish with private schools.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 07:23:40 PM
Okay, I think we've got immigration covered now. Before we go on, I'm going to go through a quick list of social issue positions, none of which I expect anyone to object to (but, if there are objections, feel free to mention them).

-Embryonic stem cell research funding
You mean biotechnology corporate welfare?  I have mild objections to this unless we have any patents resulting from the research be owned by the government as well so that they can be used by a wider group of users.

The patents need not be owned by the government, just have there be no patent at all. Of course, as the companies themselves also invest money into the research, they should at least get some sort of benefits; it isn't simply the government paying for research, it's the government encouraging research through grants. I agree with you in principle about corporate welfare, but in the recent past it has been nigh impossible to get anyone to seriously research stem cells (or most anything else in the medical field) without substantial government input.

Largely because the medical community has become so dependent on government funding that it has forgotten there are other ways to raise research funds.  One good thing about the stem cell controversy has been that its gotten some off their duffs to find other funding sources.  Unfortunately most of them only see it as a stop gap until government returns to its usual practice.

In that sense it is reasonable, but I am still reluctant to say that government should abandon its attempts to advance medical science. What would you propose we do to encourage scientific advancement?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
-Support legal abortions when mother's life is in danger, in situations of rape, and when the child will not survive past birth; no position taken (yet) on other circumstances (as we will probably want to discuss that further)

While I have no strong position on much of the abortion issue, I am stridently against exceptions for rape or incest.  The sole justification for restricting or prohibiting abortion is that one is safeguarding another human life by doing so.  The circumstances that lead to a pregnancy, no matter how tragic they may be, have no bearing or whether an embryo or fetus has yet reached the point at which it should be considered to be a human life or not.

Okay, I think it's time for the dying violinist to be dragged out again. It's an argument often offered in favor of abortion, and it's very compelling... until you realize it applies only in situations of rape. Anyway:

You wake up in a strange place. There is a person connected to you by tubes carrying blood between your bodies. A group of people stand around you. They explain to you that the person attached to you is a famous violinist, and they are his devout fans. He has a critical illness, so they have kidnapped you and attached you to his bloodstream to keep him alive. You both will survive with no ill effects if you agree to be confined with the man attached to you for nine months, but, if you choose to sever the connection, he will die. Are you obligated to maintain the connection?
If you are the only person who can keep the person alive, then yes, even if he weren't famous.  The violinist is clearly a human being in this example, without any of the uncertainty of that fact that pertains to the analogous case.  Given what the two stark choices presented are, you are inconvenienced for nine months or he dies, the only ethical choice at this point would be to keep him alive.  That wouldn't keep you from seeking legal action, both criminal and civil against his fans.  Indeed, such action should be taken.

Well, okay, though I wonder whether you consider it a moral obligation (that is, you'd judge someone who chose differently) or a personal obligation (you'd feel obligated, but you don't feel a need to enforce that obligation on others). I myself would find it a personal but not moral obligation.

I suppose we need not make abortion a major issue anyway, seeing as it is already decided at the level of the regions (and enshrined in some regional constitutions one way or the other; the Northeast Constitution explicitly allows abortions for rape and life-of-mother circumstances and forbids it in all other circumstances).


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 07:26:25 PM
-Prayer allowed in public schools but not sanctioned; no "prayer time", no proselytizing

That's the only part receiving my disapproval. Public schools should be 100% secular, and you do what you wish with private schools.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point; children are allowed to pray during recess, for example, but "I'm busy praying" is no excuse for not paying attention in/being in class. I'm not sure how we could actively forbid students (or teachers/faculty, in environments with no students present) from being religious in school as long as no one is forcing anything religious on anyone else.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Hash on August 27, 2007, 07:27:41 PM
-Prayer allowed in public schools but not sanctioned; no "prayer time", no proselytizing

That's the only part receiving my disapproval. Public schools should be 100% secular, and you do what you wish with private schools.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point; children are allowed to pray during recess, for example, but "I'm busy praying" is no excuse for not paying attention in/being in class. I'm not sure how we could actively forbid students (or teachers/faculty, in environments with no students present) from being religious in school as long as no one is forcing anything religious on anyone else.

I did misunderstand you, and I hope your text quoted is the official policy on secularism in school.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 27, 2007, 08:35:16 PM
I favor neutrality toward religion when it comes to government supported education.  For those Regions which choose to include school vouchers among their methods of funding education, I have no problem with including religious schools among voucher choices for parents to select among, so long as they aren't the only choice, and the schools have to meet the same standards as other schools concerning the non-religious aspects of education..  I also have no beef with extracurricular religious clubs/activities being allowed at public schools on the same basis as non-religious clubs/activities.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on August 27, 2007, 08:39:20 PM
Where do we stand on labor?

And sub issues such as "Right to work," "Right to organize," wages etc...


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 08:52:38 PM
Where do we stand on labor?

And sub issues such as "Right to work," "Right to organize," wages etc...

A complex issue, and one to which I want to give due time. However, I'm going to keep going in order on to taxation, which Rockefeller Republican brought up earlier. (Secularism in public schools has been covered, I think, and vouchers should probably wait until we get to broader education topics.)

Now, on to taxation. Afleitch had a solid idea proposed in his campaign, the reorganization of tax brackets, though I am afraid pulling out the bottom 20% may remove slightly too much funding for necessary programs; pulling out, say, the bottom 10% might be more reasonable.

Some other ideas... I like the idea of sliding taxes rather than tax brackets, where taxes increase constantly with income rather than jumping up as soon as you cross a certain threshold. This creates the complication of calculating exact tax brackets, but, so long as the calculation were simple enough, it doesn't seem unduly problematic, and is certainly more fair and reasonable (no need to keep your income below a certain line so as not to suddenly have to pay far more in taxes than otherwise). Obviously, there would be an upper and lower bound on the slide. This is just an idea, though, and I'm not sure how feasible it would be.

I can't say I favor raising corporate taxes, at least not more than incrementally, as corporate taxes greatly discourage business ventures within Atlasia from which the entire country benefits (and driving large corporations out to tax havens would ultimately reduce revenue rather than increasing it). Clearly, if corporate taxes are to be raised, however, it should be large businesses which bear the burden.

