[Suska]

seeing as you voted PNL your advice isn't welcome.

[liberty]

seeing as you voted PNL your advice isn't welcome.

You're awesome, Suska.

I think RPA should be the leader of this party, he's easily the most charismatic and pragmatic of the lot of you.

I think Michaeluj or Canadiancapitalist should lead. What do you guys (the LC) think?

[Suska]

i suppose it depends on what 'leading' entails. i know the platform as well as anyone here, not really interested in giving myself a lot of extra work to do - on the other hand i have done already making graphics. i don't mind not leading, but if something goes awry i don't want to be powerless to prevent the party becoming compromised. so i guess the question is, how are we gonna run this thing? any precedents we can use?

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
I think RPA should be the leader of this party, he's easily the most charismatic and pragmatic of the lot of you.


I think Michaeluj or Canadiancapitalist should lead. What do you guys (the LC) think?

I'm OK with any one leading. I'm not sure I'm the best person for it, but if given it I'll do my best to represent our platform. If Michaeluj, Canadiancapitalist, Suska or any other LCer wants to lead, and is ready to take on the responsibilities that it entails, I'd fully support them.

[Dave]

I'm not in the LC, but cc is a bit of a laughingstock and not really an appropriate choice as leader. This is a man who falls in love with girls he instant messages. For the good of your party, which I wish well, I strongly advise you to select someone else. RPA seems like the best choice, but of course it isn't my say.

[Michaeluj]

I think Michaeluj or Canadiancapitalist should lead. What do you guys (the LC) think?

That's sweet, but I would rather say no because I hate responsibility.

Then again, it would be lame to decline without at least knowing what this position will have me do, so let's cover that before anyone says anything.

[canadiancapitalist]

Dave is simply threatened by my virility - this is a common happenstance amongst Alpha Male Wannabees. I think Liberty is the perfect leader (although RPA would be a solid choice as well).

[Suska]

Dave is simply threatened by my virility - this is a common happenstance amongst Alpha Male Wannabees.

I hope youre kidding.

[Dr House]

Dave is simply threatened by my virility - this is a common happenstance amongst Alpha Male Wannabees.

I think in this case the alpha male wannabe is you.

[RonPaulalways]

Then again, it would be lame to decline without at least knowing what this position will have me do, so let's cover that before anyone says anything.

I think a party leader needs to represent the party members' general views well enough to be able to quickly make decisions on behalf of the party without needing to consult with every one.

On important/contentious issues, the party leader should be effective at quickly sampling/polling the party to determine which way the party generally leans.

I think my one week absence from this forum rules me out as a party leader. I would think Liberty or Suska would make good leaders.

Either of you interested? Any one else interested in the position? MichaelUJ?


Also, Question for the Liberty Caucus:

What is your/our view on Fractional Reserve Banking?

I think it should be fully legal as long as depositers are aware that the bank they are depositing with will not guarantee that 100% of their deposits will always be in its reserves.

IMO, it is the lender of last resort/central bank that we should be concerned with, not FRB.

[Dr House]

Well Ron, the problem with FRB is that not only is it fraud, but it also allows the bank to inflate, which as we all know is the root cause of the business cycle. FRB is the main cause for economic volatility in the 19th century and back, before central banks existed.

[RonPaulalways]

Loans and investments in general can be looked on as a source of volatility. When people default on their loans, or an investment doesn't pan out, that causes ripple effects in the economy, but that's the nature of development.

Prohibiting FRB will reduce volatility, I agree, but it will also decrease growth.

[Dr House]

It shouldn't really do that if businesses find an equally cost-effective source of external capital. Issuing bonds to individuals holding accumlated cash should do the trick nicely.

Besides, stable growth is very desirable even at the expense of some total growth, because economic instability causes distress among the general population.

Of course refusing to tell people when a recession happens works too, but if we're gonna maintain our civil liberties that's not exactly the best option.

[RonPaulalways]

It shouldn't really do that if businesses find an equally cost-effective source of external capital. Issuing bonds to individuals holding accumlated cash should do the trick nicely.

Confining lenders to time-depositers or bond-purchasers will not change the fact that people make plans based on anticipations of the future, and when those anticipations end up not being fulfilled, that results in drastic shifts in business operations and with it disruptions to the economy.

