SPC-EXPLORE

[SPC]

   Hello, fellow Atlasians. Today, I would like to announce the formation of an exploratory commitee to consider a run for a certain office. I will announce which office I might run for and my conditions for running in a few days. I internded of forming this commitee in mid-September, by I realize that it would be hard to maintain once the school year starts, so I decided I will form it now.
   In a nutshell, if someone who does not share my views enters this race by October 1, I will run. Thank you.

[SPC]

Here is my platform. I will run for this office if no other candidate adopts this platform:

Individualism
-I will always vote for the rights of the individual, if elected.
-I will never vote for any bill that would infringe on the rights of the individual, if elected.
-I will always vote for the individual over the "common good", if elected.

Taxes
-I will never vote for a tax increase, if elected
-I will never vote to increase spending, unless the means of funding it are provided, if elected
-I will introduce legislation to provide alternative means of revenue to the income tax, if elected.
-I will never vote to tax people to fund projects that they will not benefit from.

Property Rights
-I will never vote for any billl requiring the seizure of private property, if elected.
-As property rights are good for the environment, I will always vote to protect the environment by protecting property rights, if elected.
-I will never vote to tax private property, if elected.

Regional Rights
-I will never vote for any bill that would infringe on regional rights, if elected.
-I will never vote to tax the people of a region to fund a project in another region, if elected.
-I will recognize the right of the regions to nullify laws if they don't qualify for the above two promises, if elected.

Atlasian Soveirgnty
-I will never vote for any bill that will compromie Atlasian soveirgnty, if elected.
-I will introduce legislation to withdraw Atlasia from the U.N, if elected.
-I will never vote for going to war with foreign countries that have not done direct harm to Atlasia, if elected.
-I will vote to protect Atlasia's borders, if elected.

Monetary Policy
-I will never vote for the growth of a central bank, if elected.
-I will introduce legislation to introduce Atlasia to the gold standard, if elected.
-I will never vote for an unbalanced budget, if elected.

[Ebowed]

-I will introduce legislation to withdraw Atlasia from the U.N, if elected.

That has been tried and failed.  See here

[Bacon King]

I have several questions here regarding your platform.

-I will always vote for the individual over the "common good", if elected.

Without government assistance, how do you plan on rectifying any potential instances of "tragedy of the commons" ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please define these alternate sources.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could you explain, please?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you intend on introducing an amendment to create this power, or what?

[afleitch]

-I will always vote for the rights of the individual, if elected -
-I will never vote for any bill that would infringe on the rights of the individual, if elected.

Too vague; the rights of the individual can often be protected by legislation enacted to secure the rights of society. I would prefer legislation free individuals to function within and be protected by society and it's empowered institutions. Human beings naturally work collectively to secure rights; don't loose sight of that.

-I will always vote for the individual over the "common good", if elected.

That's just bizarre. If a 'common good' is what individuals working collectively (which we do) seek to achieve, such as collective action to secure voting rights or choosing to devolve the security of their person to an organised and accountable police body for example then you are protecting the rights of the individual in pursuing that 'common good'


-I will never vote for a tax increase, if elected

Even if it helps shore up the economy? That' just fiscally irresponsible.


-I will never vote to increase spending, unless the means of funding it are provided, if elected.

So you won't increase spending, unless funding is secured, which may involve a tax increase to pay for it, which you won't vote for, because you'll never vote for a tax increase? Which one is it?

-I will introduce legislation to provide alternative means of revenue to the income tax, if elected.

Why not seek to slash income tax as I pledge to do? It's cheaper. The income tax is a fair and simple levy; it's how it's applied that is unfair. Theres no point in increasing 'user' taxation as you would have to establish a complex bureaucratic system to adminster it, which simply increases the size of the state.

-I will never vote to tax people to fund projects that they will not benefit from.