As an example of what sliding taxes would look like:

Quote
$400,000 – 35% tax rate (tax rate does not increase past $400,000 annual income)

$10,000 – 10% tax rate (lowest income taxed)

Rise 0.00641% per $1 of income


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 27, 2007, 10:32:21 PM
Now, on to taxation. Afleitch had a solid idea proposed in his campaign, the reorganization of tax brackets, though I am afraid pulling out the bottom 20% may remove slightly too much funding for necessary programs; pulling out, say, the bottom 10% might be more reasonable.

Some other ideas... I like the idea of sliding taxes rather than tax brackets, where taxes increase constantly with income rather than jumping up as soon as you cross a certain threshold. This creates the complication of calculating exact tax brackets, but, so long as the calculation were simple enough, it doesn't seem unduly problematic, and is certainly more fair and reasonable (no need to keep your income below a certain line so as not to suddenly have to pay far more in taxes than otherwise). Obviously, there would be an upper and lower bound on the slide. This is just an idea, though, and I'm not sure how feasible it would be.

Well, that's not exactly the way the tax system works, though.  There's no real tax "jump" once you pass a marked dollar line.

Ignore the standard deduction for a moment.

For a single filer in 2006 (our tax rates are constantly changing throughout the decade because of the Bush tax cuts), the first $7,550 in taxable income is taxed at 10%.  The amount you make over $7,550 but less than $30,650 is taxed at 15%.

So, at $7,550 in income, your taxes are $755.
If you make $7,551 in income, your taxes are 10% on the first $7,550 ($755), plus 15% on that next dollar.  So, your taxes are then $755.15, not $1,132.65.

Making the effective tax rate at $7,551 of income 10.0007%.  This slowly increases as you make more money, hitting 15% at $30,650.

We already have a sliding scale.  The full tax tiers are here. (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html)

Now, let's reintroduce the concept of the personal deduction and standard deduction (i.e., minimum deduction) for a moment, since not all income is really taxable.  In 2006, the standard deduction was $5,150.  You also get a $3,300 personal deduction (plus more if you have dependents) on top of that.  That means the first $8,450 of Atlasian income is essentially taxed at a 0% rate for a single person like myself.

What afleitch is proposing, basically, is hiking the personal deduction.  I could find myself supporting that, so long as the math works out right, and it doesn't wind up being a massive hike on the upper middle class, like often seems the case.  (I'll run the numbers in a separate post.)

Our tax system is confusing as hell, but the more familiar I get with it, the more I like it.  I used to be one of the flat taxers, but now that I'm actually working (and not making that much), I think a progressive "sliding" tax scale works very well.  The real debate is more along the lines whether or not to lock in the "Bush Tax Cuts" which have been grandfathered into Atlasian law, and my own pet issue, figuring out what to do about the unique impending Atlasian "Carbon Tax Crisis" I talked about in my campaign.

As far as business taxes are concerned, I'm for the status quo.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 27, 2007, 10:47:43 PM
Going by 2005 data, 8.64% of households make $9,999 or less a year.
21.66% make $19,999 or less.

If the basic amount people get deducted is $8,450; taking the bottom 10% out of the tax system is more than feasable—if you include things like the Earned Income Tax Credit (more complexity, yay!), we're probably already AT 10% or better.

I'm against tax hikes, but I don't mind tax reorganization.  I think the taxation plank should be deliberately vague, perhaps a line or two in support of progressive taxation tiers, or an opposition to a flat tax/national sales tax.  Perhaps even shifting the tax burden away from the lower class, and closing business tax loopholes.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 27, 2007, 10:55:11 PM
As an example of what sliding taxes would look like:

Quote
$400,000 – 35% tax rate (tax rate does not increase past $400,000 annual income)

$10,000 – 10% tax rate (lowest income taxed)

Rise 0.0000641% per $1 of income

I hope you don't mean that the tax rate on the entire income rather than the marginal income would slide.  That would cause marginal tax rates to be very high at the upper end of the scale.  For example,  comparing 34.9999359% of $399,999 vs, 35% of $400,000 shows that the marginal tax rate on that 400,000th dollar would be 60.64%.

Getting that out of the way, given that taxpayers who have taxable incomes lower than the top bracket have to use tax tables anyway, so it wouldn't be an added complication for tax payers.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 11:05:01 PM
Now, on to taxation. Afleitch had a solid idea proposed in his campaign, the reorganization of tax brackets, though I am afraid pulling out the bottom 20% may remove slightly too much funding for necessary programs; pulling out, say, the bottom 10% might be more reasonable.

Some other ideas... I like the idea of sliding taxes rather than tax brackets, where taxes increase constantly with income rather than jumping up as soon as you cross a certain threshold. This creates the complication of calculating exact tax brackets, but, so long as the calculation were simple enough, it doesn't seem unduly problematic, and is certainly more fair and reasonable (no need to keep your income below a certain line so as not to suddenly have to pay far more in taxes than otherwise). Obviously, there would be an upper and lower bound on the slide. This is just an idea, though, and I'm not sure how feasible it would be.

Well, that's not exactly the way the tax system works, though.  There's no real tax "jump" once you pass a marked dollar line.

Ignore the standard deduction for a moment.

For a single filer in 2006 (our tax rates are constantly changing throughout the decade because of the Bush tax cuts), the first $7,550 in taxable income is taxed at 10%.  The amount you make over $7,550 but less than $30,650 is taxed at 15%.

So, at $7,550 in income, your taxes are $755.
If you make $7,551 in income, your taxes are 10% on the first $7,550 ($755), plus 15% on that next dollar.  So, your taxes are then $755.15, not $1,132.65.

Making the effective tax rate at $7,551 of income 10.0007%.  This slowly increases as you make more money, hitting 15% at $30,650.

We already have a sliding scale.  The full tax tiers are here. (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html)

Thank you for enlightening me on that. (Having never moved from one tax bracket to another, I just never understood how it works.) It sounds reasonable, though the numbers could be smoothed from the current odd jumps.

