The Federalist Party: June 2014 Convention (LEADERSHIP DECLARATIONS!)

[Simfan34]

Here's a starting point, back to the roots:

DRAFT PLATFORM

We, the members of the Communitarian Federalist Party, desirous of the advancement of the state of Atlasia, our country, and the preservation of its society, believe:

-That the foundation of a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous society is the family and community.
-That we simultaneously re-affirm the idea of personal responsibility, aided via the community.
-That the greatest long-term crisis facing Atlasia today is the decline of social capital and community, which shall eventually come to harm that democratic, peaceful, and prosperous society we enjoy.
-That greatest power in the land is not the State, whether Federal or Regional, but instead the community and the individual.

-That the government is not the arbiter nor origin of economic growth, but rather a force than can and should be used to assisted the marketplace in its growth, in the interests of community and the nation.
-That the model of free and unrestricted two-way trade is the optimal model for trade between nations
-That the government is, by nature, the power that can best provide certain resources and services to society.
-The government should regulate trade and industry to maximize social equity, while in a manner that does not impede the normal functioning of the economy
-That welfare is meant to temporarily assist, not provide for, the people

-That Atlasia must be mindful of its being the world's foremost power
-That military conflict, in general, is counter to the well-being of man and thus must be avoided unless necessary
-That diplomacy, not warfare, is the cornerstone of foreign relations
-That multilateralism and collective security- a community of nations- is the best way to advance Atlasia's interests abroad
-That the goals set out in foreign interventions must be achieved.

-That the maintenance of tradition is an integral part of society
-That the concepts of "rights" and "entitlements" must be balanced by an awareness of responsibilities and obligations to others
-That the life of all must be defended
-That the promotion of culture and science is an integral function of society and its organizations.

[Potus]

Here's a starting point, back to the roots:

DRAFT PLATFORM

We, the members of the Communitarian Federalist Party, desirous of the advancement of the state of Atlasia, our country, and the preservation of its society, believe:

-That the foundation of a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous society is the family and community.
-That we simultaneously re-affirm the idea of personal responsibility, aided via the community.
-That the greatest long-term crisis facing Atlasia today is the decline of social capital and community, which shall eventually come to harm that democratic, peaceful, and prosperous society we enjoy.
-That greatest power in the land is not the State, whether Federal or Regional, but instead the community and the individual.

-That the government is not the arbiter nor origin of economic growth, but rather a force than can and should be used to assisted the marketplace in its growth, in the interests of community and the nation.
-That the model of free and unrestricted two-way trade is the optimal model for trade between nations
-That the government is, by nature, the power that can best provide certain resources and services to society.
-The government should regulate trade and industry to maximize social equity, while in a manner that does not impede the normal functioning of the economy
-That welfare is meant to temporarily assist, not provide for, the people

-That Atlasia must be mindful of its being the world's foremost power
-That military conflict, in general, is counter to the well-being of man and thus must be avoided unless necessary
-That diplomacy, not warfare, is the cornerstone of foreign relations
-That multilateralism and collective security- a community of nations- is the best way to advance Atlasia's interests abroad
-That the goals set out in foreign interventions must be achieved.

-That the maintenance of tradition is an integral part of society
-That the concepts of "rights" and "entitlements" must be balanced by an awareness of responsibilities and obligations to others
-That the life of all must be defended
-That the promotion of culture and science is an integral function of society and its organizations.

I really like this. But I would support changing the bolded part to:

-That our nation is threatened on both an economic and social front by the forces of socialism, communism, and a dangerous anti-society social philosophy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would prefer something concise but specific.

My thoughts as well. Maybe a sentence or two per point, but making it too long is almost as bad as making it too short as then few will actually read it.

I generally agree with this. We don't want to be inserting bills into the platform. That said we need to add more points to the platform addressing individual issues and have policy or policies in mind that can put such into effect, if that make sense.

