Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Darkness' Edge]

Not interested in joining.

If we do decide to return to a party system, I'll found one myself - and that will be one that doesn't make its members follow the party line.

Sure, you can be free to do anything - except go against us. I'm sorry, Archaic, that's a little bit hypocritical...

[Nubclear]

Because we'd all be voting as a block,

This is the exact reason I do not like political parties at all.

[Drogue]

I wouldn't like them if it were true, but aside from the fact most parties don't, how would they know? All votes are secret, so they wouldn't know if someone had 'defied the whip'.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

Ok, well, you obviously dont have a clue about Earth History do you ? So I'll be kind to you and teach you what happened centuries ago.

I have plenty of clue. Unlike you though, I don't distort others positions. You are making a Strawman.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
This is a Soviet propaganda poster "Collectivism and Comradeship are Mutually Useful", printed in 1962, which is clear enough, even for your rotten brain.

I am not promoting collectivism, am I? That would be a Planned economy, whereas I promote a Free Market. As for people working together for mutual benifit, that is the basis of any true political party (The Liberals, Nationals and Labour Parties from my own ancestral homeland of Australia for instance.). These people band together to form a voting block because they all share common goals. While they may disagree on some minor points, they agree on all the major points of policy.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Pandemoniak

There had another party who worked like that : Communist placard "Everybody - To The Reelections!", printed in 1924. Published by "Mossovet". Size 70x102 cm.

Most Western Democratic nations had similar things at the turn of the century. They were called "Election Campaign Advertisments". You watched them on the ancient Televisions in these things calle "Commercial Breaks" in the "Shows". Seeing as you seem to be unfamiliar with the workings of a Free Market, I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with the concept of "Advertisment", especially in the "Advertisment" of political parties.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Long live Archaic, the little father of the Bourgeoisie !

One moment you say I support Collectivism, the next you say I'm a Bourgeoisie. Besides the fact that both are Strawman distortions (Not to mention that there's no such thing as Bourgeoisie to begin with you), you just contradicted yourself. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by Drogue
Exactly! Libertarianism is letting eveyone vote for who they want, its not having the Party, or Government forcing anyone into any discision. And yes, in you're party they can debate, but they still have to follow the line, so cannot always have a vote for what they want. Moreover, they will have to vote for something they don't want from time to time. I wouldn't expect any party to force its members into what they vote for, let alone a Libertarian party.

Take a look at http://www.libertarian.org/ if you want to find out what Libertarianism actually is. From the site:

They choose the line. While they may need to concede some points they may have liked, it becomes in their own self interest to do so, because they know that as a member of the party, they have a better chance of getting the issues that are most important to both them and the rest of the party through. Of course, I don't expect either yourself or Pandemoniak to understand the concept of Self Interest, seeing as you have been completly consistant with misunderstanding (Willfully or not) all such capitalistic concepts thusfar.

To put it in a way you might understand.....
They will want to vote for something they didn't want to vote for if and when that situation crops up, simply because by being part of a voting block, the more important issues which they do agree with the majority of party members on will get through.

You're also making a Strawman distortion of our Libertarianism position. We are not infringing on peoples freedom. We are not requiring them to join. If they *do* join however, they would be required to follow the rules of the party, rules that they would follow in their own self interests, and rules that would apply to every single member of the party, regardless of who they were. Society has plenty of rules like that you know.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
here it is

Appeal to Ridicule

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
Archaic,

In previous thread, you showed a strong interest in Though Control policies should they become available.

Then you declare that you " strongly believe in democratic government".

Do I detect a contradiction here ?

No. I have an RP justification. Even if it was a contradiction, Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

I should note BTW that I expect the party will likely vote me down on that position, and I will of course give way to the will of the party

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
Besides, for someone who has crictized so much the other political party in the past, I find it a bit strange that you would create a political party yourself.

I was critical of CCCP and STEP's ethos and beliefs, not of the party system. So long as parties are honest in their dealings (ie. Keeping promises they make), I wholeheartedly support the system.

