The Liberty Caucus

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would also like to join.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Part of fighting for liberty is fighting to end the idiotic war on drugs, and therefore, I have posted the following bill:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg2384212#msg2384212

     I approve of the attempt to extend drug legalization, but slapping it with a 35% federal sales tax? I could see a black market for the stuff surviving its legalization with such a steep tax on it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Chairman:
Mechaman

Vice Chairman:
Giovanni

[Associate Justice PiT]

I agree.
The sooner we can destroy the "No True Scotsman" attitude amongst some of our posters the better.

Sorry I have views.

You keep your views, but don't go around parading them as the only way. That is what I mean by "No True Scotsman". What I have found most irritating (now I'm not saying I'm not guilty, in fact I'm guilty as hell of committing this) is the amount of forumers who have taken up an ideology and have committed that anyone else who follows said ideology must have their same views or else they're fakes.
Example: Poster A: No true Scotsman likes sugar. Poster B: Well Angus is a Scotsman and he likes sugar. Poster A: Well then he is not a true Scotsman.
Do you get where I'm coming from now?

     Yeah, I've done that too. It wasn't until I saw other people doing it that I realized how closed-minded & arrogant it makes one look.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Honestly, I doubt the caucus will be hijacked by right-wingers just because a couple have joined. I do think we should volunteer to avoid certain issues, though, since having this sort of internal discord defeats the purpose of having a caucus.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Honestly, I doubt the caucus will be hijacked by right-wingers just because a couple have joined. I do think we should volunteer to avoid certain issues, though, since having this sort of internal discord defeats the purpose of having a caucus.

It's not the presence of right-wingers that bothers me, but the absence of left-wingers and their subsequent marginalization. And so I regard my solution as the sole practicable one: readily identified factions, Left and Right, each of which submits its own policy proposals to be voted on by the caucus as a whole, negotiating in parliamentary fashion, similar to Australian political parties.

     What of the libertarians who comprise the center of the freedom movement? I think that any proposal that doesn't pass muster with them is too contentious to be adopted by the caucus as a whole, & that would serve to prevent marginalization of either wing. As for who these center-libertarian arbiters are, they could be agreed upon jointly by prominent right-libertarians & left-libertarians in the caucus.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Honestly, I doubt the caucus will be hijacked by right-wingers just because a couple have joined. I do think we should volunteer to avoid certain issues, though, since having this sort of internal discord defeats the purpose of having a caucus.

It's not the presence of right-wingers that bothers me, but the absence of left-wingers and their subsequent marginalization. And so I regard my solution as the sole practicable one: readily identified factions, Left and Right, each of which submits its own policy proposals to be voted on by the caucus as a whole, negotiating in parliamentary fashion, similar to Australian political parties.

     What of the libertarians who comprise the center of the freedom movement? I think that any proposal that doesn't pass muster with them is too contentious to be adopted by the caucus as a whole, & that would serve to prevent marginalization of either wing. As for who these center-libertarian arbiters are, they could be agreed upon jointly by prominent right-libertarians & left-libertarians in the caucus.

Which is almost exactly the structure I am proposing - on a particularly contentious issue, each faction would propose its own variation and, after a period of debate and modification/consensus building, a vote would be taken on it.

     My proposal though is that the only people who vote on the proposals are those agreed by both wings to be centrist voices in the freedom movement. Such a set-up should help ensure that the proposals that are adopted are those judged to be meritorious rather than merely those that are supported by the larger faction.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Honestly, I doubt the caucus will be hijacked by right-wingers just because a couple have joined. I do think we should volunteer to avoid certain issues, though, since having this sort of internal discord defeats the purpose of having a caucus.

It's not the presence of right-wingers that bothers me, but the absence of left-wingers and their subsequent marginalization. And so I regard my solution as the sole practicable one: readily identified factions, Left and Right, each of which submits its own policy proposals to be voted on by the caucus as a whole, negotiating in parliamentary fashion, similar to Australian political parties.

     What of the libertarians who comprise the center of the freedom movement? I think that any proposal that doesn't pass muster with them is too contentious to be adopted by the caucus as a whole, & that would serve to prevent marginalization of either wing. As for who these center-libertarian arbiters are, they could be agreed upon jointly by prominent right-libertarians & left-libertarians in the caucus.

Which is almost exactly the structure I am proposing - on a particularly contentious issue, each faction would propose its own variation and, after a period of debate and modification/consensus building, a vote would be taken on it.

     My proposal though is that the only people who vote on the proposals are those agreed by both wings to be centrist voices in the freedom movement. Such a set-up should help ensure that the proposals that are adopted are those judged to be meritorious rather than merely those that are supported by the larger faction.

I concur, with one stipulation - that self-identified centrists not take part in the intra-faction talks between members of the same grouping. Beyond that, your proposal merits no objections from me whatsoever.

     Fair enough. I'm thinking each wing will elect two representatives, giving four in total to select three centrist arbiters, though we will probably need more people to truly realize that. In case one wing tries to infiltrate the other, the wings should have the power to police their own memberships.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Wow, I didn't expect to cause such a ruckus.
If you all don't want me here, just tell me, and I'll leave. I joined this caucus thinking I could gain insight from it and it could help me become a better Senator, but apparently I'm not wanted by some, and all I've seen so far is bickering.

