Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[GeneralTacticus]

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.

So, what are you suggesting? You stay out of our thread if we stay out of yours?

EDIT: quote added

[GeneralTacticus]

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.

Who are obliged to follow the party rules. If they don't wish to follow them, they are not obliged to remain in the party.

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

Convince you of what, exactly?

[AdamTG02]

If I'm wrong, it's your job to convince me of the right opinion -- just as, if you're wrong, it's my job to tell you why. That's communication, and consensual decision-making depends on it.

(Sorry to post after I said I wouldn't, but I was asked a direct question to clarify what I meant in an earlier post. This will by my last post in this thread in this specific debate, and I apologize for the awkwardness.)

[Archaic]

Adam, the ethos of the party *encourages* debate. Just because you're not a member of this party doesn't mean your suggestions aren't wanted, just so long as you follow the rules of logical debate, and concede any points that might be rebutted.

[AdamTG02]

Well, thanks for the encouragement, both of you.

I decided not to continue the debate because I didn't want to in effect picket your party, making known my opposition to anyone who cared to read this thread. However, you've said you'll welcome a reasoned debate. Since both of you are willing to continue the discussion, I'll be happy to do so publicly.

So, if you'd like me to justify or explain any of the personal opinions expressed above, I'll be happy to. GeneralTacticus and I have discussed some of them over PM already, and our discussion was productive.

One of his criticisms was of my position that, in a disagreement, each person should attempt to persuade the other of the genuinely correct opinion -- as that person sees it. I took this position because I'm a big believer in consensus, and I believe it comes through dialogue. GT"s criticism, which I found well put, was that this could degenerate into unproductive and heated debate where both sides reiterate the same points and will not back down. I recognize this as a valid criticism; my ideal is not such a debate, but one where both sides are open to the possibility of being proven wrong. However, I'll be the first to admit that I don't always live up to that ideal.
In any case, I wish your party luck. Though I disagree with your voting-block system, in the end, it's entirely voluntary for all involved. Those who disagree with the party platform are free to leave it. Personally, I prefer a more open system; however, I won't discount your freedom of association to the extent that I'd deny you the right to constitute your party as you wish. As I said privately to GeneralTacticus, we won't always agree, but that would be boring. So I look forward to some productive, possibly heated debate, and to a lively democratic process.

[Drogue]

I agree with Adam's points, and I'm not denying you're party's right to exist, I even think block voting is a good idea (we have it in the UK as well, just called a 3 line whip). The only thing I have a problem with is it calling itself 'Libertarian', because, as it may be libertarian in ideals, the way in which it operates (block voting) is not libertarian. And a party that operates against it's ideals, is, IMO, hypocritical. Although on a side note, I do support most of what you say in the 1st post.

[Voltaire]

Wow, I’m gone for a short while once again and parties are making a comeback???

[GeneralTacticus]

It may be abit soon to say that, Voltaire.

[Method]

i sure hope not...

[Maniac]

Re: Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

Originally posted by Archaic
As such, our party strongly believes in a Democratic government, together with a Free Market without government interference.

Personally I do not see how this is possible. Without government interference and anti-trust laws, how will you prevent the formation of monopolies, and the consequential replacement of a free market system by a corporate-planned economic system?

[Archaic]

Under our current Planned economy, *every* industry is dominated by a monopoly. A state owned one.

Though perhaps I should have said "with a minimum of governmental interference". Something akin to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Comission) from old earth should perhaps exist, at least over the initial states of the market. As the decades pass, such things should become unnecessary, as the market slowly diversifies enough and competition reaches levels high enough for the "Invisable Hand" of the marketplace to truly come into play, and prevent such market failures.

Afterall, one must remember that with such small profit margins as businesses would be running with here on Planet with our limited resources in both the private and public sectors, it would be next to impossible to charge over the equilibrium price. People would rather go to a "blackmarket" dealer (Who wouldn't exactly be "blackmarket" in a truly Free Market) than a corperation who refused to play by the unwritten rules governing the society.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic
Under our current Planned economy, *every* industry is dominated by a monopoly. A state owned one.

So? If I had to choose between a monopoly owned by the state (as in our current PK economy), which are supposed to take care of society, or one owned by a corporation (as IMO pure free market would eventually result in), whose goal it is to make profit, I would know what to pick...

Though perhaps I should have said "with a minimum of governmental interference".

Good. I can feel it. By the end of this game you'll call this the Social-democratic party.

Something akin to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Comission) from old earth should perhaps exist, at least over the initial states of the market. As the decades pass, such things should become unnecessary, as the market slowly diversifies enough and competition reaches levels high enough for the "Invisable Hand" of the marketplace to truly come into play, and prevent such market failures.

Unfortunately I do not see how over time such organizations would become unneccesary, nor do I share your strong belief in the "Invisible Hand". Free Market is the "law of the jungle" to ensure the strong survive and the weak die, no? Those weak are absorbed by the strong. As a result the strong corporations get bigger and bigger. As the economy is globalized, so do these corporations grow and compete companies in other countries out of the market. This resulted in several multinationals by the turn of the millennium. Should this process not have been stopped by democratic globalist protests and government interventions in the 2020's on Old Earth, it would have resulted in a few corporations dominating the entire economy, even media and politics. This would have meant the end of free market, as no equal competition was possible. New innovating corporations would be immediately strangled by the big monopolizing multinationals, slowing down technological advance and the need to keep producing good quality products and providing good services, which are IMHO the biggest advantages of a free market system.

[Voltaire]

Why adopt a free market style economy which would result in the overproduction of unnecessary overpriced goods? If we take a look at the old earth as our only example of the effects of a free market society we see that corporations produce largely unnecessary goods at over-inflated prices in order to make a profit; it costs relatively little capital to construct a compute in relation to the market price at which they are sold. Now this is the problem of free market in regards to “wants” if you will, but this same scenario occurs with necessary products such as food. Are we to let corporations overcharge people for the basic necessities of life just so that they may make profit? And even if we do take the approach of a “limited” free market with a small amount of government regulation we still encounter the problem which plagued the earth in the last 20th century, our corporations will simply move to other nations (such as the Morganites) to escape the hand of justice and disregard any regulations which we put into place to ensure the welfare of the people. Free market economics also concentrate the wealth of our society into the hands of very few individuals, and the worth to society of an individual in a free market is determined by their wealth, when in fact the wealth of an individual should be determined by their worth to society.

Archaic, when you say “with minimal government interference” what does this exactly entail? Anit-trust laws? Labor laws? Regulations on the pricing of necessary goods? How far are you willing to go with this so called minimal interference?

[GeneralTacticus]

NOTICE FOR PARTY MEMBERS:

The Centralis Governor's Office is now open, featuring a full statistics display for bases in the Centralis region, along with the projected economic, environmental, and social effects of a Free Market.

[Archaic]

Thank you for that announcement GeneralTacticus. Hopefully other Governors will follow suit soon.

Maniac, Voltaire, I'll have replies for you both soon.