Quote
Now, let's reintroduce the concept of the personal deduction and standard deduction (i.e., minimum deduction) for a moment, since not all income is really taxable.  In 2006, the standard deduction was $5,150.  You also get a $3,300 personal deduction (plus more if you have dependents) on top of that.  That means the first $8,450 of Atlasian income is essentially taxed at a 0% rate for a single person like myself.

What afleitch is proposing, basically, is hiking the personal deduction.  I could find myself supporting that, so long as the math works out right, and it doesn't wind up being a massive hike on the upper middle class, like often seems the case.  (I'll run the numbers in a separate post.)

Interesting. According to what I could find, though, 20% of the population would bring us well into the $20,000 range, probably far too high.

Quote
Our tax system is confusing as hell, but the more familiar I get with it, the more I like it.  I used to be one of the flat taxers, but now that I'm actually working (and not making that much), I think a progressive "sliding" tax scale works very well.  The real debate is more along the lines whether or not to lock in the "Bush Tax Cuts" which have been grandfathered into Atlasian law, and my own pet issue, figuring out what to do about the unique impending Atlasian "Carbon Tax Crisis" I talked about in my campaign.

Perhaps we could simplify some of the confusion by removing some of the different brackets, rising only in three or four different brackets (perhaps from 10% to 18.3% to 26.7% to 35% at, say $20,000, $75,000, $150,000 and $350,000; that's just an example). Reducing the number of brackets would greatly simplify the tax code without necessarily changing tax rates substantially.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 27, 2007, 11:14:04 PM
Perhaps we could simplify some of the confusion by removing some of the different brackets, rising only in three or four different brackets (perhaps from 10% to 18.3% to 26.7% to 35% at, say $20,000, $75,000, $150,000 and $350,000; that's just an example). Reducing the number of brackets would greatly simplify the tax code without necessarily changing tax rates substantially.

Honestly, unless you want to scrap the whole thing and move to a flat tax, cutting out some tax brackets isn't going to really make the tax code that much simpler.  As long as we have more than one, people will still need to use those infernal tax tables.

Though I suppose it'd make the job of whomever makes those tax tables for the IRS a little bit easier.

As creative a mind as I have when it comes to this sort of thing, only the wettest of conservative (or libertarian) wet dreams will make tax time any simpler.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 11:24:35 PM
Perhaps we could simplify some of the confusion by removing some of the different brackets, rising only in three or four different brackets (perhaps from 10% to 18.3% to 26.7% to 35% at, say $20,000, $75,000, $150,000 and $350,000; that's just an example). Reducing the number of brackets would greatly simplify the tax code without necessarily changing tax rates substantially.

Honestly, unless you want to scrap the whole thing and move to a flat tax, cutting out some tax brackets isn't going to really make the tax code that much simpler.  As long as we have more than one, people will still need to use those infernal tax tables.

Though I suppose it'd make the job of whomever makes those tax tables for the IRS a little bit easier.

As creative a mind as I have when it comes to this sort of thing, only the wettest of conservative (or libertarian) wet dreams will make tax time any simpler.

All right, I suppose we should settle for supporting the status quo with openness to future simplification suggestions. Tax law is just as boring as trade law, though. So much for positive tax reform (unless anyone else has any ideas).

Bullmoose mentioned labor earlier, so we'll go there next. Now, "right to work" has always sounded somewhat silly to me; you have the right to work so long as you do something that someone is willing to pay you for. Fortunately, everyone (save those covered under other issues: retirement, disability, education/child care, etc.) can do something that someone is willing to pay them for (albeit sometimes not much, we'll get to that), it's just a question of willingness.

Certainly, there exists a "right to organize". It's there in the Constitution: peaceable assembly. Of course, unions and unionization do not, or should not, have the power to unilaterally override corporations. On the other hand, unions do not seem to be too powerful today, and current union law seems sufficient in my view. There are corrupt union bosses, but there is nothing the government can do to stop other workers from supporting them.

Minimum wage... this might be an interesting one. Again, I am more or less in favor of the status quo, though indexing the minimum wage to inflation to prevent future battles over raising it seems prudent.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 27, 2007, 11:39:59 PM
I'm rather supportive of unions, but I do oppose "card check."  Businesses and unions should be on an equal playing field when it comes to the bargaining table.

It's already been ruled, IIRC, that the Senate has no power to regulate a minimum wage.  I'd probably support a constitutional amendment allowing one, but honestly, I think it's a matter best left to the regions.  Any minimum wage should definitely be indexed to the CPI, though.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 27, 2007, 11:52:27 PM
I'm rather supportive of unions, but I do oppose "card check."  Businesses and unions should be on an equal playing field when it comes to the bargaining table.

It's already been ruled, IIRC, that the Senate has no power to regulate a minimum wage.  I'd probably support a constitutional amendment allowing one, but honestly, I think it's a matter best left to the regions.  Any minimum wage should definitely be indexed to the CPI, though.

Ah, yes, I found that case just now while going through the list of Atlasian laws. Well, we can support a reasonable minimum wage at the regional level.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 28, 2007, 08:01:15 PM
A flurry of recent activity has pushed this onto the second page, which really won't do. We'll move on to electoral reform. The current PR-STV proposal is intriguing, and I think I favor it, though the problem of what to do in the event of a vacancy has paralyzed Senate discussion.

Anyone else have thoughts about electoral reform?


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Colin on August 28, 2007, 08:08:20 PM
Well I think my opinion on electoral reform is rather clear. I am for proportional representation and I have supported the expansion of the Senate in the past. Beyond the reforms proposed by Jas and myself through the Proportional Representation bill and the Ending the Districts Amendment I don't see much else that you could do under the current system electorally. Personally I've always thought that Atlasia has a choice between empowering the President further to turn this into a full presidential system or get rid of the presidential elements and becoming what we basically are now, a parliamentary system.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Jaggerjack on August 28, 2007, 10:26:23 PM
Well I think my opinion on electoral reform is rather clear. I am for proportional representation and I have supported the expansion of the Senate in the past. Beyond the reforms proposed by Jas and myself through the Proportional Representation bill and the Ending the Districts Amendment I don't see much else that you could do under the current system electorally. Personally I've always thought that Atlasia has a choice between empowering the President further to turn this into a full presidential system or get rid of the presidential elements and becoming what we basically are now, a parliamentary system.
This sounds really weird, but how about 2 senators per region and district?