     Nah, you're cool. At least you recognize that government is the enemy of freedom.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     For reference, my idea is that each member of the caucus would have the option of joining one of two wings: left or right. To prevent infiltration, these wings would be allowed to self-police their memberships. At a regularly scheduled convention, each wing would elect two members, for four in total. These four would select three arbiters, who could be anyone in the caucus that belongs to neither wing.

     Those three arbiters would serve in that capacity until the next convention. The wings would work to create proposals for caucus policy. The arbiters would vote on whether or not to adopt any proposal presented to them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     For reference, my idea is that each member of the caucus would have the option of joining one of two wings: left or right. To prevent infiltration, these wings would be allowed to self-police their memberships. At a regularly scheduled convention, each wing would elect two members, for four in total. These four would select three arbiters, who could be anyone in the caucus that belongs to neither wing.

     Those three arbiters would serve in that capacity until the next convention. The wings would work to create proposals for caucus policy. The arbiters would vote on whether or not to adopt any proposal presented to them.

Though complicated, that's actually a really good idea.

     I came up with it because Einzige was afraid that left-libertarians would be marginalized in the caucus. The goal of my plan here is to make sure that no ideological faction is able to take over the caucus & force out the other factions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

How would future elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman go? Would they be by the caucus as a whole, or by these same arbiters?

     Caucus as a whole.

What if you only have 3 people not join a "side" and 2 of them are not exactly filled with fairness and integrity?

     The thing about this proposal is that the larger the caucus is, the better it will work. We can choose to temporarily or permanently scotch it if we run into that sort of problem.

I wouldn't join either "wing" if such a system were to be implemented, and if forced to do so, I would have to resign from the caucus, which I don't want to do.

We should be focusing on how we are going to change Atlasia, not engaging in this stupid overcomplicated scheme to divide us.

     Nobody would be forced to join any wing. Notice that the arbiters cannot be affiliated with either wing, after all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Is there any issue that we are facing right now that would cause us to make this split?  What left/right issue is the problem, or is this just about ideological categories?

     It had to do with Einzige's concern that the caucus as a whole would be co-opted by right-leaning forces. The goal of this is to help ensure that no such co-option occurs.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I consider myself to be part of the Center.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I suppose we'll have to figure out something to do with the folks who want to affiliate with the non-existant "libertarian" wing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I suppose we'll have to figure out something to do with the folks who want to affiliate with the non-existant "libertarian" wing.

I would like to be a member of the libertarian wing of the Liberty Caucus. Otherwise, I suppose I would have to leave and found a new caucus that is welcoming to libertarians.

     But seeing as how the large majority of those in the center, left, & right are libertarians, such a move would be highly redundant. It would be like forming a new political party called the Human Party, because none of the current parties are explicitly intended for humans.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I suppose we'll have to figure out something to do with the folks who want to affiliate with the non-existant "libertarian" wing.

I would like to be a member of the libertarian wing of the Liberty Caucus. Otherwise, I suppose I would have to leave and found a new caucus that is welcoming to libertarians.

     But seeing as how the large majority of those in the center, left, & right are libertarians, such a move would be highly redundant. It would be like forming a new political party called the Human Party, because none of the current parties are explicitly intended for humans.

I demand a libertarian wing, to prevent libertarian views from being marginalized and drowned out within the caucus.

     There's no chance of that happening & you know it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

unaffiliated
(my understanding was that there would be a left faction and a right faction. those unaffiliated with either could be either center or other libertarian)

     Center is unaffiliated, from what I gather.

[Associate Justice PiT]

He can call it whatever he wants. The fact of the matter remains that we will have a voice here, his anti-democratic protest to the contrary besides.

     I suppose it will be cool as long as we still have enough people to make it work as anticipated. It's up to Chairman Dallasfan, but I suppose a fair way to go from here would be to allow any wing to participate in arbiter selection as long as it has enough people to permit a contested election. I also suggest that if we are to have more than two wings, each wing should elect one person to participate in arbiter selection rather than two.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Please quit with the attacks, you two.

[Associate Justice PiT]

maybe we can just have a "libertarian" subcaucus and a "left-libertarian" subcaucus, since there doesn't seem to be must interest in  the "right-libertarian" subcaucus.

     Well there are certain members who have not posted their affiliation yet who seem like they'd be interested in affiliating with a "right-libertarian" wing, like Daniel Adams & tmth. I think you might be right, but I'd wait until more people post their affiliations before advocating such a decision.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just wondering, besides opposing the HAEV, what else is in the platform?

     Nothing really. The point of the current exercise is to create a platform while preventing the caucus from becoming a vehicle for either the right or the left in doing so.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I guess I would be right? Not sure though, so tell me if I'm wrong.

     Sounds good, especially considering that the right wing of the caucus is somewhat understaffed currently.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Could we have more discussion on whether to rename the wings Libertarian and Left Libertarian?

I'd like to start a vote on such a proposal tonight, but I don't think there's been sufficient discussion.

since several have now declared their intention to be on the right, and SPC has changed his declaration from "libertarian" to "left," the circumstances in which i made this proposal have changed.  i don't think the right faction should be considered more libertarian than center or left.

     However, I think we should have some discussion over the idea of allowing extra sub-cauci, provided that they have enough members to permit contested elections & also only having each sub-caucus elect only one person for the selection process if there are more than two sub-cauci.