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
Also remember all the critics you made about others, saying that they were making "fallacious" statments just to hide the truth. Aren't doing the same out here ? From what I see, that strongly look to be the case.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. I'm hiding nothing. If you wish to challenge what I support, fine by me. I fully expect (And encourage) DLP members to challenge me from time to time on various issues, such as on TC.

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
I had the opportunity to see how "unbiased" and "rational" you are when you insulted several member of the community including ( but not exclusively) Hercules, "Unskilled Labourer" Pandemoniak, Drogue and other as well as for all the times when you presented yourself as " being superior" and such non-sense like this.

You can only go so far before you have to call a moron a moron. Fault my logic, not my method of debating. Ad Hominem.

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
I also had the opportunity to see how silent you are when presented with FACTS.

I've also seen how much you yap nonsense when presented with facts. As for your "facts"....why should I answer your Strawman distortions when GT has already rebutted them. All you and your fellows have done recently is repeat the same old tired points that have been rebutted time and time again. You however have not been able to find sufficient fault in our arguements except by making the downsides of FM seem uncounterable and more dangerous than they are, while trying to make Planned/Green seem to be more favourable than they would be. That's a logical fallacy called Misleading Vividness.

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
As for having your party voting as a whole, let me just remind you that it is again democracy.

Yes, it is. Good of you to notice. A Party voting as a whole has significant voting strength. That's why people form up into parties.

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
The only thing that has been done in the other political parties both in earth and in planet, was to PROPOSE their members to support such and such vote and not force them to do so.

What happened if their views didn't match the views of the political party? They left it. Why did they vote that way in the first place then, even though they might not have wanted to support it originally? Because it was in their best interests, because by agreeing to concede to the party will on one issue, they were more likely to get another issue through that was important to them.
Example
There are 2 people, A and B.
A likes proposition 1 a lot, dislikes proposition 2 a little and likes proposition 3 a little.
B likes proposition 1 a lot, likes proposition 2 a little, and dislikes proposition 3 a little.

A and B negociate and debate amongst themselves. They eventually agree to vote together, as a party. While A dislikes proposition 2, he agrees to vote for it on the condition that B votes for proposition 3. Thus, because of their voting as a block, all three propositions (The 1 major one they both agreed on, and the 2 minor ones they had small disagreements over) get through.

Originally posted by Aaron Blackwell
I must also remind you that the worst dictators have always used the democracy to put themselves in power.

So many logical fallacies. Why don't you read them, and then try to identify what both you and Pandemoniak have done wrong in this thread, hmmmm?

Ad Hominem
Appeal to Spite
Guilt by Association
Hasty Generalization
Personal Attack
Strawman

Now, I do not mean to be insulting ( as you sometimes are) but I must say that you are an Hypocrit. This statment being supported by all the post I have seen from you ( and not by emotional bias).

You've said I'm a hypocrite, and said "All this is evidence". Where's the actual evidence for your statement? What in my posts makes me a hypocrite? Again, you fail to justify your statement.

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
Not interested in joining.

If we do decide to return to a party system, I'll found one myself - and that will be one that doesn't make its members follow the party line.

Sure, you can be free to do anything - except go against us. I'm sorry, Archaic, that's a little bit hypocritical...

It's not hypocritical. I think you've misunderstood how the party line is decided (With more than a little help from the left wing propaganda machine here). It's not decided by me, or by GT. The party line is decided by its members. ALL of its members. You and other party members would follow it because it'd be in your best interests to, because it'd allow you to get the issues most important to you and the rest of us through, as I've shown by the example above.

[Nubclear]

Much to the disappointment of my comrade Pand here, I largely support your party Archaic because I agree with some of the views you have outlined and that it will serve as a counter force for the CCCP.

