Chamber of Debate

REFORMING THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

ARTICLE 1
Any citizen who has reached the age of 18 who accepts the Party's principles and is willing to join and work actively in on its behalf and agrees to pays his membership fees may apply for membership in the Party.

ARTICLE 2
(1) Members of the Party are to act in the National Interest.

(2) Members of the Party are at all times ordinary citizens. Party members must not seek personal gain or privileges, although the relevant laws and policies provide them with personal benefits and job-related functions and powers.

ARTICLE 3
Party members agree to the following:

(1) To interest themselves in the theories and practices of good government throughout the ages and throughout the world while suspending any cultural, religious, social or political prejudices they may have.

(2) To implement Minimum Government by which is meant the fewest laws and the lowest possible taxes necessary for Justice to subsist.

(3) To use these minimum laws and taxes in service of the greatest good of the greatest number.

(4) To practice personal responsibility while encouraging others to do so.

(5) To strive for the economic, social, cultural and educational advancement of the Nation.

(6) To speak out and address an issue that he perceives to affect the National Interest, even if it goes against the current orthodoxy (whatever that may be).

(7) To rigorously analyse the logic of any argument used or the truth of any statement relied upon.

(8) To act in accordance to with the highest standards of ethical behaviour that is consistent with Truth, Justice, Reason and the National Interest.

(9) To uphold the Party's solidarity, unity and singularity by resolving disagreements through debate, a thorough investigation of the issues and voting.

(10) To be open to discussion, whether in defending one's views or questioning another's.

(11) To maintain close ties with non-member citizens, informing them of Party policy and thinking, consult with them when problems arise, keep the Party regularly informed of their views and demands and defend their legitimate interests.

(12) To approve only laws that are proportionate to the evil to be addressed and in the National Interest, which are necessary to prevent crime, nuisance, damage to property and other ascertainable and provable evils. (For example, smoking in a public house or smoking in a public place is not a "provable evil." Citizens dying sooner as a result of smoking-related diseases that are self-inflicted is not provably harmful to the Nation.)

(13) To repeal any anti-discrimination "thought crime" legislation in existence that limits the citizen's freedom of association and contract.

(14) To refrain from

(a) using legislation as a means of favouring one group over another, such as apartheid, or

(b) using legislation to prevent citizens from exercising their freedom of contract and association

(15) To urge what is good and forbid what is evil, after due consultation and debate.

(16) To accept the truth of the following propositions in a speech made by Abraham Lincoln in 1865:

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help them permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

ARTICLE 4
Party members enjoy the following rights:

(1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party's education and training.

(2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party's policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.

(3) To make suggestions and criticisms regarding the work of the Party.

(4) To criticise any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent or corrupt member.

(5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.

(6) To attend, with the right of self-defence, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves in the appraisal of work and behaviour; and call on other Party members to bear witness or argue on their behalves.

(7) In case of disagreement with a Party decision or policy, to make reservations and present their views to the Party, provided that they implement the policy while it is in force.

(8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to the Party and be entitled to a substantive response.

(9) No Party member or organization has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.

ARTICLE 5

Party oath to be sworn by members:

“It is my intention to implement the Party's programme of Minimum Government and work in the National Interest. I believe that the National Interest is best served by a meritocratic political system where there is no representation without taxation under which citizens practise personal responsibility, self-sufficiency and are educated, open-minded, ethical, versatile and rational in their decisions in the exercise of direct democracy.”

Vote: Do you like the sound of these membership rules?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)

Yes 64%

No 36%

Yes

OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)

Yes 100%

No 0%

Yes

AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Page 1 of 2

1 2

Records Per Page


Pericles	25-Mar-2009 13:29
01/pearson I actually agree with dismantling the NHS in favor of an obligatory private insurance system but agree with you that article 3 does imply a political bias, albiet in my favor. I hope it will be removed because we stand a better chance of success without political bias, even if it's one I agree with.

Pericles	25-Mar-2009 13:22
I've voted for it in principle although I do have a number of qualifiers. Article 2 clauses 2 & 3 Imply a Libertarian perspective and therefore appear to indicate a political perspective other than Direct Democracy. Article 3 clause 16 In the interests of clarity references to political ideas drawn from outside the UK should be deleted. Although I don't disagree with the sentiment expressed, perhaps it could be rephrased without the reference? Article 5 The reference to the alternative political ideology meritocracy should be deleted or substituted with 'democracy'. I don't agree with the principle 'no representation without taxation' as I think all 'citizens' should have the vote. I don't think residents who are taxpayers but not citizens should be allowed to vote so suggest the following should be put in it's place; “It is my intention to implement the Party's programme of Direct Democracy and work in the National Interest. I believe that the National Interest is best served by a direct democratic political system where there is no representation without citizenship under which citizens practise personal responsibility, self-sufficiency and are educated, open-minded, ethical, versatile and rational in their decisions in the exercise of direct democracy.”