I would also note in response to Simfan's text that whilst this Party was born from the Whig Party (formerly Communitarian), it was also just as much born from the Imperial Bloc and it should to some degree continue to reflect that. I think there are areas where moving in direction towards the Communitarian approach is appropriate on various socioeconomic issues (and those should either be market oriented in some way or regionally based, or perhaps even both as much as possible), but aside from that I think it would be a a disastrous mistake to try and turn the clock back to early 2012 completely when there were multiple parties and appealing to a specific sect was practical and preferable, now it is not so much and we have to remain broad based and or avoid language that can be misconstrued.

I would also encourage cautioun on foreign policy (also in a literal sense) because for one thing I have been moving towards non-interventionism. I think it was a mistake in hindsight to go into Iraq and think we screwed the pooch with regards to Iran and several other countries in our monolithically anti-communist only foreign policy of the Cold War. It is a mistake to assume that non-interventionism will be less of a presence amongst internet conservatives as opposed to more as we go towards the 2016 elections particularly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will start a vote on my introductory/mission statement amendment (this evening I hope) and then we will formally proceed with the crafting of the body portion after that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Change of plans, to ensure some more organization of this process I am going start an open discussion over the course of the 48 hours during which changes to the Introductory statement Amendment I introduced. WE will then hold a vote.

Once the introductory statement is selected, we will then proceed similarly with the rest of the platform's text

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amending our Introductory Page and Mission Statements as Follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[  ] Aye
[  ] Nay

This vote is for all Party Members and will run for 72 hours

[Senator Cris]

AYE

[Cassius]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

May I ask what you find objectionable about it? I wanted an open discussion on the matter so please voice your opinions in detail.

[Cassius]

Nay

May I ask what you find objectionable about it? I wanted an open discussion on the matter so please voice your opinions in detail.

Sorry about that, my chief objection was to the commitment to address 'pressing' economic inequalities. Whilst I think that's rather vague to begin with, that's not my main problem with that particular statement (after all, its a mission statement, so it'll inevitably be quite vague). No, my problem with that is that a commitment on trying to reduce economic inequality is that, in my opinion, that is an avenue that it would be unwise for a right-wing party to go down. Addressing social ills is another matter, but, the way I see it, economic inequality is not a social ill in of itself, but rather a natural result of human nature. I don't think we should be treating it as a bad thing, as indicated by that mission statement; instead, I believe that we should focus upon attempting to iron out some of the social ills that arise from a market economy. I'm no libertarian, but I see economic inequality as a morally neutral, and sometimes beneficial state. I don't think you'd disagree with me in broad terms on that. The other major problem, of course, with that is that its an issue which the Federalist party can never adequately match the Labor party on; in other words, few people who see economic inequality as the pressing issue of our times will pick the Federalists over Labor as their party of choice, and any attempted action upon it by the party is liable to worsen existing divisions. Just a few thoughts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was trying to encompass obligations on matters like mental health, healthcare for the poor and such that pure market doesn't address. I discussed part of it with TJ back in May and he warned agaisnt the wording potentially being construed as to endorse freakonomics or whatever that is called.

Do you have any recommendations for a superior wording?

[Cassius]

I think that all that really needs to be done is to slice out 'pressing economic equalities'. I think that societal ills covers issues such as healthcare for the poor and the mentally handicapped (which would be more difficult to obtain in a free market) well enough to be honest.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there any other problesm with the text?


I will let the vote continue for now as a way to draw people in. lol bait and switch ftw!!!

[sentinel]

Can you guys endorse the book Freakonomics? It's a really good book. Don't see how its relevant to ya'll, but good book nonetheless.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can you guys endorse the book Freakonomics? It's a really good book. Don't see how its relevant to ya'll, but good book nonetheless.

What is that, what even is that?

[sentinel]

Can you guys endorse the book Freakonomics? It's a really good book. Don't see how its relevant to ya'll, but good book nonetheless.

What is that, what even is that?