Who are you to judge what benefits people? The only way to measure 'benefit' is an analysis of pilot projects or examples elsewhere. The needle exchange programme in the UK is a tested 20 year old program covering 60 million people that has been shown to work . That's an example of a program that deserves funding because it has a track record of being beneficial.

-I will never vote for any billl requiring the seizure of private property, if elected.

I don't think we can do that anyway.

-As property rights are good for the environment, I will always vote to protect the environment by protecting property rights, if elected.

That's a very dubious linkage. If I own property and decide I'm going to cut down every tree and kill every wild animal and throw salt on the ground then concrete half of it so that water can't drain away, i'm not helping the environment. If I am causing damage to the property of my neighbours then there comes a point where their property rights must be commended over mine.


-I will never vote to tax private property, if elected.

Can't argue with that; it should be the owner of the building who is taxed.

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

No point in going much further. If you consider yourself a classical liberal then heres some advice from someone who is a classical liberal People act as independent actors but also appoint agents, whether individuals to act upon their behalf or a 'collective agent.' That is to say people will work collectively to secure their individual rights or points of view. Socialists understand this concept and use it to their advantage, conservatives use it (in seeking to stop gay adoption for example -collective action motivated by personal opinion) but don't realise it, or wish to admit it.

Secondly a classical liberal should not be primarily motivated by the protection of property or the material, he should be primarily motivated by the rights of the individual as an indivisible person who is only divisible from his property. That means protecting the rights of the property owner and those who do not own property. If the state subordinates the individual through heavy taxation and dependency on welfare then you seek to abolish that state supported subordination. If the subordination comes from the individual and not the state; a tyranical property owner for example then you seek to abolish that tyranny too. Classical liberals should be naturally wary of who is 'top dog' and excerts power over the liberty of others regardless of whether it is the state, a multinational or a private but extraordinary wealthy individual.

Property rights are not a sound foundation for advocating individual liberty, as property rights are selective in whom they offer liberty to.

[SPC]

-I will introduce legislation to withdraw Atlasia from the U.N, if elected.

That has been tried and failed.  See here

I realize that, but I plan on reintroducing it.

I have several questions here regarding your platform.

-I will always vote for the individual over the "common good", if elected.

Without government assistance, how do you plan on rectifying any potential instances of "tragedy of the commons" ?

The Tragedy of the Commons happens mostly because of government intervention, not because of the lack thereof.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please define these alternate sources.

Primarily revenue tariffs. I would like to repeal some of the free trade legislaton to do so. However, I would be opposed to any protectionist tariff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could you explain, please?

This has to do with the Tragedy of the Commons. Because individuals have an economic incentive to take care of their land and posessions, they will do so better than the government will. I am also opposed to eminent domain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you intend on introducing an amendment to create this power, or what?

Yes.

-I will always vote for the individual over the "common good", if elected.

That's just bizarre. If a 'common good' is what individuals working collectively (which we do) seek to achieve, such as collective action to secure voting rights or choosing to devolve the security of their person to an organised and accountable police body for example then you are protecting the rights of the individual in pursuing that 'common good'

Notice that I put common good in quotations. I wouldn't be opposed to the common good as you define it. I am opposed to using the "commoon good" to justify funding special interest groups.

-I will never vote for a tax increase, if elected

Even if it helps shore up the economy? That' just fiscally irresponsible.

Well, I would hope to decrease spending rather than increase taxes when faced with that choice.

-I will never vote to increase spending, unless the means of funding it are provided, if elected.

So you won't increase spending, unless funding is secured, which may involve a tax increase to pay for it, which you won't vote for, because you'll never vote for a tax increase? Which one is it?

Well, you could fund it by repealing another project, and using the funds of that project to fund this particular project. For example, I wouldn't mind repealing the Stem Cell Bill from the 17th Senate and using part of the $50 billion from that to fund that Needle Exchange program.

-I will introduce legislation to provide alternative means of revenue to the income tax, if elected.