Andromeda	12-May-2008 10:54
I trust Derek will confirm that adding clause 16 to Article 3: (16) To accept the truth of the following propositions in a speech made by Abraham Lincoln in 1865: "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help them permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." deals with the point he raised about National Interest, ie that it must be defined as "increasing individual freedom and reducing the power and cost of government".

Derek	10-May-2008 12:13
I would like to suggest a further amendment to Article 3 Clause 12. The same level of strict scrutiny for proven benefit-greater-than-all-costs should be applied to all existing regulatory laws. Failure to meet the test would mean automatic repeal. This would be applied to 10% of such laws every year and any laws not so reviewed after 10 years would automatically cease to have effect.

Derek	10-May-2008 12:7
I do not accept Andomeda's argument for the use of dangerous it-means-what-I-want-it-to-mean words like "National Interest", unless NI is defined as increasing individual freedom and reducing the power and cost of government.

brookwater	9-May-2008 14:58
Just to clarify, the metagovernment idea is NOT government by referendum but rather government by agreement & consensus. A meeting & agreeing of thoughts & ideas. for example: say I want a flat tax, I put my ideas forward, you put yours, others add theirs, the whole thing evolves & grows till everybody gets a bit of what they are after & there is then a broad consensus. Now this will not satisfy every single "voter" but we will get a broader support for policy's than we get now. And, we are all involved & we are all responsible. A kind of grownup democracy.

Andromeda	9-May-2008 14:8
Brookwater says he does not want another party but another system of government. This is precisely what I am talking about. Direct Democracy is the only true kind of democracy. Since it gives genuine choice to the voter, the franchise must necessarily be more limited than it is now. If the "metagovernment" he is recommending is a form of direct democracy, then it seems we are on the same side. If by Direct Democracy you mean Government by Referenda then it follows that the party system must be replaced with another one capable of allowing Direct Democracy to function effectively. This rather means that we must abandon our attachment to having lots of useless parties and instead having just one good one that does what it says on the tin. It is not really so shocking and outlandish. Anyone who has ever been to a shareholders' meeting may find the idea of voting in a "UK plc" scenario appealing. Derek’s comment that the National Interest could mean anything is precisely my point! The concept is fluid and necessarily so. What is socially acceptable in one society in one age, eg slavery, divorce, single parenthood, illegitimacy, pogroms, becomes an unspeakable horror in another. The concept is a useful one however, because it concentrates the mind. What is in the personal interest of a prime minister (eg his ability to stay in power) can often be demonstrably incompatible with the public or national interest he claims to represent. In any case, the National Interest is merely another way of asking the eternal philosophical question of what is good (to which the answer is “it depends”), and whether we can have too much of a good thing (to which the answer is “yes”).

brookwater	9-May-2008 9:30
I voted no. I do not want another party i want another system of government. politics, religion, sport, 3 thing that we as human do not do well, as soon as we are involved in them, rules abound, "there is this hoop to jump through", "walk this way", "eat this on this day" Arrgh!! it all makes me cross >:-] we do not need more party's to fracture our efforts to see in the next way forward for democracy & government. I favour something along the lines of the meta government (see: http://www.metagovernment.org/ ) please no more of this party talk. this forum is great for airing views, discussing topics, & generally exchanging ideas. lets leave it at that eh?

Derek	9-May-2008 9:27
"National Interest" is a powerful weasel word that can and does mean anything you want it to mean. All over the world there are dictators and quasi-dictators who are unable to tell the difference between National Interest and self-interest. Many of them repress, torture and kill, up to and including genocide, under the banner of National Interest. Certainly each of us have duties and responsibilities to the society that we choose to stay in, but the right to personal property and personal freedom, a la the Amendments to the US Constitution, are at least equally important.

Derek	9-May-2008 9:19
Article 3 Clause 12 is very important and is too open to abuse. Suggest: Only approve laws that have passed through an open, lengthy process of research, analysis and review that demonstrates a likely, ongoing level of measurable benefit that exceeds all costs, particularly including full compliance costs, lost opportunity costs and inconvenience costs for those being controlled. The law must lapse automatically within a maximum of 5 years - and cannot be reinstated - without a full review and peer-reviewed analysis of its actual cost-effectiveness.