Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 09:42:18 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: National Liberal Coalition Policy Discussion  (Read 4448 times)
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« on: August 26, 2007, 04:20:33 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 12:36:46 pm by Verily »Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2007, 04:25:36 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13246
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2007, 05:06:51 pm »
Ignore

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.)
Logged

Mr Moderate at 54/10 is a total joke, he is a horror.

I think it is very possible that Vladimir Putin could be the Antichrist.  That is nothing more than an educated guess on my part.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28533
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2007, 08:13:53 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My ballot:
Haley(R) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2007, 08:17:45 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2007, 08:21:54 pm »
Ignore

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, 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.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2007, 08:27:09 pm by Verily »Logged
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31513
South Africa


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -7.30

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2007, 09:12:35 pm »
Ignore

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

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6067


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2007, 10:20:03 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13246
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2007, 10:57:54 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Mr Moderate at 54/10 is a total joke, he is a horror.

I think it is very possible that Vladimir Putin could be the Antichrist.  That is nothing more than an educated guess on my part.
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31513
South Africa


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -7.30

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2007, 11:11:22 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2007, 11:57:35 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31513
South Africa


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -7.30

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2007, 12:43:11 pm »
Ignore

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 Tongue)
Logged

Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13246
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2007, 12:55:52 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Mr Moderate at 54/10 is a total joke, he is a horror.

I think it is very possible that Vladimir Putin could be the Antichrist.  That is nothing more than an educated guess on my part.
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2007, 04:00:50 pm »
Ignore

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 Tongue)

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
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28533
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2007, 04:40:35 pm »
Ignore

[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.
Logged

My ballot:
Haley(R) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13246
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2007, 05:35:16 pm »
Ignore

-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?
Logged

Mr Moderate at 54/10 is a total joke, he is a horror.

I think it is very possible that Vladimir Putin could be the Antichrist.  That is nothing more than an educated guess on my part.
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22000


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2007, 05:40:14 pm »
Ignore

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 Smiley
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2007, 05:49:37 pm »
Ignore

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 Smiley

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.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28533
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2007, 06:35:38 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My ballot:
Haley(R) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Robespierre's Jaw
Senator Conor Flynn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8507
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -8.35

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2007, 06:44:06 pm »
Ignore

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
Logged



Here's to the State of Richard Nixon

Some things are better left covered up.
Jaggerjack
Fabian_the_Fastman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1408
Thailand


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2007, 06:44:25 pm »
Ignore

Where can I join?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2007, 07:12:42 pm »
Ignore

Where can I join?

I've added you to the party list. Be sure to re-register your party affiliation in the New Register Thread.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2007, 07:15:24 pm »
Ignore

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).
Logged
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31513
South Africa


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -7.30

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2007, 07:20:21 pm »
Ignore

-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.
Logged

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2007, 07:23:40 pm »
Ignore

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).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines