[RonPaulalways]

This thread is for internal LC discussion only. All other posts shall be deleted. Please respect this party's personal privacy.

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.

[RonPaulalways]

Outstanding issue:

Intellectual property

What is the LC's position on trademarks, copyrights and patents?

Proposal:

Suska has promoted limiting copyright ownership to the author for the duration of the author's lifetime:

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.

See original discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=89&t=103964&start=75

[canadiancapitalist]

My vote is to take the hard line position here - abolishing copyright, patents, trademarks and other forms of intellectual property. This is the only policy in line with our support for free market competition. We must be opposed to all forms of state monopoly if we are to (even if just for a moment) avoid becoming corrupted.

[Suska]

abolishing copyright, patents, trademarks and other forms of intellectual property

Libertarianism is remarkable in the manner in which it hands over responsibilities to citizens, however even where it is very limited governance, some governance may be necessary. We want a Federal Government to form a strong and unified military defense capacity and we want enough local governance to act as redress and deterrence to bodily harm, robbery and fraud. In the category of Intellectual Property the central issue is robbery and fraud - particularly that one person copy the works of another without giving credit or sharing profits. It must be considered illegal, in which case it must be enforced as such. The problem of intellectual property is not that it is not natural or right to protect it, the problem is that it is difficult to protect and an effort to protect it can easily result in a large bureaucratic institution.

There may be ways to handle intellectual property without necessitating a central regulatory agency. I refer you to arguments regarding what is termed the "Economy of Reputation". In order for this route to be feasible a separate secure and central internet could be constructed in order to house and organize and display relevant legal documents and reputations. This concept is currently being developed in a variety of places online. It is not meant to measure popularity, but to monitor reputation. That is an important distinction. Should a producer reproduce another person's creative work that charge would be noted on their public page. As a producer they tacitly agree to be considered a public figure and therefore there is no conflict of privacy. I think this route has a great deal of potential as the realm of intellectual property is not a scarcity economy. Intellectual Property could be treated in many of the same ways that a technocracy suggests. The Libertarian will like this idea because it does not require a controlling agency, nor does it necessitate legal actions on the part of the state - it merely informs consumers about products, corporations and individuals as to the quality and origins of their products, on the other hand, it leaves much to consumers and producers to decide. For instance, supposing a copyist makes a large sum of money before the copy is noticed, in that case the copyist might take a hit on their reputation but they will still be wealthy from a fraud. I think we will still require some form of legislative process within which to deal with Intellectual Property theft.

The concept of abolishing Intellectual Property is something I should like to embrace, and gladly would if civil behavior generally prevailed in the marketplace. I do not think it is currently feasible on those grounds, that uncivil behavior would strip all creators of every profit apart from initial sales. While initial sales are often substantial, I'd assert that there is a natural entitlement that needs legal protection, and reiterate the principle that the author is legally entitled to the profits of his work for the duration of his life. This allows the work which makes a low initial impact to develop to the eventual benefit of its creator, while disallowing the copyist the right to profit from merely promoting a lesser known work.

[RonPaulalways]

The natural rights argument I see for intellectual property is as follows:

If someone creates an original work, they can allow others to access it on condition that they agree not to reproduce that work. This would make all copies of the work fraudulent as it would violate a contract between the original works producer and original copier.

I think that if an author wants to widely distribute his protected work, his exclusive right to that work because less absolute, because it necessitates greater intervention by the State to prevent unauthorized use/copies. Given this, I think that current copyright laws are reasonable, in that they allow some un-approved public use, e.g. fair use, while limiting commercial exploitation of a work to the copyright owner.

To reduce the socialization of law enforcement costs, I propose copyright owners also pay a 'intellectual property tax' proportional to the amount of information being copyrighted, that would go towards the cost of courts and law enforcement.

I refer you to arguments regarding what is termed the "Economy of Reputation". In order for this route to be feasible a separate secure and central internet could be constructed in order to house and organize and display relevant legal documents and reputations. This concept is currently being developed in a variety of places online. It is not meant to measure popularity, but to monitor reputation. That is an important distinction. Should a producer reproduce another person's creative work that charge would be noted on their public page.

I think this would be useful, but I don't think a parallel internet would be needed. Resources like this are emerging on the internet already, with the data stored on secure servers. Fraud laws require those claiming to present information about others to be accurate in their claims, so a private, non-governmental organization can create such a resource that can be reasonably relied upon to be accurate.

While initial sales are often substantial, I'd assert that there is a natural entitlement that needs legal protection, and reiterate the principle that the author is legally entitled to the profits of his work for the duration of his life.

I see no good argument for not providing original works producers the option of selling their rights to their work. If ideas are property, than it should be tradable like all other forms of property.