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 28, 2007, 10:32:18 PM
The problem that arises with STV is the issue of vacancies. The leftists don't want countback because they may be replaced by centrists, but the rightists don't want by-elections because it's very difficult for them to be elected in a single-member election nationwide. Personally, I think both are merely "partisan" objections, and that either by-elections or countback would be an acceptable solution.

Two-member Districts are too small for reasonable STV elections, and there aren't yet enough Atlasians for three-member Districts.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Colin on August 28, 2007, 10:46:44 PM

Two-member Districts are too small for reasonable STV elections, and there aren't yet enough Atlasians for three-member Districts.

Also you have to consider that most districts now have trouble finding two candidates to run in an election. With DWDL's exit from the race no district in this election had more than two candidates.

As for the by-election method I don't really care as long as some form of proportional representation is put in place.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 28, 2007, 11:13:49 PM
no interest in electoral reform on my part.  The Senate spends too much time shuffling the deck chairs and not bothering about where Atlasia is headed.  Of the six items on the floor now, only one, the Educational Funding Clarification Bill, is about what the government does, the other five are all about how the government does it's business.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 28, 2007, 11:56:59 PM
Well, it looks like we're not going to come to a consensus on too much by way of electoral reform.

Personally, I haven't made up my mind on PR-STV.  I think I'm leaning against it at this point.  I do know that I don't like countback, and would vote against that.

no interest in electoral reform on my part.  The Senate spends too much time shuffling the deck chairs and not bothering about where Atlasia is headed.  Of the six items on the floor now, only one, the Educational Funding Clarification Bill, is about what the government does, the other five are all about how the government does it's business.

I think you're right, that is a problem right now—the Senate floor is starting to get jammed up with its own reforms.  It looks like just a temporary pipeline thing: there's plenty of non Senate reform stuff coming up soon.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 29, 2007, 06:23:49 AM
As most attempts at electoral and constitution reform end up being voted down by the Senate or by the people, it's very difficult to bring suggestions to the table that haven't, in one form or another been suggested before. Voting reform based on proportional representation or pooled/list voting are probably the furthest we could go. There will be objections if Senates do not represent geographic areas, which in truth really shouldn't be an issue as unfortunately very few Senators respond to regional/district issues anyway.

Again reality can cause problems. If we had two 5 seat lists for example, each elected every two months, we would like to think we would have 10 candidates for each and a proper race, but realistically we'd be lucky to muster 6, at which point there would be no need to campaign at all.

I'd agree that its difficult to get 2 candidates in each seat as it stands unless we shift the focus of the game from an election sim, to a government sim with higher participation, two houses etc. Other than this, we can only really patch up what we've got.



Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Јas on August 29, 2007, 09:35:14 AM
Although I'm not a member of the NLC, if I may, I would like to comment on the PR-STV legislation and on the forum affairs agenda generally as I have something of an interest in both.

Some here have lamented the fact that forum affairs matters are currently taking up the Senate's time. I would underline to them that in the previous Presidential election, such reform was the major campaign issue of the Wixted/Jas ticket; that on every poll I can remember in Atlasia, forum affairs issues are those which most concern the population; and that given the context within which Atlasia operates, forum affairs matters produce the most tangible effects of any form of legislation.

I recall all to well when the Senate chamber was clogged up with free trade bills, the issues before the Senate change on a week by week and a month by month basis. Just because a cluster of related issue bills appear at any one time, doesn't mean they are not important in their own right.

On PR-STV specifically, to those who have stated that the current Senate discussion is proving unproductive, I would disagree. Positions are becoming more clear and achieving consensus in Atlasia has always been difficult. I firmly believe progress is being made and that a solution is possible. What's more I'm not going to give up on the reforms because there has been some difficulty. I believe the reforms are worthwhile (particularly the PR-STV legislation) and will produce tangible benefits for Atlasia as outlined when I first introduced the matter and highlighted here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=59250.0). In simple terms these include:
More Competitive Elections;
More Voter Choice;
Possible Return of Regular Party Primaries;
Ends the Need for Re-Districting;
Retains Regional Representation;
Fewer 'Wasted' Votes

I am not going to give up on the reforms simply because of a disagreement over vacancy filling. There are many aspiring Atlasian politicians within the NLC, I would advise them that they should not give up when they encounter the sort of difficulties the PR-STV bill has hit. Worthwhile change is not easy. Trying to get through any piece of legislation through the Atlasian Senate is no mean achievement, trying to do so by achieving a consensus all the more so (especially the current 20th Senate) - but I believe it can be done, and I will continue to work and hope that it will be done.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 29, 2007, 11:44:03 AM

Two-member Districts are too small for reasonable STV elections, and there aren't yet enough Atlasians for three-member Districts.

Also you have to consider that most districts now have trouble finding two candidates to run in an election. With DWDL's exit from the race no district in this election had more than two candidates.

Well, I think we might have more candidates if more people considered it possible for themselves to be elected. Right now, no left-winger would run against, say, Earl because they agree on most issues and only one could be elected, but, with this system in place, both could run and conceivably both win seats.

Also, thank you Jas for your words, all of course true and powerful.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on August 31, 2007, 03:33:55 PM
Okay, I'm going to start drafting a full platform within the next few days on the issues already discussed, and then we will continue with further issues such as education, health care, the military, agriculture, etc.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on September 03, 2007, 06:29:58 PM
Here's what we've got so far, I think:


Immigration
The National Liberal Coalition supports the expansion of legal immigration, especially the refocusing of immigration away from family connections and towards desire to enter Atlasia. The National Coalition believes that illegal immigration is primarily the by-product of unnecessarily restrictive immigration laws, and therefore also believes that illegal immigration that would continue after legal immigration is been eased is of a far less benign nature than currently. Because of this, in tandem with easier legal immigration, the National Liberal Coalition supports expanded border security measures, though it opposes the expensive posturing of constructing a wall.

Trade
The National Liberal Coalition supports the expansion of Atlasia’s international trade connections, and advocates free trade agreements with other interested parties, with reasonable exceptions.