Why not seek to slash income tax as I pledge to do? It's cheaper. The income tax is a fair and simple levy; it's how it's applied that is unfair. Theres no point in increasing 'user' taxation as you would have to establish a complex bureaucratic system to adminster it, which simply increases the size of the state.

Yes, I agree with your proposal to slash the income tax. However, I would just like to get rid of the income tax altogether, or make it an extremely small percentage, and using a revenue tariffs to partially replace the reduction of the income tax.

-I will never vote to tax people to fund projects that they will not benefit from.

Who are you to judge what benefits people? The only way to measure 'benefit' is an analysis of pilot projects or examples elsewhere. The needle exchange programme in the UK is a tested 20 year old program covering 60 million people that has been shown to work . That's an example of a program that deserves funding because it has a track record of being beneficial.

As I previously said, I would be willing to repeal other projects to fund new projects. However, I wouldn't be willing to make an additional tax to fund a new project. Plus, I don't believe in funding the minority at the expense of the majority.

-I will never vote for any billl requiring the seizure of private property, if elected.

I don't think we can do that anyway.

Well, that's good.

-As property rights are good for the environment, I will always vote to protect the environment by protecting property rights, if elected.

That's a very dubious linkage. If I own property and decide I'm going to cut down every tree and kill every wild animal and throw salt on the ground then concrete half of it so that water can't drain away, i'm not helping the environment. If I am causing damage to the property of my neighbours then there comes a point where their property rights must be commended over mine.

Well, it wouldn't be in your best interests in the long run to chop down every tree, as then you wouldn't have any more trees to sell. Also, for the latter argument, I of course would recognize everyone's property rights, so one should not be allowed to do something on his own property at the expense of someone else.

-I will never vote to tax private property, if elected.

Can't argue with that; it should be the owner of the building who is taxed.

[SPC]

Announcement from SPC-EXPLORE

   Good evening, ladies and gentleman. Today, I announce what office I will explore a run for, but first, I would lke to say that when I first formed this commitee, I was almost certainly going to run for Senate. However, due to the events of the last week, I am looking more toward a presidential run.
   Given the lack of a serious conservative candidate in the presdential race (GPorter is a spammer) and PBrunsel's recent senatorial loss, I feel the presence of a conservative-libertarian candidate on the national level is of more urgency than one at the regional level. This, however, does not mean I will take a Senatorial bid out of the question, but it does mean that a Presidential run is more likely.
   Given my relatively little experience (a Lt. Gov. ad a newspaper editor), I am extremely reluctant to be considering a presidential bid. However, if no serious conservative-libertarian candidate jumps into the presidential race by October 1st, a run on my part will be extremely likely.
   I say Octovber 1st for two reasons. First, and most importantly, I believe that it is the latest a candidate can announce to have any chance at winning. Second, I wish to remain an editor at my newspaper for as long as possible. Though I realize I would be a longshot, I believe that if the conservative-libertarians untie behind their candidate, whether it be me or someone else, we can actaully have a shot at the White House.
   I would just like to clarify that this is not an announcement, but an ultimatum. Thank you for your time.

SPC

[SPC]

Announcement from SPC-EXPLORE

   Good evening, once again, ladies and gentlemen. Today, rather than talk about my own potential candidacy, I would like to suggest names of people I would like to run instead. Keep in mind that this will have no effect on my own status, as I will only consider running if no one who shares my positions and could be taken seriously runs.
   Anyway, the people that I would like to run the most who hasn't already denied it would be Senator Sam Spade and former Governor FezzyFestoon. I feel these people have both conservative-libertarian leanings and are electable under the right circumstances. I ask both of these people to seriously consider a presidential bid. If any other conservative-libertarian wishes to inform me that they are also consdering a run, I encourage them to do so and via PM. Thank you everybody!