Besides, stable growth is very desirable even at the expense of some total growth, because economic instability causes distress among the general population.

The political effects of volatility are a legitimate justification for curbing freedom in the market, as political volatility can lead to a total collapse of law and order and consequent deterioration of liberty, but, I think these curbs on the free market should be seen as a means to an end (the end being to maximize liberty by preserving political stability), not an ends to themselves.

Therefore, we should constantly strive to find ways to increase freedom in the market and make political stability less vulnerable to economic volatility.

[Suska]

Liberty's style is ideologically anarchic, but pragmatic. It centers the will of society upon the will of the individuals of society - where it is intimate and honest in the individual, instead of bureaucratic and corrupt in the externalization. It requires a Democratic process, in some ways absolute in others limited. The Democratic rights are absolute, asking for, at least a move toward, Direct Democracy. Clearly in as much as people are willing and able (not entirely co-opted by debt slavery and corporate culture) to manage their governance they have their Liberty. This extends to a point at which whats they want infringes upon the Liberty of others. As I understand it the solution here cannot be an overruling as it is in most modern "Democracies" - if two parties cannot agree - it doesn't matter the imbalance - that is two parties and not one, at least on that issue. That is the crux of the problem of Democracy. How to break a deadlock. In my view this is the central issue in governance of the Liberty Caucus. My solution would be the usual one in its first form; people trying to persuade each other - an attempt to form a total consensus. In the event of a contrarian I would revoke their membership (crazies have their own party in PoFo parliament, go on and join that if you want to be silly). In the event of a distinct and intractable disagreement I would suggest a two party coalition within the Liberty Caucus - though I don't forsee that happening it lends a certain amount of comfort to the proceedings to realize that if you can't agree with some portion of the party that is not a matter for blame, its simply a fact that youre not actually in the same party.

I'm pretty active here, I have management experience, the question is really - are there any duties or perks involved in being the Chairman. Probably we can all pick our own titles and ignore duties in favor of inspiration until and if circumstances force a definition of duties and domains.

then again, I guess what we could look at is what actually needs to be done. When I saw the other parties throwin up logos and sigs I didn't ask, I just did it. RPA was putting together a platform, what happened to that? A secretary would be nice, to follow events in Parliament and announce them in our party thread. Wouldn't even have to comment on them, just tell us where were at, whats going on, what vote needs taking etc. Thats my biggest complaint about the Parliament so far, it generates so much material I have lost track of whats going on.

[Donna]

I expect the Liberty Caucus to merge with the Conservative Alliance before the next election cycle.

[RonPaulalways]

Suska, I agree with your approach to how we should come to arrive at party positions. Coming to a consensus through discussion and debate is consistent with a liberty ideology.

I'm pretty active here, I have management experience, the question is really - are there any duties or perks involved in being the Chairman. Probably we can all pick our own titles and ignore duties in favor of inspiration until and if circumstances force a definition of duties and domains.

I think the main duty of a party chair should be to move discussions forward and be the 'final say' when one is required (while acknowledging the primacy of consensus as the means to formulate party positions). I think this is necessary for direction for us to stay on the initiative.

I call for Suska to be party leader, any one agree?

RPA was putting together a platform, what happened to that?

I've posted the platform in the Official Platform Thread:

viewtopic.php?f=89&t=104013

Liberty Caucus


Economic Platform

Overriding ideology: Economic Liberty

Points of special interest:

• Economic Liberty
  A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
  
• Property and Contract
  Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
  
• Energy and Resources
  While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
  
• Government Finance and Spending
  All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent.
  
• Money and Financial Markets
  We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.
  
• Monopolies and Corporations
  We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

Social Platform

Overriding ideology: Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility

Points of special interest:

• Personal Liberty
  Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
  
• Expression and Communication
  We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.
  
• Personal Privacy
  We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
  
• Personal Relationships
  Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
  
• Crime and Justice
  Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
  
• Self-Defense
  The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
  
• Environment
  We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.
  
• Education
  Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
  
• Health Care
  We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care.
  
• Retirement and Income Security
  Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
  
• Rights and Discrimination
  We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
  
• Securing Liberty
  The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

Governance Platform

Overriding ideology: Federated Constitutional Republic

Points of special interest:

• Representative Government
  We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
  
• Local Government
  We support the right of States and local communities to create policies tailored to their regional needs. A national government should provide only the basic foundation of law and security, and give regions the freedom to choose their own economic, social and tax policies. We support the right of all citizens to move and trade across State lines unimpeded.

