20:38  |  8 September 10
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

ELECTORAL REFORM

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:

β€œIt 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 62% No 38%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 100% No 0%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Page 2 of 2Prev1 2Records Per Page
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.
Andromeda 9-May-2008 7:4
"01|pearson's" concern about social care and the NHS is noted.

Of course this site is about discussing topics freely, including the topic of slaying the Sacred Cow that is the Nanny State!

It seems that we have some common ground anyway in admitting that the NHS in in some way a luxury. It is a luxury in the sense that humanity has managed not to become extinct over the centuries or descended into barbarism, even in the face of the non-existence of a cradle to grave welfare state!

As for "tebay's" concern about discrimination or non-discrimination, there are some who believe that we should be able to discriminate or not hire someone we don't want to hire, because we don't like the way they look at us, the colour of their eyes and hair, their tattoos, body piercings and manner as well as all the fact that they are the wrong sexual orientation, age, gender, race and are disabled! What is being suggested here is that no legislation should be used to compel -

(1) positive
(2) negative and
(3) non-discrimination.

We should all be allowed to make irrational choices in who we choose to hire. I am keener to support the right of employers NOT to hire pregnant unmarried mothers than the right of pregnant unmarried mothers to sue their employers for sex discrimination when they are not taken on or are sacked after they take maternity leave soon after being hired.

"Jatrius' " point about not maintaining a party line with which he personally disagreed is noted. I was thinking it might be considered something akin to collective responsibility in the Cabinet. It is absolutely fair enough that you should be allowed to be a "conscientious objector" and moved to another position or allowed not to implement a policy that you find morally repugnant. This is because you are unlikely to do it properly, whatever it is!
01lpearson 8-May-2008 20:53
I have a problem with this idea, but mmost specifically with ARTICLE 3 point 2

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

as this implicates the total removal of, whilst not essential, increadibly important services within our country such as social care and the NHS.

I also thought that this site was about discussing topics freely - however this seems to be ideals layed down on the 'party' from above.

please forgive me if i have failed to read something that addresses my concerns.
tebay 8-May-2008 20:12
Article 3 paragraph 14 section b
does that mean it is ok to descriminate against groups such as age , sex , race ect
jatrius 8-May-2008 18:28
I voted NO because of Article 3 IX - (9) To uphold the Party's solidarity, unity and singularity by resolving disagreements through debate, a thorough investigation of the issues and voting.

This, in effect means that once a vote is taken and I find myself in a minority, I would have to maintain a party line with which I personally disagreed. You can still be in the right, even if the majority are not yet persuaded of your arguments and to stifle debate once a vote is taken is inimical to political dialogue and progress
Comment:
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
Correspondents
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
Community
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award
       
    Home