[SPC]

Announcement from SPC-EXPLORE

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today, I wish to announce two new developments from my campaign. First, I wish to announce that, due to the Progressive primary being held on the 29th, I will push my deadline forward from October 1 to September 20. If no credible conservative candidate enters the race by September 20, I will due all the necessary things to prepare for a presidential run (look for a running mate, resign as editor of the NWA, et. al.). An official announcement would come sometime between September 24 and September 27. Second, I want to make it clear that, if current candidate GPorter can stop spamming, making gaffes, and start running a serious campaign, I may reconsider running. Thank you all.

[SPC]

Policy Speech from SPC-EXPLORE: School Choice

   Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight, I wish to make the first in a series of policy speeches. My first speech will be regarding school choice. My opinion is that the federal government should have as minimal a role as posible in educating our children. Allowing the federal government to be in control of education gives them the power the indoctrinate our children into believeing that bi governemnt solutions work, thus allowing the federal government to expand its power. If elected, I will do anything in my power to vote any bills that call for funding regional public school systems, or worse, making a federal public school system. Instead, I would propose region-wide voucher systems, entirely funded by the regions. As I believe the fedeeral government should have a minial role in education, I would not vote to fund any regional school system, whether they be regional or public. I also would not give incentives to choose one choice over the other, as I feel that parents should be able to make the best choice for their child regardless of the incentives. However, a tax cut could be the best way to insure parents can afford to make that decision. Thank you.

Tommorow's Topic: Individualism

[SPC]

Policy Speech from SPC-EXPLORE: Individualism

   Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight, I wish to make another speech, this one reagrding individualism. I feel it is important for Atlasia to emphasize the rights of the individual over collective rights. Think about individualism being individual assaignments in a classroom, and collectivism being gorup projects. With the former, everyone puts as much effort into their grade as possible (assuming that everyone cares about their grade), and thus those who put effort into their project are rewarded accordingly, and those who do not don't affect anyone else's grade. However, with group projects, the person who cares most about their grade will do all the effort, but still only gets the same credit as if they all did a fair share of work. This system discourages effort.
   You may ask what this has to do with Atlasian politics. Well, if I'm elected, I will always protect the rights of every single individual, and will not make any exceptions to give certain groups a share of the populous's earnings. Thank you.

Tommorow's Topic: Property Rights and the Environment

[SPC]

Policy Speech from SPC-EXPLORE: Property Rights and the Environment

   Good morning, ladies and gentleman. Tonight marks the third in a series of policy speechs I am making, this one regarding property rights. I am a firm believer that recongnition of private roperty rights is good for both liberty and the environment. Allowing individuals to own lad rather than government gives those individuals incentives to take care of their property, which would not be experienced if government owned or seized that property. I also believe that eminent domain should almost never be practiced, if only for absolutely necessary circumstances, and especially not to give way for corporate interests. If elected president, I will do everything I can to protect individual property rights, and I will never sign a bill that restricts that right. Thank you all!

Tommorow's Topic: Taxation

[Frodo]

Announcement from SPC-EXPLORE

   Good evening, ladies and gentleman. Today, I announce what office I will explore a run for, but first, I would lke to say that when I first formed this commitee, I was almost certainly going to run for Senate. However, due to the events of the last week, I am looking more toward a presidential run.
   Given the lack of a serious conservative candidate in the presdential race (GPorter is a spammer) and PBrunsel's recent senatorial loss, I feel the presence of a conservative-libertarian candidate on the national level is of more urgency than one at the regional level. This, however, does not mean I will take a Senatorial bid out of the question, but it does mean that a Presidential run is more likely.
   Given my relatively little experience (a Lt. Gov. ad a newspaper editor), I am extremely reluctant to be considering a presidential bid. However, if no serious conservative-libertarian candidate jumps into the presidential race by October 1st, a run on my part will be extremely likely.
   I say Octovber 1st for two reasons. First, and most importantly, I believe that it is the latest a candidate can announce to have any chance at winning. Second, I wish to remain an editor at my newspaper for as long as possible. Though I realize I would be a longshot, I believe that if the conservative-libertarians untie behind their candidate, whether it be me or someone else, we can actaully have a shot at the White House.
   I would just like to clarify that this is not an announcement, but an ultimatum. Thank you for your time.