My vote is to take the hard line position here - abolishing copyright, patents, trademarks and other forms of intellectual property. This is the only policy in line with our support for free market competition. We must be opposed to all forms of state monopoly if we are to (even if just for a moment) avoid becoming corrupted.

I favor preserving IP laws mostly due to the economic repercussions that could result from abolishing them. Other nations could impose punitive measures like sanctions against our nation if we have no IP protection whatsover. If our goal is to maximize liberty, then it's best to avoid economic damage that would reduce our national security.

As a compromise position, and as an acknowledgment of the complexity/moral-ambiguity of this issue, I'm willing to leave this issue to be dealt with on a state-by-state basis.

[Suska]

The reason I call for a parallel and separate internet (an Intra-net really) is that we have spawned many rating sites already and none are central nor are commentators anything other than voluntarily liable for what they say (there needs to be some identity security measures). Intranets will be created, like gated communities, the question of whether or not we require a central Federal Governmental Intranet is - as you suggest and I concur - an open one. But whether or not there will be one or many, its inevitable.

intellectual property tax and implied limited-use protection are not entirely objectionable. I don't find your throw your hands up, do nothing, pass it down to the state, method very satisfying - whether we are dealing in Federal or State matters the issue needs to be addressed at some point.

I grant, as a practical measure the matter of intellectual property rights ought to be tabled and put to a commission to study the matter (lets move this to another thread and open it to parliament and Pofoland general)

[RonPaulalways]

The reason I call for a parallel and separate internet (an Intra-net really) is that we have spawned many rating sites already and none are central nor are commentators anything other than voluntarily liable for what they say (there needs to be some identity security measures). Intranets will be created, like gated communities, the question of whether or not we require a central Federal Governmental Intranet is - as you suggest and I concur - an open one. But whether or not there will be one or many, its inevitable.

There are sites that have some similarities to what you describe, like imdb.com and wikipedia.com. They are different of course in not being dedicated to creating a public record of un-authorized use of copyrights, but they do demonstrate the ability to create a reliable source of public information.

And people are liable for what they write on sites like wikipedia. Libelous claims can be tracked to the origin by law-enforcement through IP tracking.

intellectual property tax and implied limited-use protection are not entirely objectionable. I don't find your throw your hands up, do nothing, pass it down to the state, method very satisfying - whether we are dealing in Federal or State matters the issue needs to be addressed at some point.

You make a good point. This issue needs to be dealt with, and we may as well do it now, even if it's eventually made the jurisdiction of state governments.

Regarding the intellectual property tax for copyrights, I want to add the following proposal:

Have two tiers of copyright:

A general copyright that people gain as soon as they produce an original work and release it publicly. This copyright would require that others acknowledge the creator whenever they reproduce the work. For every page of the copyrighted work that is reproduced, at least one reference to the author would be required.

A registered copyright, where the copyright owner pays the 'IP tax', and others are excluded from reproducing the work without permission from the copyright owner.

I grant, as a practical measure the matter of intellectual property rights ought to be tabled and put to a commission to study the matter (lets move this to another thread and open it to parliament and Pofoland general)

Agreed.

[Michaeluj]

I didn't read this topic, but I'll provide some info anyway:

A registered copyright, where the copyright owner pays the 'IP tax', and others are excluded from reproducing the work without permission from the copyright owner.

Wouldn't it be better if there's a copyright for technologies and physical inventions which makes it so that anyone can use them without permission as long as they pay a fine?

And another copyright for intellectual works like books and movies, which entitle the creator total control of what is done with his/her creations.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
A registered copyright, where the copyright owner pays the 'IP tax', and others are excluded from reproducing the work without permission from the copyright owner.


Wouldn't it be better if there's a copyright for technologies and physical inventions which makes it so that anyone can use them without permission as long as they pay a fine?

This is similar to allowing others to automatically license patented technology. How would the size-of-the-fine/fee-for-the-license be determined?

[Michaeluj]

A percentage of the profits should be given to the inventor: it would increase technological incorporation by not discouraging invention or applying high costs to "idea borrowing". Of course, those costs might be entirely random in their decision or there might be a market-related explanation for it.

[RonPaulalways]

But what if the patented technology being used only makes up a tiny percentage of the whole product. It wouldn't be fair to have the same revenue sharing rate in that case as in one where the product depends almost wholly on the patented technology.

Any way, let's move this discussion off.

Suska, where would you recommend carrying this discussion on in?

[canadiancapitalist]

I must take issue with the idea of supporting a strong national defense. I move instead that we support no national defense. Standing armies are the antithesis of liberty. What realistic threats we face could be handled diplomatically, or in the case of no alternate recourse through the employment of extreme technological weapons (be they chemical, biological or nuclear). But we must not force the citizenry to pay to maintain a standing army which would (though built to secure the peace) drag us to war of it's own weight. We must focus instead on arming the populace - a well armed citizenry being the best guarantor of good manners and moral interactions between others.

