No more party politics?

[Drogue]

I would have thought that since Libertarianism includes:

Originally posted by Voltaire
A rejection of government interference with the liberties of individuals

And that:

Originally posted by Voltaire
Government interference with economics... is also seen as interference with individual freedoms

That Libertarianism would necessitate a disagreement with both?

Originally posted by Voltaire
Language tends to be insufficient to express fully the political ideals of any one individual in a few terms more often than not.

Very true. Also the words probably mean slightly different things in different languages, so are ripe for misinterpretation.

Maniac: I read anarchist as archaic sorry

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
...that Libertarianism would necessitate a disagreement with both?

IMO not necessarily, since one could hold a libertarian position that a government should not interfere with the liberties of an individual, but also at the same time believe that it is the responsibility of a government to ensure equal opportunity. Antidiscrimination laws in the workplace are interfering with the freedom of the employer to hire or not hire whoever he/she wishes, so there is a conflict of interest involved with the rites of the employee not to be discriminated against based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc (though I admit this is more social then economic interference).

Libertarianism advocated “maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state”, so the state could still have some role in the economic life of a nation.

Though it all really boils down to semantics in the end.

[Hercules]

Voltaire: the reason for collapse of the political parties you knew back then was one) an attempt to transfer Earth politics (right v left) to this Planet plus the lack of a meaningful vision for the citizens.

Many of the espoused policies were silly, 'Our policy is to explore'. but a genuine attempt I suppose to be different from Earth politics. Other parties wanted Peace. who doesn't. big deal. No party then as far as I could see had a longer term vision.

Political parties (sans Corruption) can be good for citizens and for the efficient running of the faction.
At the early/medium part of the game with the collapse of Pol Parties, we polled for everything, almost down to the colour of the loo paper in the gents toilets in the Rec Com. Not only inefficient but boring. This excessive expression of democracy for it is democratic also should mature into new political parties on this planet.

For example on certain issues US Democrats voted with Republicans and vice versa. This simple shows Dem and Rep can hold a different general approaches but can agree on specific issues or short term measures.

Voltaire: You can talk Earth politics and political theory, to TKG's two headed cows come home, or you can participate in the now politics of this planet and make a difference for the future.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Hercules
Voltaire: the reason for collapse of the political parties you knew back then was one) an attempt to transfer Earth politics (right v left) to this Planet plus the lack of a meaningful vision for the citizens.

On the lack of vision I will agree; but IMO the collapse of the political party system most likely can be attributed to the fact that they no longer served a purpose as we’ve moved more towards direct democratic decision making through a polling system.

As for your point about an attempt to transfer Earth politics to planet, humans are humans, whether here or Chiron or back on Earth, politics are a function of humans not a function of an environment (though admirably it does play a part).

Many of the espoused policies were silly, 'Our policy is to explore'. but a genuine attempt I suppose to be different from Earth politics. Other parties wanted Peace. who doesn't. big deal. No party then as far as I could see had a longer term vision.

And what long term vision would you propose? And how do you distinguish yourself form the previous political parties? In other words what sets you apart form the rest?

Political parties (sans Corruption) can be good for citizens and for the efficient running of the faction.
At the early/medium part of the game with the collapse of Pol Parties, we polled for everything, almost down to the colour of the loo paper in the gents toilets in the Rec Com. Not only inefficient but boring. This excessive expression of democracy for it is democratic also should mature into new political parties on this planet.

For example on certain issues US Democrats voted with Republicans and vice versa. This simple shows Dem and Rep can hold a different general approaches but can agree on specific issues or short term measures.

I would strongly disagree that new political parties should emerge; we should scrap the system of party politics all together. We should in effect scrap politics all together if we want to distinguish ourselves from Earth. What purpose would political parties serve that independent candidates for office cannot?

Voltaire: You can talk Earth politics and political theory, to TKG's two headed cows come home, or you can participate in the now politics of this planet and make a difference for the future.

More rhetoric, in effect in that last statement you’ve managed to say absolutely nothing in 34 words. Earlier you spoke of no clear vision for the future which the old parties lacked, so then enlighten me and tell me what your vision for the future is.

[FlameFlash]

Well... the EDP is still around...

[Method]

but what does it do? that's right, nothing...

[AdamTG02]

I've been happy to see the EDP slip into the background. We haven't disbanded, but the members haven't put much focus lately on party politics. For the reaons Voltaire has already gone over, parties can be a barrier to democracy. They can also be an energizing force, rallying support and organizing interest. Everyone tries to find a happy medium, and in the last month or so the EDP's happy medium has been to remain inactive, with its members focusing on specific policies rather than party politics. Most other parties have done the same, though the CCCP and the STEP have been more active than we have.

Party politics fit us well during the first two months of the game, but we're moving toward something different now. That doesn't mean thjat parties can't come back, but I doubt we'll have a repeat of the first Commissioner election, with a coalition backing each candidate. Now, people are more inclined to vote for the candidates they see as best for the job, either through support for specific policies or through competence. In a party system, that sort f rational evaluation can take a back seat to loyalty.