International Platform

Overriding Ideology: Free Trade and Non-Interventionism

Points of special interest:

• National Defense
  We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
  
• Internal Security and Individual Rights
  The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.
  
• International Affairs
  American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
  
• Free Trade and Migration
  We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of financial capital across national borders. However, we support regulating immigration in order to maintain security and a national polity that upholds the principles of a free society. We call for immigration requirements that give entry to those who not only have skills that add to the material wealth of the nation, but also the character that adds to its culture of liberty, as a liberty loving people is the basic building block of a free and prosperous society.

[Suska]

Economic Liberty
It wouldn't be improper to set up a non-profit with which to channel donations. As it it there's a ton of them and lord knows if theyre legitimate or efficient. A completely transparent process would be nice.

Property and Contract
What might we expect to happen if we refuse to uphold intellectual property, copyrights, patents...? I'm actually in favor of dropping them all, but it'd be extremely troubling to me if market forces push society into a habit of steamrolling attribution and authorship. Suppose a market can operate at that level - copying and borrowing without barriers, does this wind up encouraging or discouraging originality..? How is loose copyright enforcement working out in China?

Energy and Resources
Will we be supporting a safety bureau or a power distribution bureau to manage these?

Monopolies and Corporations
This one is trickier than that, there's judicial matters of liability as well - or is that none of the Parliament's business? I can imagine what a combination of limited liability and zero regulation might wind up becoming, people need to be held personally accountable for frauds of every shade, maybe we will need a taskforce of some sort, I don't know. I don't understand how market forces are suppose to cope with accounting deceptions either. Certainly fraud is a long slippery slope, must worse than other sorts of criminal justice I think. Even with the most minimal charter there must be some prosecution of fraud, but in that case there needs to be clear guidelines as to what sort of corporate behavior is acceptable, in that case a regulating institution constantly monitoring them? I wonder if people can find in their liberty some sense of loyalty to their countrymen and simply not spoil the marketplace with theft, lies and blackmail...

Self-Defense
I'm not sure I can get on board with legal fully automatic assault rifles and other military ordinance. Weapons with purely offensive uses especially, nor would I allow for instance an individual to arm themselves with an airforce or the like.

Environment
As the corporeal body of the nation the land must retain its value in the long term. I'd be happy to find people simply caring about what they do, but I'd consider a regulatory body imposing value (and therefore costs and penalties) on natural resources.

Education
non-profit parents cooperative schools would be ideal, this could be encouraged with minimal effort and oversight.

Health Care
Again, we don't want to regulate safety? I hope the economic freedom takes the wind out of corporations because as they are today they'd become monsters without regulation. Again some sort of non-profit cooperative medical system could be encouraged to form a minimal health care, I would prefer to simply have sensible hospitals with doctors instead of lawyers and accountants calling the shots. Can we do that?

if I didnt comment on it i agreed with it, in most cases heartily so

[RonPaulalways]

Economic Liberty
It wouldn't be improper to set up a non-profit with which to channel donations. As it it there's a ton of them and lord knows if theyre legitimate or efficient. A completely transparent process would be nice.

Why would a government be better at managing charitable donations than a non-governmental organization? In any case, could we keep this out of the national party platform, and let the State governments do this if they want?

Property and Contract
What might we expect to happen if we refuse to uphold intellectual property, copyrights, patents...? I'm actually in favor of dropping them all, but it'd be extremely troubling to me if market forces push society into a habit of steamrolling attribution and authorship. Suppose a market can operate at that level - copying and borrowing without barriers, does this wind up encouraging or discouraging originality..? How is loose copyright enforcement working out in China?

I really don't know what should be done about intellectual property. On the one hand, it's over-stretching the bounds of property rights to ideas, on the other hand, it could be a useful tool to promote innovation, and was promoted by the founding fathers and the Constitution. I think Trademarks are definitely justifiable, while the argument for copyright protection is weaker, and the argument for patents weaker still.

Since I'm not sure about it, I'd rather leave it alone and not advocate any drastic changes to intellectual property law.

Energy and Resources
Will we be supporting a safety bureau or a power distribution bureau to manage these?