However I cannot shake the feeling that this party will signal the return of party politics. You say that the party line will be decided by the members. But I am afraid that the more powerful (some may mistaken it for "intellectually developed") members of the party will dominate and the rest of the members will flock to him like sheep to a shepard. Do you intend to prevent this and if so, how?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Much to the disappointment of my comrade Pand here, I largely support your party Archaic because I agree with some of the views you have outlined and that it will serve as a counter force for the CCCP.

Wonders will never cease.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
However I cannot shake the feeling that this party will signal the return of party politics. You say that the party line will be decided by the members. But I am afraid that the more powerful (some may mistaken it for "intellectually developed") members of the party will dominate and the rest of the members will flock to him like sheep to a shepard. Do you intend to prevent this and if so, how?

The Bandwagon fallacy is difficult to prevent, that's true. It's certainly not something I want. I'd much prefer people to agree with my arguements based on their own individual merit, or because supporting such arguements will serve their own interests, rather then them supporting my arguements just because I'm the one making the arguements. Besides encouraging intellectual debate on *all* issues, I'm not quite sure exactly what one can do to prevent this from happening. I'm open to suggestions if you have them.

[Method]

booo, parties!
_@stalchaic

now, carry on gentlemen

[Nubclear]

Archaic.....I find your answer acceptable.

While I am still skeptical, you can consider me a close observer to this party. Before taking any action, I wish to see how it forms...

[Archaic]

As you wish. We'll still be here 'till games end hopefully, so take all the time you need.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
I have plenty of clue. Unlike you though, I don't distort others positions. You are making a Strawman.

Just like you did claiming my eco position was just because I was trying to get at FM. Now you're the liar Archaic, you distort others positions as much as anyone

Originally posted by Archaic
One moment you say I support Collectivism, the next you say I'm a Bourgeoisie. Besides the fact that both are Strawman distortions (Not to mention that there's no such thing as Bourgeoisie to begin with you), you just contradicted yourself. Make up your mind.

No, he said because of you're forced voting, that is a collectivist policy, and against libertarianism. However because of your FM views, you would still be Bourgeoisie. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Archaic
They choose the line. While they may need to concede some points they may have liked, it becomes in their own self interest to do so, because they know that as a member of the party, they have a better chance of getting the issues that are most important to both them and the rest of the party through. Of course, I don't expect either yourself or Pandemoniak to understand the concept of Self Interest, seeing as you have been completly consistant with misunderstanding (Willfully or not) all such capitalistic concepts thusfar.

Yes, it may be in their self interest, but it's not libertarianism. People do get more voting or working as a block, but the fact that it is forced voting as a block, means that it is not consistant with libertarianism.

Originally posted by Archaic
You're also making a Strawman distortion of our Libertarianism position. We are not infringing on peoples freedom. We are not requiring them to join. If they *do* join however, they would be required to follow the rules of the party, rules that they would follow in their own self interests, and rules that would apply to every single member of the party, regardless of who they were. Society has plenty of rules like that you know.

Yes you are, they may be better off, but you are infringing on their liberties. They have a right to vote, the fact that they chose to have that taken away from them by joining means they have lkost that right and that liberty. the fact it is their choice makes no difference to the fact they no longer have it. Besides, the idea that to join, you must give up your individual right to vote, means you are indirectly forcing people, because some people will want to join and not vote as a block.

Originally posted by Archaic
Appeal to Ridicule

It wasn't reasoning with ridicule, it was ridicule because it was funny. No it doesn't make it true, but it is both funny and highlights his opinion (that he is perfectly intitled to have) well.

Originally posted by Archaic
You can only go so far before you have to call a moron a moron. Fault my logic, not my method of debating. Ad Hominem.

Why should we not fault your method of debating? Your logic becomes clouded by all the insults and abuse you hurl. And besides, if you can insult who you want, and thus damage your credibility (why else would such a good player not get elected in the 1st 3 attempts, other than his style?) then he can fault what he wants.