Taxation
The National Liberal Coalition is largely supportive of the current taxation system. We are always willing to consider strategies to reduce the tax burden on the middle and lower classes, but out-and-out tax cuts can be fiscally irresponsible, and the National Liberal Coalition would prefer to balance the budget before offering tax breaks.

Religious Freedom
In a public school, court, or other government environment, the National Liberal Coalition supports the desires of the individual to participate in religious activities. However, the National Liberal Coalition opposes any and all spending in such areas directed towards religious belief or the installation of any overtly religious iconography in said government buildings.

Labor
The National Liberal Coalition is broadly supportive of the status quo in labor issues, except for the issue of the minimum wage, where the National Liberal Coalition opposes the decision of Bono v Atlasia and advocates the return of the minimum wage and its indexing to inflation.

Electoral Reform
The National Liberal Coalition is broadly supportive of efforts to reform the voting system in such a way as to make it more democratic and to encourage personal and party participation while not currently endorsing any particular plan to do so.

Euthanasia
The National Liberal Coalition supports the legalization of euthanasia through living wills or active consent.




Now, let's move on to more issues. Next up: education. This includes voucher programs, education funding, district sizes, etc.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Colin on September 03, 2007, 10:09:55 PM
Well I don't really agree with the Labor section of the platform. I think our regional minimum wages have worked fine and allows for the great flexibility in the labour market between the different regions. It allows each region to set its minimum wage at the level that it deems to be appropriate. Often a federal minimum wage is either inefficient at protecting wages in high wage areas, because going wages for even unskilled jobs are above the minimum, and hurts areas were the prevailing wages would come in under the federally set minimum.

I mean I don't really care whether you take it out or anything, I've never agreed with any party platform in Atlasian history, but I'm just throwing my opinion out there.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 03, 2007, 10:56:39 PM
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what each individual regional minimum wage is?  Has every region even set one?


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on September 03, 2007, 11:11:42 PM
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what each individual regional minimum wage is?  Has every region even set one?

Southeast: $7.00, age 18+, $5.75, age 15-17, both indexed to inflation in Jan. 2006
Northeast: No law recorded, but, then again, no laws after October 2005 are recorded
Pacific: $7.00, indexed to inflation in Jan. 2006
Midwest: $5.75, indexed to inflation in Feb. 2006
Mideast: Absurdly complex (read more (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Labor_Code_Statute))


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 04, 2007, 12:14:40 AM
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what each individual regional minimum wage is?  Has every region even set one?

Southeast: $7.00, age 18+, $5.75, age 15-17, both indexed to inflation in Jan. 2006
Northeast: No law recorded, but, then again, no laws after October 2005 are recorded
Pacific: $7.00, indexed to inflation in Jan. 2006
Midwest: $5.75, indexed to inflation in Feb. 2006
Mideast: Absurdly complex (read more (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Labor_Code_Statute))

Perhaps, in the short term, the NLC can back an I&R push to get a minimum wage law on the books in our own Northeast Region, then?  We probably have enough votes to pass one based on NLC members alone.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Colin on September 04, 2007, 08:17:14 PM

Northeast: No law recorded, but, then again, no laws after October 2005 are recorded

There is no minimum wage law in the Northeast. One was proposed but was voted down by the voters of the Northeast.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Ebowed on September 06, 2007, 10:08:31 PM
Southeast: $7.00, age 18+, $5.75, age 15-17, both indexed to inflation in Jan. 2006
Northeast: No law recorded, but, then again, no laws after October 2005 are recorded
Pacific: $7.00, indexed to inflation in Jan. 2006
Midwest: $5.75, indexed to inflation in Feb. 2006
Mideast: Absurdly complex (read more (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Labor_Code_Statute))

The Pacific minimum wage has been raised to $7.50.

The minimum wage in the District of Columbia is $7.20 and indexed to annual inflation.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on September 07, 2007, 11:21:57 AM
Verily,

The language regarding tax cuts...any possibility we could modify it from "...are often fiscally irresponsible..." to "...can be fiscally irresponsible..." or something a little less strong?


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on September 07, 2007, 11:36:12 AM
Verily,

The language regarding tax cuts...any possibility we could modify it from "...are often fiscally irresponsible..." to "...can be fiscally irresponsible..." or something a little less strong?

Done.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on September 07, 2007, 11:38:28 AM
Verily,

The language regarding tax cuts...any possibility we could modify it from "...are often fiscally irresponsible..." to "...can be fiscally irresponsible..." or something a little less strong?

Done.

Thanks.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 10, 2007, 06:40:08 PM
Now that we are the "plurality" party in the Senate, I figured it'd be worth bumping the thread here.  It'd be nice to get something hammered out before the October elections get into full swing.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on September 10, 2007, 06:56:40 PM
Okay, well, we have education up now.

I've considered quite a few radical reforms to education in the past, namely some way of equalizing public education spending per student nationwide. (Clearly pre-adult students are not responsible for their economic problems, so it seems reasonable to enact what its detractors might call "socialist education".)

Looking at this on a federal level, such equality would require either the pooling of local property and other taxes spent on schooling or a federal income tax to replace such taxes (then distributed evenly across school districts, with spending at their discretion). Unfortunately, the federal government cannot step in and repeal local property taxes, etc. that are currently used to fund schools, so the tax would be considered an additional tax instead of a replacement tax.

I would also not like to forbid the collection of property taxes to increase school funds (temporarily, for an expansion, or permanently), but I would like to make most funding for education come from a national education fund supplied by income tax rather than property tax or sales tax.

On other issues, I generally support merit-based vouchers, with the exception of vouchers for explicitly religious schools.

I would also generally like to encourage the consolidation of school districts as larger high schools are more able to provide diverse curricula.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 04, 2007, 06:27:15 PM
Okay, well, we have education up now.

I've considered quite a few radical reforms to education in the past, namely some way of equalizing public education spending per student nationwide. (Clearly pre-adult students are not responsible for their economic problems, so it seems reasonable to enact what its detractors might call "socialist education".)