I don't think we need to. It's the consumer's responsibility to choose companies that have a track record of safety, and the courts' job to punish those companies that commit fraud/are-negligent.

Monopolies and Corporations
This one is trickier than that, there's judicial matters of liability as well - or is that none of the Parliament's business? I can imagine what a combination of limited liability and zero regulation might wind up becoming, people need to be held personally accountable for frauds of every shade, maybe we will need a taskforce of some sort, I don't know.

I think parliament should abolish limited liability. If there are going to be statutory privileges granted to corporate shareholders, it should be done at the State-level IMO, not at the federal.

Even with the most minimal charter there must be some prosecution of fraud, but in that case there needs to be clear guidelines as to what sort of corporate behavior is acceptable, in that case a regulating institution constantly monitoring them?

Judicial Precedence creates a body of common law that people can reference when deciding if some activity they want to engage in is within the bounds of law.

With regards to activities that have no legal precedence, perhaps we could have a court of some sort that 'tries' new laws that are proposed by a parliamentary body, to see if they are a justifiable restriction on human action, or if the activity that would be restricted is not criminal and therefore ought not to be prohibited. This is all highly theoretical of course, so I'd prefer not including any thing like this in our official platform and instead discuss it more.

Self-Defense
I'm not sure I can get on board with legal fully automatic assault rifles and other military ordinance. Weapons with purely offensive uses especially, nor would I allow for instance an individual to arm themselves with an airforce or the like.

I think the federal government should only place restrictions on large caliber guns and armored vehicles, while leaving regulation of automatic assault rifles to State governments.

Environment
As the corporeal body of the nation the land must retain its value in the long term. I'd be happy to find people simply caring about what they do, but I'd consider a regulatory body imposing value (and therefore costs and penalties) on natural resources.

I think each State can manage this on its own without having a national EPA like organization setting regulations. Perhaps having some regulations to ensure that a property owner doesn't diminish his property's long term value (e.g. degrading its agricultural value through practices that lead to soil erosion) would be wise for States to instate.

Education
non-profit parents cooperative schools would be ideal, this could be encouraged with minimal effort and oversight.

I'd like States to deal with education and leave the federal government out of it. There is some justification for using property tax dollars to build public schools as having a school nearby is a local common good (although the internet and distance education is reducing the necessity of having a local school).

Health Care
Again, we don't want to regulate safety? I hope the economic freedom takes the wind out of corporations because as they are today they'd become monsters without regulation. Again some sort of non-profit cooperative medical system could be encouraged to form a minimal health care, I would prefer to simply have sensible hospitals with doctors instead of lawyers and accountants calling the shots. Can we do that?

The courts are more than capable of dealing with fraud and negligence from medical goods/services providers. People ought to be able use the services of any practitioner they want whether they're licensed or not.

I don't see why the government would need to setup a non-profit coop. People could do that on their own.

[Suska]

I agree with this and as you do, I favor pushing whatever can be pushed down to a more local level and wherever possible to the most local level possible. States ought to feel the weight of governance more keenly than the Federal govt because where it is felt in the State it will be felt at the county level where people can actually do something, also this allows for variety of governmental style and therefore makes a real experiment of governance.

intellectual property rights is an important outstanding issue that needs to be researched. This issue goes hand in hand with limited liability of corporations.

My feeling is that corporations in America - the culture of institutionalizing every damn thing and then allowing them to lobby for their entrenchment in law - is not a good thing for the people. corporate culture bureaucratizes everything and pushes out small business, this sort of behavior ought to be considered a sort of monopolization, an anti-trust, we are not born to create the most profit possible, the best sort of people have a job and work it as much as they need to and otherwise have a life, whereas corporate culture, along with debt and lawyer wars create an unreasonable atmosphere of force and constant pandering - a culture of pervasive unfairness really, to where good people are at the mercy of merchants, which should never be the case. The market is there for people to bring their skills and products together, it can never justly be the case that people are servants of market entities - however big.

As is the case of natural resources, the market is going to be a federal matter whether its coordinated as such or not - in both cases there are (and ought not be) no borders for state regulations to be effective. Its probably possible to handle networking of powerlines on the state level, but I'd say there's good reason to take the lead on natural resources and corporate liability. I'd support a study with a view on producing scenarios, theories and some guidelines on the matter.