Democratic-Republican Party Convention, December 2013

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

After a bit of delay (I had told peeperkorn I would do this two days ago).

Granted, there's a sparse amount of us but I figure this may help get the ball rolling.

X Dallasfan65

[Flake]

Good luck!

[Deus Naturae]

I'd be interested in joining. I'm assuming this party is intended as a libertarian alternative to the moderate Federalists?

[PJ]

Good luck!

[Enderman]

I'd be interested in joining. I'm assuming this party is intended as a libertarian alternative to the center-right Federalists?

I assume that its like the Constitution Party. Small, right wing, but very interesting to look at. Oh, and:

Good luck!

[Lumine]

Well, new parties like this are always good for Atlasia, best of luck!

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

@ Lumine/Enderman/Flo: Much appreciated.

I'd be interested in joining. I'm assuming this party is intended as a libertarian alternative to the moderate Federalists?

Your participation would be much appreciated.

I would imagine with the presence of myself, Small L, and Jbrase, that would be the biggest demographic, though this is not formed so much as a critique of any perceived moderation on account of the Federalists - just a party for like-minded fellows who don't 'identify' with the party. Once this thread picks up a little bit of momentum a vision will be more thoroughly fleshed out, since I have no intentions of making it my own manifesto and would appreciate input from others.

I'd be interested in joining. I'm assuming this party is intended as a libertarian alternative to the center-right Federalists?

I assume that its like the Constitution Party. Small, right wing, but very interesting to look at.

That's not a characterization I would necessarily make, though I have no grandiose scheme to make this a large party.

[PPT Spiral]

I've decided to join now that you guys are trying to be organized. Maybe as a sitting Senator this will get more credibility. Let freedom ring!

x Spiral

[Napoleon]

I only receny joined the Progressive Union but as a former member I hope our parties can work together.

[Peeperkorn]

May we have a radical social libertarian agenda? Because being called a right-winger is kind of offensive.

x peeperkorn

Thank you for opening the thread, dally.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

May we have a radical social libertarian agenda? Because being called a right-winger is kind of offensive.

My precise hope, actually.

Welcome Spiral, shua, and Deus Naturae!

I only receny joined the Progressive Union but as a former member I hope our parties can work together.

I would like to see that as well.

Now that we've gotten a few people, what should the first order of business be? Adopting by-laws or a platform?

[PPT Spiral]

I say we should tackle the by-laws first.

[Peeperkorn]

Let's make them as simple as possible: we are Libertarians after all. Anyone with experience in other parties by-laws?

My main concern is that in the future the party will eventually have an internal discussion between the "left-libertarians" (social issues) and the "right-libertarians" (economic issues), with a moderate-heroism result. That would be counterproductive.

That's the reason we should insist in being radicals. Example: the two main parties are playing safe in issues like drugs, abortion, sexual identity, etc. We can get some votes from the leftists there. The same with economic issues and the rightists.

And that's why I think that something like a "Shadow Cabinet" could be interesting. Let's vote not only a president/leader and vice president but also two or three "shadow ministers" with the job of reading the present legislation both in the federation and the regions and suggest, let's say, a 10 or 15 points agenda in order to really change things.

The ugly part of all this? That the others should have confidence in those fake ministers and that they must follow the agendas even if they have disagreements.

[GAworth]

Glad to see y'all getting organized. Good luck.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Let's make them as simple as possible: we are Libertarians after all. Anyone with experience in other parties by-laws?

My main concern is that in the future the party will eventually have an internal discussion between the "left-libertarians" (social issues) and the "right-libertarians" (economic issues), with a moderate-heroism result. That would be counterproductive.

That's the reason we should insist in being radicals. Example: the two main parties are playing safe in issues like drugs, abortion, sexual identity, etc. We can get some votes from the leftists there. The same with economic issues and the rightists.

And that's why I think that something like a "Shadow Cabinet" could be interesting. Let's vote not only a president/leader and vice president but also two or three "shadow ministers" with the job of reading the present legislation both in the federation and the regions and suggest, let's say, a 10 or 15 points agenda in order to really change things.

The ugly part of all this? That the others should have confidence in those fake ministers and that they must follow the agendas even if they have disagreements.

Being one of the right-libertarians I can see the concerns you bring. For the moment I'm keeping my options open.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Scratched this up real quick. I’m aiming for a somewhat minimalist party structure, given our size. I’m hoping that some amendments can be put forth to clarify anything I’ve looked over.