Originally posted by Archaic
I've also seen how much you yap nonsense when presented with facts. As for your "facts"....why should I answer your Strawman distortions when GT has already rebutted them. All you and your fellows have done recently is repeat the same old tired points that have been rebutted time and time again. You however have not been able to find sufficient fault in our arguements except by making the downsides of FM seem uncounterable and more dangerous than they are, while trying to make Planned/Green seem to be more favourable than they would be. That's a logical fallacy called Misleading Vividness.

No it's not. You have used the same counter arguments again and again and we still do not accept them, hecne we keep claiming our original points. We have reached a stalemate, where we feel the downsides of FM are not worth the upsides, and you disagree. It is that simple.

Originally posted by Archaic
What happened if their views didn't match the views of the political party? They left it. Why did they vote that way in the first place then, even though they might not have wanted to support it originally? Because it was in their best interests, because by agreeing to concede to the party will on one issue, they were more likely to get another issue through that was important to them.
Example
There are 2 people, A and B.
A likes proposition 1 a lot, dislikes proposition 2 a little and likes proposition 3 a little.
B likes proposition 1 a lot, likes proposition 2 a little, and dislikes proposition 3 a little.

A and B negociate and debate amongst themselves. They eventually agree to vote together, as a party. While A dislikes proposition 2, he agrees to vote for it on the condition that B votes for proposition 3. Thus, because of their voting as a block, all three propositions (The 1 major one they both agreed on, and the 2 minor ones they had small disagreements over) get through.

And if there hadn't been a party, both vote for the the propositions they agree with, and as such the main point gets through. The others are tied, but since one wants it through and the other doesn't (in both cases) that is no worse than both getting through. And without voting as a block, propositions that most people want get through, and those that most people don't want do not get through, as it should be in a democracy. And since the ballot is secret, there is no incentive for either party to go through with it, because he believes he has already got what he wants with the others vote, and as such can switch his vote back and still get what he wants. You obviously have little knowledge of Game Theory if you believe that it works. There is always an incentive to go back onthe deal, to make it work, you must be able to see who voted for what, and punish those that do not follow the party line.

Originally posted by Archaic
You've said I'm a hypocrite, and said "All this is evidence". Where's the actual evidence for your statement? What in my posts makes me a hypocrite? Again, you fail to justify your statement.

As have you on many occasions, like my aims, that you presumed to know yet had no knowledge of, with regards to FM and Planet. You failed to justify you're statement about being a better player (and have still not admitted that, while you are a good player, you have absolutly no knowledge of my ability). And you (to my knowledge) have failed to justify why being a socialist makes Pande an 'unskilled labourer'. I'm sure Gandhi, Marx and Schumacher are all unskilled labourers to you too?

Originally posted by Archaic
It's not hypocritical. I think you've misunderstood how the party line is decided (With more than a little help from the left wing propaganda machine here). It's not decided by me, or by GT. The party line is decided by its members. ALL of its members. You and other party members would follow it because it'd be in your best interests to, because it'd allow you to get the issues most important to you and the rest of us through, as I've shown by the example above.

Once again you are wrong. Just because all members decide what the party line is, voting in a block is not in there best interests. The most improtant issues to you you would all vote for anyway, so the fact you are forced to makes little difference. the minor issues get through that would otherwise not be, but only if people do not defy the whip, and with a secret ballot there is no incentive to follow it. And is it better to get something you want through, as well as something you don't want, than having neither get through? By most accounts that would be equal.

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes you are, they may be better off, but you are infringing on their liberties. They have a right to vote, the fact that they chose to have that taken away from them by joining means they have lkost that right and that liberty. the fact it is their choice makes no difference to the fact they no longer have it. Besides, the idea that to join, you must give up your individual right to vote, means you are indirectly forcing people, because some people will want to join and not vote as a block.

If people want to join the party without makiing the required contribution to it, that's their problem. If you join, you vote the party line. If you don't want to join, don't join. No-one's forcing you to.

And is it better to get something you want through, as well as something you don't want, than having neither get through? By most accounts that would be equal.