Looking at this on a federal level, such equality would require either the pooling of local property and other taxes spent on schooling or a federal income tax to replace such taxes (then distributed evenly across school districts, with spending at their discretion). Unfortunately, the federal government cannot step in and repeal local property taxes, etc. that are currently used to fund schools, so the tax would be considered an additional tax instead of a replacement tax.

I would also not like to forbid the collection of property taxes to increase school funds (temporarily, for an expansion, or permanently), but I would like to make most funding for education come from a national education fund supplied by income tax rather than property tax or sales tax.

On other issues, I generally support merit-based vouchers, with the exception of vouchers for explicitly religious schools.

I would also generally like to encourage the consolidation of school districts as larger high schools are more able to provide diverse curricula.

With respect to education, my feeling is that the country would benefit from "public school vouchers."  Different from the traditional idea of vouchers, these would allow students to attend any public school in their state.  This would allow an unprecedented level of specialization in high schools, vocational programs, and would give kids who are stuck in underperforming schools (but want to learn) a chance to realize their full potential.

The good schools will get more public funds and will be able to expand their offerings and take in more students.  The poorly performing schools will be forced to make dramatic, real changes or face having their doors shuttered.

These vouchers would not be redeemable in private schools or religious schools, though I strongly feel those tuitions should be fully tax exempt.

And we need to work towards eliminating the inherently regressive property taxes.  School districts should impose local income taxes to fund schools instead.

I think most people can probably agree at this point that school funding is virtually unrelated to the performance of the students who attend the school.  We've spent the past 20 or 30 years trying to fix these urban schools by just throwing money at the problem, and that hasn't worked in the slightest.  It's clear we need some new ideas.

And the Senate, in my opinion, just took a massive step backwards by preventing the Southeast—an area in desperate need of educational innovation, judging from test scores and literacy rates—from experimenting with new ideas.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Hash on October 04, 2007, 06:39:41 PM
I hope we won't extend funding to faith-based schools like the Campaign Messer-Upper Champion here wants to do. :) Equally, that all public education is entirely secular in curriculum. Those are mainly my points of concerns.



Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on October 06, 2007, 09:31:25 PM
What Moderate says all seems reasonable. I think we have enough to do a brief summary of an education platform; I'll get that up later tonight or tomorrow.

Next: health care.

I am personally in favor of universal health care. I feel that not only the personal benefits, but also the economic benefits of a healthy and well-cared-for population often go unnoticed. It increases worker productivity and improves the ability of the middle class to tread economic water.

Most important is universal health care for children, who, as I argued with regards to education, do not have the luxury of being in control of their own economic fates. (Whether adults control their economic fates or not are a subject for a different debate.) I am currently considering a universal child health care bill to propose before the Senate, and I think (hope?) we can all rally behind that idea.

For other health care issues, the debate often comes up of personal responsibility. Do we want the obese consuming a great deal of the health care budget? Do we want the same of smokers? I am open to ideas that would allow us to institute universal health care while retaining some degree of personal responsibility in health; I have mulled over many ideas in the past and come up with nothing sufficiently adequate.

Any other health care-related discussion is also welcome. I would like to encourage the members of the NLC to actively participate in the creation of this platform; it's your party!


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2007, 11:06:12 PM
What Moderate says all seems reasonable. I think we have enough to do a brief summary of an education platform; I'll get that up later tonight or tomorrow.

Next: health care.

I am personally in favor of universal health care. I feel that not only the personal benefits, but also the economic benefits of a healthy and well-cared-for population often go unnoticed. It increases worker productivity and improves the ability of the middle class to tread economic water.

Most important is universal health care for children, who, as I argued with regards to education, do not have the luxury of being in control of their own economic fates. (Whether adults control their economic fates or not are a subject for a different debate.) I am currently considering a universal child health care bill to propose before the Senate, and I think (hope?) we can all rally behind that idea.

For other health care issues, the debate often comes up of personal responsibility. Do we want the obese consuming a great deal of the health care budget? Do we want the same of smokers? I am open to ideas that would allow us to institute universal health care while retaining some degree of personal responsibility in health; I have mulled over many ideas in the past and come up with nothing sufficiently adequate.

Any other health care-related discussion is also welcome. I would like to encourage the members of the NLC to actively participate in the creation of this platform; it's your party!

I think you bring up an interesting idea here.  I am unsure how to account for overweight Atlasians, but so far as smokers go, I think it's entirely fair to assess a health-based tax (proceeds dedicated towards a national health care plan) on things such as tobacco, based on their relative impact on the health of the user.  Basically, putting money aside with each cigarette to pay for the health consequences of each cigarette.

I suppose something similar could be done with food, but coming up with a formula is much more challenging.  Something based on caloric content?  Fat content?  Neither seem "perfect."

In the meantime, I will fully support any bill to extend health care coverage to kids.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on October 13, 2007, 10:15:10 AM
Good point with the cigarette tax. Perhaps at least fast food could also get such a health tax to help pay for health costs? It's not a fool-proof method, but fast food is relatively simple to tax whereas a strange formula on raw foods based on caloric content would become hopelessly snarled.

It's important to stress that this isn't a sin tax, it's a health tax to pay for the extra costs incurred on the health system.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 13, 2007, 09:07:20 PM
Good point with the cigarette tax. Perhaps at least fast food could also get such a health tax to help pay for health costs? It's not a fool-proof method, but fast food is relatively simple to tax whereas a strange formula on raw foods based on caloric content would become hopelessly snarled.

It's important to stress that this isn't a sin tax, it's a health tax to pay for the extra costs incurred on the health system.

Fast food (as separate from restaurants), and perhaps a few select items such as candy and non-diet carbonated beverages.  When I lost 100 pounds seven years ago, it was almost entirely due to dropping Coke from my diet.

It's important to stress that this isn't a sin tax, it's a health tax to pay for the extra costs incurred on the health system.

Correct.  The money is for the future benefit of the smoker (and those affected by the second hand smoke).


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 13, 2007, 10:21:35 PM
Actually - it's been shown that if you consume copious quantities of diet drinks the effect on the body isn't very different to consuming the non-diet versions - since the artificial sweetener can have the same physiological effect on the body as sugar.

