[RonPaulalways]

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.

I believe the power wrought by big corporations comes primarily from two forms of intervention into the free market:

*regulations that set a high fixed cost to engage in certain activities, thereby favoring larger scale operations

and

*legal licensure that prevents the practice of law from being made inexpensive by market forces thereby increasing legal fees for operating in the economy, which again, favors larger scale operations that larger corporations are better suited at conducting

Both of these I believe should be dealt with at the State level, and I think we should definitely not try to mandate any thing nationally. As you pointed out, States' rights allows experimentation in governance, and this is what we need for issues so complex.

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.

Can you elaborate on this? What kind of environmental issues require a federal government to manage? Situations like one State polluting upstream in a river that flows into another State?

I'd support a study with a view on producing scenarios, theories and some guidelines on the matter.

I agree with this. Spending some resources to get a better understanding of the issues is definitely justified given the enormous economic and legal implications of government policy.

[Suska]

like one State polluting upstream in a river that flows into another State?

That would be one example, ecosystems simply do not stop at borders, to be managed properly the ecosystem itself would need a seperate border. I suppose something could be done along the lines of breaking the nation into a handful ecosystems with their own borders and policies and sharing the duties out onto the states who's territories coincide.

[RonPaulalways]

I think the danger posed by national regulatory agencies to individual liberty and economic well-being, and their vulnerability to the pressures of special interests, is high, and I would rather sacrifice the ability to enforce regulations that protect inter-state ecosystems in order to keep the authority of environmental regulatory agencies confined to each State.

[canadiancapitalist]

We should make abolishing the census and other information gathering actions a top priority. Without the data they cannot plan!

[Dr House]

we can still get data from private sources. There are private entities that require census data, so it won't disappear since there's still demand for it.

[Suska]

I think I've worked out the difficulty of patents and copyrights. This is perhaps ideal and in the current circumstances very impractical but ultimately this could be something to work toward.

The whole problem of corporate privilege would be solved if we followed a simple rule of Authorship, as long as the author/inventor is still alive he owns the rights to it, when they die the thing would go into the public domain with no option for selling - only leasing - the rights. This protects creators without stifling commerce - it puts the wavefront of innovation on living people where it ought to be.

A lotta people would have thought Elvis was a rich man, he wasn't - the Colonel was. That's flat out bullshit. The difference was the rights Elvis signed away. My feeling is that needs to stop.

Anyways theres something for you to chew on.

[RonPaulalways]

But why should we eliminate corporate privilege for intellectual property ownership? Why should an individual have more rights of ownership than a group of individuals who've entered into a contract to co-own something? A corporation afterall is owned by the shareholders, who are individuals. A corporation is a contractual creature to clearly demarcate the ownership stakes of each individual.

Also, to limit copyright ownership to the life of the author seems arbitrary. What if he's really old when he produces the work, and wants to pass the ownership on to his children upon his death?

What if he wants to produce work, in order to be able sell the copyright to another company that is more effective at commercializing it? It seems like limiting ownership of copyright to an authors' lifetime would reduce the options of authors have.

A more important question to me is whether IP is justified at all. Can someone legitimately own an idea and exclude others from using it freely?

[canadiancapitalist]

There's an excellent book on this subject I have been meaning to read. Should we enumerate the strongest argument's on either side? I fail to see how this particular situation is indeed radically different from any other grant of state privilege that results in monopolistic provision of some good. Are we somehow worried that progress will stop without this archaic law? That the greatness of human creativity, that the desperation for understanding present in all intelligent individuals would simply dissipate absent this particular carrot? Perhaps we are being a little too overawed by the state. And the harm is manifest! Think of the perversity in preventing the duplication of medicine. Won't somebody think of the children!?

[RonPaulalways]

Are we somehow worried that progress will stop without this archaic law?

Yes I am worried that progress will be slowed, and also of concern is the problems a nation would have in going against the global convention on intellectual property law.

I am also not certain on whether there is a natural rights justification for copyright/patent protection.

[Suska]

I am also not certain on whether there is a natural rights justification for copyright/patent protection.

The natural right narrows to the individual author. Every other construct is at least a little bit unnatural. The least unnatural being the group-authorship, a group that creates something is still a set of individual authors. The rights must pass into the public domain otherwise there's going to be a temptation to hurry a person to their death in order to strip them of their rights. I don't believe in corporate individuality as I refute also the diffusion of liability. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that the living individual is something very different than anything else.

What if instead of a global public domain, the rights fell to a national public domain, so that instead of releasing it to the world, the death of the author releases it only to the nation, perhaps only for a generation..?

There's an excellent book on this subject

what book?

a group of individuals who've entered into a contract to co-own something

what are they owning is the real question. its so abstract. A contract for publishing the book of an author isn't ownership of the authorship but thats exactly how its treated. Suppose an author signs a contract that gives them a salary in exchange for all the rights to the book - that includes future movie deals, merchandising etc. In our age authors must be very wary of such a deal when potentially hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake and being traded simply to survive in a way that allows them to make art. It strikes me a little like slavery or blackmail, or selling your soul even. The author is the author, why should they give up control of their authorship at the point it reaches the public? I'm really asking, what is it the corporate partner is adding to the art except money, and if its all about money why don't they just ask for a fair profit for printing and distributing and advertising services..? The answer is; because they don't have to - they can own everything with a little pushiness.

Why should money rule art? why should the capitalist or the lawyer be the executive decision maker?

[Demosthenes]

You guys have your own sticky thread now for your party, if you'd like to re-post your positions in your sticky thread, I'll delete my initial post. The advantage is that the sticky is for YOUR party's posts only.

[RonPaulalways]

Is there a way to access the code in the platform post that I made above so that I could paste it into the official LC thread? After 24 hours, I can no longer click 'edit' and see the code.

[Demosthenes]

How about this:

Code: Select all[size=150][b]Liberty Caucus[/b][/size]
[img]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f207/suskasuina/liberty_caucus_gold.jpg[/img]

[b]Economic Platform[/b]

Overriding ideology: [b]Economic Liberty[/b]

Points of special interest:

[list][*]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.[/list]

[b]Social Platform[/b]

Overriding ideology: [b]Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility[/b]

Points of special interest:
[list][*]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.[/list]

[b]Governance Platform[/b]

Overriding ideology: [b]Federated Constitutional Republic[/b]

Points of special interest:
[list][*]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.[/list]

[b]International Platform[/b]

Overriding Ideology: [b]Free Trade and Non-Interventionism[/b]

Points of special interest:
[list][*]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.[/list]

[RonPaulalways]

cheers.

[canadiancapitalist]

The books is called "Against Intellectual Monopoly"