Oh, its a book that shows correlations (or possibly relationships) between things you would not think are  related/correlated. It's really interesting, you mentioned Freakonomics so I thought you knew about the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338


(for reference)

...I discussed part of it with TJ back in May and he warned agaisnt the wording potentially being construed as to endorse freakonomics or whatever that is called....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I know next to nothing about it. TJ warned that use of the words "societal ills" following market solutions as potentially being an endorsement for using it in some rather weird places.

[TJ in Oregon]

I know next to nothing about it. TJ warned that use of the words "societal ills" following market solutions as potentially being an endorsement for using it in some rather weird places.

The reason I had brought up Freakonomics was that Freakonomics has a chapter defending abortion on an economic basis. That's the sort of interpretation I wanted to avoid.

After a somewhate lengthy discussion with Yankee, we decided to change the original writing of the proposed text, which said "societal issues" to "societal ills", the latter more clearly having a connotation toward poverty etc. rather than divisive social issues.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye on the vote

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aye.

[Prince of Salem]

Aye.

[sentinel]

I know next to nothing about it. TJ warned that use of the words "societal ills" following market solutions as potentially being an endorsement for using it in some rather weird places.

The reason I had brought up Freakonomics was that Freakonomics has a chapter defending abortion on an economic basis. That's the sort of interpretation I wanted to avoid.

After a somewhate lengthy discussion with Yankee, we decided to change the original writing of the proposed text, which said "societal issues" to "societal ills", the latter more clearly having a connotation toward poverty etc. rather than divisive social issues.

Dude, you didn't read the chapter close enough if you think he's defending abortion. He's showing you statistics and how they may or may not be correlated. There is a brief forward on the chapter saying the chapter is about interesting numbers and not the policy. You can call it "Amount of people buying purple crayons" for all they care.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

/aye

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I know next to nothing about it. TJ warned that use of the words "societal ills" following market solutions as potentially being an endorsement for using it in some rather weird places.

The reason I had brought up Freakonomics was that Freakonomics has a chapter defending abortion on an economic basis. That's the sort of interpretation I wanted to avoid.

After a somewhate lengthy discussion with Yankee, we decided to change the original writing of the proposed text, which said "societal issues" to "societal ills", the latter more clearly having a connotation toward poverty etc. rather than divisive social issues.

Dude, you didn't read the chapter close enough if you think he's defending abortion. He's showing you statistics and how they may or may not be correlated. There is a brief forward on the chapter saying the chapter is about interesting numbers and not the policy. You can call it "Amount of people buying purple crayons" for all they care.

Doesn't that book make frequent use of the "correlation = causation" fallacy, though?  I haven't read much about the book beyond reviews, but most of the reviews I've heard have been bad.

[sentinel]

I know next to nothing about it. TJ warned that use of the words "societal ills" following market solutions as potentially being an endorsement for using it in some rather weird places.

The reason I had brought up Freakonomics was that Freakonomics has a chapter defending abortion on an economic basis. That's the sort of interpretation I wanted to avoid.

After a somewhate lengthy discussion with Yankee, we decided to change the original writing of the proposed text, which said "societal issues" to "societal ills", the latter more clearly having a connotation toward poverty etc. rather than divisive social issues.

Dude, you didn't read the chapter close enough if you think he's defending abortion. He's showing you statistics and how they may or may not be correlated. There is a brief forward on the chapter saying the chapter is about interesting numbers and not the policy. You can call it "Amount of people buying purple crayons" for all they care.

Doesn't that book make frequent use of the "correlation = causation" fallacy, though?  I haven't read much about the book beyond reviews, but most of the reviews I've heard have been bad.

You have to read it to really get an understanding of the correlations they talk about. They don't say Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or "Thing 1 Caused Thing 2" its literally look at these two sets of data, and maybe there's a third one in common...etc. It's a statistical and interesting read. There's no policy in it.

Although to address your point directly, if someone is saying "Freakonomics said X caused Y" then they're wrong because thats not the point of the book or what the writers are saying. They also address it extensively.