Which is why when I decided to lose weight I kept away from diet drinks.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 14, 2007, 03:55:54 AM
Actually - it's been shown that if you consume copious quantities of diet drinks the effect on the body isn't very different to consuming the non-diet versions - since the artificial sweetener can have the same physiological effect on the body as sugar.

Which is why when I decided to lose weight I kept away from diet drinks.

Well, I just switched to water and sports drinks because aspartame tastes like rat poison.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 15, 2007, 11:34:14 PM
Well, I'd like to get a little bit more input about the health care program before including some semblance of it in the party platform that is (slowly) coming together.

I've lost my train of thought as to where we going to go next. In the interim, I'd like to hear some suggestions from party members as to important issues in their minds that we should address.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on November 15, 2007, 11:37:13 PM
Depending on how the referendum plays out and how the senate gets to the idea of US-Atlasian law, I'd like to see some of our members put some cases in the regional and nationwide courts.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 17, 2007, 12:12:20 AM
Depending on how the referendum plays out and how the senate gets to the idea of US-Atlasian law, I'd like to see some of our members put some cases in the regional and nationwide courts.

What sort of issues do you mean? Clearly the court system in Atlasia is atrophied simply due to a lack of cases, but what sort of cases could we bring? Atlasian government doesn't lend itself to a lot of court cases from forum members.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on November 17, 2007, 12:30:49 AM
Depending on how the referendum plays out and how the senate gets to the idea of US-Atlasian law, I'd like to see some of our members put some cases in the regional and nationwide courts.

What sort of issues do you mean? Clearly the court system in Atlasia is atrophied simply due to a lack of cases, but what sort of cases could we bring? Atlasian government doesn't lend itself to a lot of court cases from forum members.

Well, two different scenarios

1) we eventually merge the US into atlasia...then I think the cases can be endless

2) If we do the separate thing (Only God would know why), then someone might try and get creative, and try to push some bounds...suing on behalf of a fictional citizen etc...that procedural aspect could be a neat issue...and who knows from there...


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 19, 2007, 10:42:19 PM
Depending on how the referendum plays out and how the senate gets to the idea of US-Atlasian law, I'd like to see some of our members put some cases in the regional and nationwide courts.

What sort of issues do you mean? Clearly the court system in Atlasia is atrophied simply due to a lack of cases, but what sort of cases could we bring? Atlasian government doesn't lend itself to a lot of court cases from forum members.

Well, two different scenarios

1) we eventually merge the US into atlasia...then I think the cases can be endless

2) If we do the separate thing (Only God would know why), then someone might try and get creative, and try to push some bounds...suing on behalf of a fictional citizen etc...that procedural aspect could be a neat issue...and who knows from there...

I certainly hope strongly for the former, but I know it doesn't have broad support within the party.

Personally, I would say that the best way to resolve the issue would be, not something passed by the Senate, but a court ruling. Say, have someone take issue with a certain pre-2004 US law, bring it to the Supreme Court and have the Court decide. Speaking of which, there's been no word from Colin about a Justice to replace TexasGurl, has there?


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 19, 2007, 10:47:00 PM
I would also like to take a moment to express praise for some parts of the Federalist Party's platform with which I agree, and which I would like us to adopt. These include a shift from the interstate system to a rail-based system, the establishment of a National Bank, education system simplification, and a fully funded national university system.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 23, 2007, 12:40:06 PM
With no objections, I am going to go ahead and include those in our platform. Does anyone have other concerns they'd like to see addressed?


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 23, 2007, 02:02:25 PM
With no objections, I am going to go ahead and include those in our platform. Does anyone have other concerns they'd like to see addressed?

Not as such.

It doesn't necessarily need to fit into the platform, but it looks like there is some manner of consensus about the United States.  Specifically, most NLC members voting in the referenda seem to be against the notion of recognizing it.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 23, 2007, 04:04:24 PM
We can add that in though it looks as if this referendum will establish the "anti-independence" position as the national consensus and close the issue.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Colin on November 23, 2007, 04:15:53 PM
I am very much for independence though. As the minority opinion in this, I guess, I would suggest we not have a plank on that as such.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Hash on November 23, 2007, 05:16:01 PM
We can add that in though it looks as if this referendum will establish the "anti-independence" position as the national consensus and close the issue.

I'd personally agree to a "Nay" plank on the Atlasian-US relations for obvious reasons, as would all other Nay voters in the NLC/GLP/BDP


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 23, 2007, 05:30:47 PM
I understand Colin's reluctance to have this included in the platform, and the fact that it looks to be a closed issue in Atlasian politics suggests to me that there is no particular reason for it to be included in our platform. That is not to say that I am not "anti-independence" (I am), but that addressing closed discussions would be rather pedantic.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 23, 2007, 06:44:34 PM
I understand Colin's reluctance to have this included in the platform, and the fact that it looks to be a closed issue in Atlasian politics suggests to me that there is no particular reason for it to be included in our platform. That is not to say that I am not "anti-independence" (I am), but that addressing closed discussions would be rather pedantic.

Oh, certainly the issue of recognizing the United States is not finished—all we've agreed on as a nation so far is that we don't wish to recognize the United States.  How Atlasia fits into the world as a whole is still something the Senate will have to address and legislate—ideally in the near future—now that a national dialogue is being started.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 23, 2007, 06:47:06 PM
Well, I would like to be able to come to a sort of consensus on that. Realistically, as long as Atlasia maintains the precedent of being a relatively large and influential player on the international stage, I have little concern about what choice is made.

I also have maintained that I do not think this is an issue for the Senate, which really shouldn't be concerned with aspects of the reality of the game, but rather for the courts, or even better, a recreated GM position.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Colin on November 23, 2007, 10:19:12 PM
We can add that in though it looks as if this referendum will establish the "anti-independence" position as the national consensus and close the issue.

I'd personally agree to a "Nay" plank on the Atlasian-US relations for obvious reasons, as would all other Nay voters in the NLC/GLP/BDP

Well it's not like I've ever given a sh**t about a party platform. While I wouldn't consider it a closed issue, I've heard many people state that they would be more willing to agree to something of this sort if it was discussed further before being put to a vote and Atlasia's place in the world is a constant debate stretching back to the beginnings of this country, I would consider it a bad choice if we included this in our platform.