[Suska]

cc that hasn't been realistic since WWII, in order to be prepared for potential modern threats a professional defense force is necessary. this is the primary role of the federal government and very nearly its only necessary role. If we pulled our troops from foreign bases and kept an eye on arms sales with a view toward using profits to support our armed forces the whole thing (including research & development) would cost relatively little. The defense budgets we've been paying recently are a reflection of big supposedly urgent campaigns with debatable value.

[RonPaulalways]

I must take issue with the idea of supporting a strong national defense. I move instead that we support no national defense. Standing armies are the antithesis of liberty. What realistic threats we face could be handled diplomatically, or in the case of no alternate recourse through the employment of extreme technological weapons (be they chemical, biological or nuclear). But we must not force the citizenry to pay to maintain a standing army which would (though built to secure the peace) drag us to war of it's own weight.

I share your concern but draw a different conclusion. A strong national defense is needed to prevent our nation from becoming dependent on alliances with foreign nations with stronger militaries for security. These alliances could lead us into un-desired wars (e.g. Australia following the US into Vietnam).

We must focus instead on arming the populace - a well armed citizenry being the best guarantor of good manners and moral interactions between others.

I agree with this. I believe having no national restrictions on small arms (while prohibiting armored vehicles, heavy arms, artillery, etc) and State governments that encourage the formation of militias will be the best way to make this happen.

Suska, I agree entirely.

[Suska]

Falx would like to involve us in some sort of revolution.

I am trying to get a coalition who's only goal is to disband government and ban the GM council from ever reappearing again. Currently my party will have a chance at this in 5 days at most. After the SLD and SN. I am working on a temporary merger of two parties to produce a larger one that gets a chance for form government in 2 days. If you are interested in this please let me know. The parties will revert to their former selves as soon as the government is dissolved and elections called.

He has not provided me with a firm basis to argue that we join. I'm not even sure it would be fun but I agreed to pass the invitation along. He stated his main goal to be triggering another election and suggested he might be able to pull it off.

I suggested he invoke a military coup, after all they have invented a geography and demography - why should it not include an army..?

If you only want to overthrow the government to open up another round of voting I'm not sure why you don't just wait until the next elections. You mentioned something about getting rid of GMs - that would be a risky step for which the LC would require some incentive. I just cannot see how it should be in our interests.

As you see, I've found it illuminating to take a stand with the Liberty Caucus, however the game itself seems to have overshot its purpose. Personally I'd join Falx's revolution if it involved a military coup just for fun. But maybe what Falx needs is his own breakaway republic and then the game is getting a bit silly from my perspective. In my view the more it moves toward a simulation the more pointless it becomes. If we'd been allowed to put the matter of the definition and rules of the game on the table for direct vote it might now be in my mind to take the government simply to redefine the nature of the game in order to eliminate the Pofotopia nonsense and get back to freestyle roleplay.

Without rapid support for it here I will not get involved. If you support Falx's move speak up.

[RonPaulalways]

I think the coalition proposed by Falx is good:

THP-PNL-CA-LC-POP

It's a rightist coalition so we will get a government much closer to our ideals than a high tax/tyranny center-left coalition.

Here's the thread discussing the proposed coalition:

viewtopic.php?f=89&t=105154

I propose we endorse this.

[Suska]

very well

[canadiancapitalist]

I think Suska should be our leader. Who's with me?

[canadiancapitalist]

gtfo noob

to elaborate on my suggestion earlier. I suppose it would be remiss of me not to first thank RonPaulAlways for the vast amount of effort he has devoted so far with regards to his position as interim leader of our party. I am ideologically far closer to RPA then Suska - which is, in no small part why I suggest this switch. RPA and I represent the hard right of the libertarian movement, while I would dubb Suska and Rancid as our soft left flank. Since it is virtually impossible to move farther to the right than we are currently (though some will inevitably try) if we are to ever consider the possibility of expansion it will be, however regrettably by moving leftward. Still of course we will remain a classical liberal party in all senses of the word. In reality there is nothing 'leftwing' or 'rightwing' about the idea of freedom. It is something that appeals to all people. Sure, some will always foolishly embrace collectivist ideologies (especially in so youthful a crowd) but life experience teaches everyone eventually about the importance of freedom. And if that means a little compromise along the way - so long as it is not compromising the essential anti-state philosophy of the libertarian movement - well, that would not be entirely remiss.

[RonPaulalways]

canadiancapitalist, thank you for the praise.

I think Suska should be our leader. Who's with me?

Suska *is* the leader.