So I've seen the demise of parties as largely a good thing, and haven't done much to halt it. The EDP is till around, but its members choose to act outside the party rather than through it. Likewise, new parties such as the STEP are around, and the CCCP is being reorganized. Party politics isn't dead -- it's dormant, choosing to rest for now, but that could change in the future. It's all up to us.

[Nubclear]

Hmm...PM me if they begin roaring their ugly head again. I will slay them




The people of the Peacekeeping Faction continue to remain vigilant and united in their opposition to petty political parties and the evil politics they bring!

[Method]

[lucky22]

Tassadar- that poster art you've put up a couple of times now is incredibly cool! I've really got to find a nice "glorious combines and cosmonauts" piece for the living room wall.

[Hercules]

Find us one to hang on the Fungusbale walls of the STEP party offices. TASS

[Drogue]

On a slightly different note, as Voltaire said when discussing the elections something to the effect of 'it seems to be that who the director is doesn't matter that much, since they seem to be glorified polling machines' (with the exceptions of DPO and DTC) Therefore instead of being a representative democracy, we have become almost a 'true' democracy, whereby the citizens en masse actually make the decisions. While I'm sure this will become less of the case in the future with more units to control and more choices to make, is this such a good thing?

Personally I would favour a system whereby we give the directors slightly (and only slightly) more power and have an effective opposition, so that we have more discussion but the final decision isn't always polled (if we don't like the decision, we can always elect someone else next term). I would suggest a 2 party system (FM and non-FM for example, or even having no agenda, just 2 parties of individuals) whereby each party puts up a candidate for each position (so we have contested elections) and there is always an effective opposition to the current directors. And since the parties would be very broad in opinion so there would not be the 'pigeon-holing' of opinions into the party structure.

This is just an idea, but I think it could give us more debate and more activity.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
since they seem to be glorified polling machines (with the exceptions of DPO and DTC)

As said in the other thread: believe me. The DTC has little control over unit orders...

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Drogue
On a slightly different note, as Voltaire said when discussing the elections something to the effect of 'it seems to be that who the director is doesn't matter that much, since they seem to be glorified polling machines' (with the exceptions of DPO and DTC) Therefore instead of being a representative democracy, we have become almost a 'true' democracy, whereby the citizens en masse actually make the decisions. While I'm sure this will become less of the case in the future with more units to control and more choices to make, is this such a good thing?

Personally I would favour a system whereby we give the directors slightly (and only slightly) more power and have an effective opposition, so that we have more discussion but the final decision isn't always polled (if we don't like the decision, we can always elect someone else next term). I would suggest a 2 party system (FM and non-FM for example, or even having no agenda, just 2 parties of individuals) whereby each party puts up a candidate for each position (so we have contested elections) and there is always an effective opposition to the current directors. And since the parties would be very broad in opinion so there would not be the 'pigeon-holing' of opinions into the party structure.

This is just an idea, but I think it could give us more debate and more activity.

That wouldn’t be such a bad idea (if you’d managed to get people to agree to it), since as it stands the directors have little power. The problem with political parties is that in the end you need to have a considerable number of active members to have both an effective government and an effective opposition; one of the reasons for the collapse of the old political party system would be the lack of activity as well as no actually structure in the constitution to support a system such as you’re proposing. Right now there is little choice in government, since not many people are running for the position, plus this combined with the fact that it wouldn’t make much of a difference since either a) the polls decide the actions to be taken, or b) the candidates are almost identical in terms of policy (such as is the case in the competition between Drogue and myself).

What we need is viewpoints in opposition, an opposition party that actually wants to do things differently (the Fundamentalist Faction was a good example of this in the early year, but they’ve since died away). The current political atmosphere, though calm, is rather uninteresting.

That wouldn’t be such a bad idea (if you’d managed to get people to agree to it), since as it stands the directors have little power. The problem with political parties is that in the end you need to have a considerable number of active members to have both an effective government and an effective opposition; one of the reasons for the collapse of the old political party system would be the lack of activity as well as no actually structure in the constitution to support a system such as you’re proposing. Right now there is little choice in government, since not many people are running for the position, plus this combined with the fact that it wouldn’t make much of a difference since either a) the polls decide the actions to be taken, or b) the candidates are almost identical in terms of policy (such as is the case in the competition between Drogue and myself).

What we need is viewpoints in opposition, an opposition party that actually wants to do things differently (the Fundamentalist Faction was a good example of this in the early year, but they’ve since died away). The current political atmosphere, though calm, is rather uninteresting.

The point is well taken Drogue, perhaps a reform in the political process is what we need.

[Voltaire]

Not to get off topic here, but is it just me or is no one interested in the government position?

I mean we have many elections taking place with only once candidate, so whoever runs pretty much gets the seat by default.