No, it depends on how important the two are to you. For example, most people would probably be willing to support a ban on something (smoking, say) that they wouldn't have otherwise, if that also means they can get through a law allowing freedom of speech.

[AdamTG02]

I've been mostly staying out of the discussion, but I had to take exception to this:

most people would probably be willing to support a ban on something (smoking, say) that they wouldn't have otherwise, if that also means they can get through a law allowing freedom of speech

How is this justified? The ban on smoking limits liberty. The "party line" would be to agree with that in order to ensure freedom of speech. That's a clear case of the ends justifying the means -- an obvious moral fallacy. How is it in anyone's interest to vote that way? I have said it before and I will say it again: Principle trumps pragmatism. A party system that maneuvered a ban on smoking into place, when freedom to smoke was supported by 50% + 1 of the population, is a distortion of democracy. More to the point, a party system that induces the deciding 5 or 6%, in the name of "self-interest," to vote against their conscience and ban smoking, is adverse to liberty. No political system on Earth ever to my knowledge expelled legislators from their party for once voting their conscience, if that happened to be against the party line. Though I don't deny your party's right to exist, and to constitute itself as it pleases, I would rather that no political system on Chiron do such a thing too.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'm not saying that we would try to do such a thing; I'm simply saying that as most people would value their right tos peak freely above their right to smoke, they would probably give up their right to smoke in exchange for a right to free speech that doesn't mean they should have to make a choice, of course.

No political system on Earth ever to my knowledge expelled legislators from their party for once voting their conscience, if that happened to be against the party line.

In Australia, AFAIK, legislators are expected to vote the party line unless the party has chosen to allow a conscience vote.

[Hercules]

I have already said I agree with the idea of political parties. It makes for a more ordered society and if need be it can achieve policy advances and if need be u turns quickly. Within the party discussion chambers (threads) is the place for in party debate. We have to determine rules for discussion and debate. For example a discussion in the STEP amongst supporters does not need a 3000 word exam essay from FM advocates. Likewise the Archaic and GT (Gin and Tonic) party or any party does not want its thread interupted with 2000 word rebuttals from the able Drogue or me.

Also we don't want the offical poll threads carrying on the lengthy debates that should take place in the kind of places we suggested above. Long posts put off new citizens. So can the parties agree some debating rules. Non party members of course are excepted.

[AdamTG02]

I see. I hadn't known that about Australia, as my research never touched on it. In any case, I don't consider it a justifiable function of a party to exercise de facto control over a bloc of votes. Parties are associations of free individuals.

It"s true that in my country of birth, the United States of America, party members were free to vote their conscience but rewarded with political support and campaign funds for voting the party line. I don't propose such a system here. What I would like to see, ideally, is a system such as the United States had during its first fifteen years of existence, when parties were stigmatized, though not banned, and legislators were expected to vote according to their conscience. It's true that I founded a party -- because the political climate seemed right for parties at the time. By now, I think we've moved past them. Let each citizen vote according to conscience, or self-interest, or national interest, or ideology. And let each citizen make the choice freely, without perceived constraints and obligations. That's democracy, functioning at its highest level. When a majority is free to consider rationally, without institutional constraints, that majority will make trhe right choice more than half the time. The rest of the time I'll just have to figure out how to productively convince them, I guess.

(What? What if I'm the one wrong? Well, you see, if I were wrong I would already have changed my opinion, making me right again. So, you see, that's not even worthy of consideration. Tongue planted firmly in cheek of course. )

If I'm the one wrong, it's up to you all to convince me. So, give it your best shot.

Hercules, you raise a good point. Since I have already typed and posted this reply, I will let it stand. But I recognize now that this sort of debate from a non-member of the party may be seen as unwanted here. For that reason, I won't continue this debate any longer. If anyone wishes to continue it, send me a Private Message. Party members are of course free to rebut my comments, and I'll refrain from responding unless specifically asked to.