Verily, when it comes to the GM the position is not coming back. No one, even if they want the position, would be capable of doing the amount of things that the GM is supposed to do. Even if we had a GM team made up of Tom Clancy, Alan Greenspan, and Zbigniew Brzezinski that we paid millions of dollars a year to do nothing but be Atlasia's GMs I doubt they would be able to do everything that is asked of the GM.

Getting back on the subject at hand though I think the only forum affairs issue on which the NLC is rather unanimous is the subject of proportional representation and the End to Districts Amendment, which I think almost all NLC members were for. However this also runs into the same issue that once its passed its a dead issue and if it fails a new way would have to be tried anyway.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: jokerman on November 23, 2007, 10:32:51 PM
Verily, when it comes to the GM the position is not coming back. No one, even if they want the position, would be capable of doing the amount of things that the GM is supposed to do. Even if we had a GM team made up of Tom Clancy, Alan Greenspan, and Zbigniew Brzezinski that we paid millions of dollars a year to do nothing but be Atlasia's GMs I doubt they would be able to do everything that is asked of the GM.
USGS


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Colin on November 23, 2007, 10:47:35 PM
Verily, when it comes to the GM the position is not coming back. No one, even if they want the position, would be capable of doing the amount of things that the GM is supposed to do. Even if we had a GM team made up of Tom Clancy, Alan Greenspan, and Zbigniew Brzezinski that we paid millions of dollars a year to do nothing but be Atlasia's GMs I doubt they would be able to do everything that is asked of the GM.

USGS

Are they still around? I thought they collapsed like many other of these "gov sims". Plus you can't really compare it. USGS is a straight US Government analogue, same parties, same government structure, I think the only thing they have different is that they have a region structure similar to ours rather than states. Atlasia has always been a rather more free flowing country. I don't think we've tried to recreate the workings of the US government since we drafted our first consitution.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 23, 2007, 10:47:49 PM
We can add that in though it looks as if this referendum will establish the "anti-independence" position as the national consensus and close the issue.

I'd personally agree to a "Nay" plank on the Atlasian-US relations for obvious reasons, as would all other Nay voters in the NLC/GLP/BDP

Well it's not like I've ever given a sh**t about a party platform. While I wouldn't consider it a closed issue, I've heard many people state that they would be more willing to agree to something of this sort if it was discussed further before being put to a vote and Atlasia's place in the world is a constant debate stretching back to the beginnings of this country, I would consider it a bad choice if we included this in our platform.

Verily, when it comes to the GM the position is not coming back. No one, even if they want the position, would be capable of doing the amount of things that the GM is supposed to do. Even if we had a GM team made up of Tom Clancy, Alan Greenspan, and Zbigniew Brzezinski that we paid millions of dollars a year to do nothing but be Atlasia's GMs I doubt they would be able to do everything that is asked of the GM.

Not something I'd like to argue about, but I will say that I do not think we need the GM to be a particularly arduous job and leave it at that.

Quote
Getting back on the subject at hand though I think the only forum affairs issue on which the NLC is rather unanimous is the subject of proportional representation and the End to Districts Amendment, which I think almost all NLC members were for. However this also runs into the same issue that once its passed its a dead issue and if it fails a new way would have to be tried anyway.

We did talk about proportional representation at one point. (It's around page 3 of this thread, I think.) There seemed to be broad consensus at the time in support of the attempted electoral reform. Again, it's a dead issue once enacted, but I suppose everything is. (We establish universal health care, then what? It's not so easy to identify failings to correct in a system that doesn't exist in real life.)


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: jokerman on November 23, 2007, 10:54:46 PM
Verily, when it comes to the GM the position is not coming back. No one, even if they want the position, would be capable of doing the amount of things that the GM is supposed to do. Even if we had a GM team made up of Tom Clancy, Alan Greenspan, and Zbigniew Brzezinski that we paid millions of dollars a year to do nothing but be Atlasia's GMs I doubt they would be able to do everything that is asked of the GM.

USGS

Are they still around? I thought they collapsed like many other of these "gov sims". Plus you can't really compare it. USGS is a straight US Government analogue, same parties, same government structure, I think the only thing they have different is that they have a region structure similar to ours rather than states. Atlasia has always been a rather more free flowing country. I don't think we've tried to recreate the workings of the US government since we drafted our first consitution.
Around and thriving.  They have been very sucessful at projecting at least a decade into the future, encompasing foreign policy, economics...everything necessary to a good government sim.  Certainly we don't have the man-power to go the depth they do, but do have the talent to cover that kind of scope, especially considering we don't move at a accelerated time pace like USGS.


Title: Re: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
Post by: Colin on November 23, 2007, 10:59:38 PM
Verily, when it comes to the GM the position is not coming back. No one, even if they want the position, would be capable of doing the amount of things that the GM is supposed to do. Even if we had a GM team made up of Tom Clancy, Alan Greenspan, and Zbigniew Brzezinski that we paid millions of dollars a year to do nothing but be Atlasia's GMs I doubt they would be able to do everything that is asked of the GM.

USGS

Are they still around? I thought they collapsed like many other of these "gov sims". Plus you can't really compare it. USGS is a straight US Government analogue, same parties, same government structure, I think the only thing they have different is that they have a region structure similar to ours rather than states. Atlasia has always been a rather more free flowing country. I don't think we've tried to recreate the workings of the US government since we drafted our first consitution.

Around and thriving.  They have been very sucessful at projecting at least a decade into the future, encompasing foreign policy, economics...everything necessary to a good government sim.  Certainly we don't have the man-power to go the depth they do, but do have the talent to cover that kind of scope, especially considering we don't move at a accelerated time pace like USGS.

Well we've never set the time pace that we are going at. Considering that our terms are four months long instead of four years it could easily be the 22nd century by now for all we know. I think my prior objections still stand. They work as a straight government simulation without the permutations and excentricities that Atlasia has always had, parties forming and dieing constantly, unicameral legislature, Senatorial domination of the political system, strong independent streak among politicians, etc.