[CatoMinor]

X Jbrase

[Peeperkorn]

Proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Scratched this up real quick. I’m aiming for a somewhat minimalist party structure, given our size. I’m hoping that some amendments can be put forth to clarify anything I’ve looked over.

I'm fine with this.

[Peeperkorn]

This is an interesting idea to make sure we can accept both types of libertarians, but I don't think it would work. My guess is that people would rather leave the party than be forced to vote in a way they disagree with.

Yeah, I know. It was more wishful thinking than anything else. Also, it would be an authoritarian way to manage the party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Good luck to you guys. I have been working with JBrase and Dallasfan for many a good year, and it always seems like more often then not a party barrier has almost invariably seperated us, so working with an organized DR is definitely something I look forward to doing.

My main concern is that in the future the party will eventually have an internal discussion between the "left-libertarians" (social issues) and the "right-libertarians" (economic issues), with a moderate-heroism result. That would be counterproductive.

That's the reason we should insist in being radicals. Example: the two main parties are playing safe in issues like drugs, abortion, sexual identity, etc. We can get some votes from the leftists there. The same with economic issues and the rightists.

Maybe in real life, but here most of the social issues have been settled. Gay Marriage is basically legal, death penalty is banned in the Constitution, along with an ERA having been passed over a year ago. The Senate just passed the Sex Work Act, and is finishing up the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act.

I have never known the leftist party of the day to "play it safe" on any of these in this game and especially this present Labor Party would be hard pressed to be labeled, more or less undercut, as "playing it safe" when they are leading the effort for legalizing so many hard drugs and Prostitution. The right's definition of playing it safe is typically to stay away from them, primarily because that Conservative base is a whole hell of lot more Libertarian or moderate then in real life. Typically this is why libertarians end up working with Conservatives here, cause nine times out of ten the fight is on something that the two agree on against a hostile left, and the mileage to travel is very lopsided towards issues courtesy of the left's success.

[Peeperkorn]

Maybe in real life, but here most of the social issues have been settled. Gay Marriage is basically legal, death penalty is banned in the Constitution, along with an ERA having been passed over a year ago. The Senate just passed the Sex Work Act, and is finishing up the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act.  

Thank you for your post, yank. I knew that MAIN social issues were kind of settled, but I believe that there's more that can be done from a Libertarian point of view.

My statement about "playing safe" comes from the last resolutions of the PA PU concerning abortion in their platform.

Anyway, didn't know the existence of the "Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013". I would have supported it. In fact, my idea was to propose something like that. You literally shut my mouth.

Thanks again for the update. I'm new in the game. "Be gentle"

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maybe in real life, but here most of the social issues have been settled. Gay Marriage is basically legal, death penalty is banned in the Constitution, along with an ERA having been passed over a year ago. The Senate just passed the Sex Work Act, and is finishing up the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act.  

Thank you for your post, yank. I knew that MAIN social issues were kind of settled, but I believe that there's more that can be done from a Libertarian point of view, especially for the transgender community.

My statement about "playing safe" comes from the last resolutions of the PA concerning abortion in their platform.

Anyway, didn't know the existence of the "Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013". I would have supported it. In fact, my idea was to propose something like that.

Thanks again for the update. I'm new in the game. "Be gentle"

Well the ERA (by which I mean Equal Rights Amendment, not Act. Nappy and the boys went the distance in 2012 and there already was an act from 2008 I believe that was being superceded) did cover gender and sex orientation as I recall. I am not an expert on all the issues that pertain to the LGBT community so if there are any remaining loopholes or areas of concern, not covered there, then yea probably.

PA? You mean PU? The Progressive Union is a smaller (but growing) diverse party, which is an area of controversy in a rather embarrasing thread entitled "Blame Someone Else". Embarrassing because it is a type of thread where people fall over each other to embarrass themselves. Typically there is one every few weeks but there has been an uptick recently. The dominant force on the left is the Labor Party and despite the name, they take these issues seriously just as much as they do, well Labor.

We allow open commenting by non-Senators, that is how Dallas wound up commenting on the Drug thing and his text idea ended up being offered as an amendment for him by a Senator. So feel free to engage in the debates directly going forward.

[PPT Spiral]

Dallasfan's proposal looks solid to me.

[Peeperkorn]

Well, let's go ahead.  I propose dallasfan as chairmain and Jbrase as vice-chairman.

[Deus Naturae]

Well, let's go ahead.  I propose dallasfan as chairmain and Jbrase as vice-chairman.

I support this if they accept.