SPC

Good luck -I'll never vote for you, but good luck. 

[Sensei]

Announcement from SPC-EXPLORE

   Good evening, ladies and gentleman. Today, I announce what office I will explore a run for, but first, I would lke to say that when I first formed this commitee, I was almost certainly going to run for Senate. However, due to the events of the last week, I am looking more toward a presidential run.
   Given the lack of a serious conservative candidate in the presdential race (GPorter is a spammer) and PBrunsel's recent senatorial loss, I feel the presence of a conservative-libertarian candidate on the national level is of more urgency than one at the regional level. This, however, does not mean I will take a Senatorial bid out of the question, but it does mean that a Presidential run is more likely.
   Given my relatively little experience (a Lt. Gov. ad a newspaper editor), I am extremely reluctant to be considering a presidential bid. However, if no serious conservative-libertarian candidate jumps into the presidential race by October 1st, a run on my part will be extremely likely.
   I say Octovber 1st for two reasons. First, and most importantly, I believe that it is the latest a candidate can announce to have any chance at winning. Second, I wish to remain an editor at my newspaper for as long as possible. Though I realize I would be a longshot, I believe that if the conservative-libertarians untie behind their candidate, whether it be me or someone else, we can actaully have a shot at the White House.
   I would just like to clarify that this is not an announcement, but an ultimatum. Thank you for your time.

SPC

Good luck -I'll never vote for you, but good luck. 

[SPC]

Policy Speech from SPC-EXPLORE: Taxation

   Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Right now, I make the last in a series of policy speeches, this one regarding taxation. Like most people, I hate paying taxes, and know what it feels like to have to pay them. If elected, I will never sign a tax increase, unless it benefits everyone who is taxed. It seems unfair to me and mny other people to tax the entire population to fund one special interest group, even if that group represents a noble cause. Is it ethical to forcibly take a kidney from one person so another person with kidney problems can have it? I say no, as it would be much better if someone could volutarily give a kidey to someone with that problem, as in that case, the donor can have the satisfaction of knowing he saved someone. Similarly, I believe that charitable donations are a better way of funding certain good-intentioned causes, such as fighting poverty or scientific research, as that way, the person who donated has the satisfaction of knowing that he willingly sacrificed some of his earnings for a noble cause. That satisfaction is not experienced with using tax money to fund those groups, as the "donor" has no choice as to whether he could donate or not. If elected, I will never raise taxes to fund certain special interest groups, and I will encourage the senate to pass a bill giving tax cuts to those who make charitable donations. Thank you.

Tommorow's Topic: Candidacy Announcement

[HappyWarrior]

Why should I, someone who is reasonably liberal, vote for you, a libertarian style official?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why should I, someone who is reasonably liberal, vote for you, a libertarian style official?

Because liberalism doesn't work.

[SPC]

Announcement of Candidacy

   Greetings, fellow Atlasians. Today, I would like to announce my candidacy for president of Atlasia, with former Senator Masterjedi as my running mate. In my run, I hope to unite both conservatives and moderate liberals of all colors to join my campaign. I have decided to run for many reasons, chiefly because no one who respected my values was currently in the race. If elected, I will pledge to do as much as I can to lower taxes and decrease spending. O have selected Masterjedi as my running mate for two main reasons: his experience, and given that we have some disagreements regarding ideology, would be a good way for compromise. Thank you.

[SPC]

Why should I, someone who is reasonably liberal, vote for you, a libertarian style official?

I hope to have your vote due to the honesty I will express while in office. In addition, I think that a conservative administration alongside a liberal Senate would be good for balance.