Out ofCriticisms of left/right thread comes new party!

[Desmond Hawkins]

After examining the major criticisms of the left and right from their own members, or people who have been alienated from them, I have a proposal for a new political party that would garner lots of votes.

Now for the left, the majority of people seem to like the original liberal idea of complete equality under law, meaning NO affirmative action, and NO feminist platform, but with a secular government, tolerant of all cultures. This seems to be more important to them than the economic policies of the left, which appear to be growing more draconian in most people's minds.

As for the right, the biggest criticisms seem to be of the fanatical religiousness of many that support it, and its lack of progressiveness over many social issues, but its economic policy appears to be garnering a renassaince of support.

Here is a brief outline for the party I propose

Complete equality under law
-Neither race, gender, religion or sexual orientation shall be a basis for confering special privileges, nor a basis for denying equal rights under the law
-marriages for all
-complete freedom in ones private life, as long as it actually hurt someone else (if two grown men want to play horse and cowboy that is their own business)

Separation of religion and state
-No educational institution that is funded in whole or in part by the government shall encourage the practice of religion, nor shall it promote the belief in a God, nor shall it seek to dissuade belief in God
-laws that in no way favour one religion over another

Large freedom of economics
-Most industries should be completely private
-services such as fire/police/military should remain well supported publicly for obvious reasons
-REAL free trade would be encouraged. This means that governments that tarrif steel imports while forcing 3rd world countries to open their markets to privatization would be punished. Free trade must go both ways
-Environmentally destructive subsidies would be eliminated, as well as most other subsidies (the exception would be subsidizing education, and health care, and the defence of the individual which includes police and justice services).

Select universal service to help ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity
-universal health care coverage
-universal education

Justice System
-death penalty should be eliminated
-focus on rehabilitation BUT not "victimize" offenders
-Legalize drug use

Transparency
-transparency of government affairs should be goal
-completely free press - minimal censorship

Due to its emphasis on "progressive" policies we can call it the Progressive Party. Besides this way it is hard to attack it by its name, as who can disagree with progress.

The party will operate independently of coalitions, and vote and operate according to the party charter and its goals. If a party in a given country strays from the charter, they will be eliminated from the wider International organization of "Progressive" parties. Hmmm lets call it the "1st Progressive Internationale" ( just kidding, but I had to throw that in there for the sake of showing that candidates lacking a sense of humour will lose party funding)

Any joiners?

*edited some of the points - thank you RM, Zarn, Dumb Pothead, Aphex-Twin and Luiz for bringing other issues to my attention.

 

[amadeus]

Pledging complete "freedom" and yet restricting the taxpayers freedom by allowing socialist health and education services?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Pledging complete "freedom" and yet restricting the taxpayers freedom by allowing socialist health and education services?

It is but a stepping stone RM, but perhaps I will reword that

 

[andrewgprv]

What about the environment?

But sounds like a good party!

 

[luiz]

That's a party I would certainly vote for.

edit:
These are my exact political beliefs of how a state should function:

-Schools, until High School, should be public. That's because young kids are not to blame if their parents are unable to pay for decent education, so they should get it for free. Furthermore an educated population is of the interest of the whole society.

-Healthcare should be private, but the government would pay the hospitals for the treatment of people with low incomes. However, this paid treatments do not include self-inflicted damage, like alcoholism or drug abuse.

-Police, firefighters and the Army are also a matter of the State.

-Other then this, the minimum state influence, the better. Taxes should be kept low, say at 12.5% of one's income. Free trade would be a high priority, as well as eliminating subsidies.

-Although I don't oppose death penalty from a ethical perspective, I find it unefficient and expensive(the long trials, etc). My solution to the high cost of prisions would be forcing the prisioners to work to pay for their food and clothing. Why should the innocent society support a convicted killer? Make the bastard work hard 12 hours a day! And if he doesn't want to work, that's fine, let him starve.

-Abortion would be outlawed, except in the cases where the mothers health is endangered, or where the fetus have a serious disability.

 

[cgannon64]

I agree with that.

@ rmsharpe: I can understand you calling the health care system socialist, but calling public school socialist? Should we just eliminate all public schools then, and let the poor stay ignorant?

If I had to pick one "socialist" program to keep in America, it would have to be public schools, if you want those gone, well...

 

[Hitro]

Sounds like a Liberal party to me, so certainly not.

 

[Zarn]

I don't agree with a few things.

-legally, marriages should be called civil unions
-Healthcare must be private

Now for the part where everyone scolds me..
Seperation of Church and State:
Politically: I agree
Culturally: I disagree, completely

Politically meaning people must accept a certain religion or set of religions
Culturally meaning having God mentioned in the Pledge and on money (of course this applies to the US not all nations)

What's the stance on military spending, the death penalty, and abortion?

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Hitro
Sounds like a Liberal party to me, so certainly not.

But what is the problem with a Classical Liberal Party?
I mean, it's clear that free economics are more efficient then socialist ones, even socialist partys reckognise that. You add progressive social policys and you have economic growth and poverty fighting. What's wrong with that?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Add to that a COMPLETE transparency of all govermental affairs, NO state secrets and COMPLETE freedom of the press and you get my vote !

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Add to that a COMPLETE transparency of all govermental affairs, NO state secrets and COMPLETE freedom of the press and you get my vote !

You must tolerate some state secrets, like Army secrets, right?

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by luiz
But what is the problem with a Classical Liberal Party?
I mean, it's clear that free economics are more efficient then socialist ones

Not at all, free economics in the true sense are as inefficient as extreme Socialist economics (like a planned economy). Inefficient in enhancing the majority's standard of life, that is. And in my view that has to be the goal. Economic growth per se isn't anything to aim for if the profit is distributed in a way that means decline in the standard of life for most and a massive increase for a few (but to the point where it doesn't really matter anymore).
So the answer has to be a mixed system in which the negative effects of both extremes are controlled.
The large corporation's interest are not the interests of the people, the state and even the free market. The state needs to put regulations in place that ensures competition and prevent exponential growth of a few at the expense of the most (which is the logical development of a free market).

even socialist partys reckognise that.

A party who "recognises" that is not Socialist.

You add progressive social policys

Sorry, but that is one of the reasons why I really dislike the opportunistic liberal center the most of all, more than the Conservatives. While the latter, like the real left, have opinions all that comes from the center are empty phrases, like "progressive" policies or the majorly overused word "reforms", without any clear way of guiding things. They think everything, economy, social problems etc., would just work itself out if you let it be and that is simply not the case. It is basically as illusional as (real) Communism or the idea that Jesus will save the nation.

 

[MCdread]

This doen't look like a classical liberal party to me Hitro, it seemsmore a kind of a modern social-democrat...

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by andrewgprv
What about the environment?

But sounds like a good party!

By having a free economy, it would mean removing the gross government subsidies to the fossil fuel industries in direct terms, and in terms of unfairly favouring sprawl development which reduces public transit use. One would be surprised how much just eliminating these direct and indirect subsidies would go.

Rules regarding pollution would be strict, but would for the most part leave the industry in private hands still. I suppose I could have elaborated. I figured "without harming others" would sort of cover that, so it would mean a general societal movement away from harmful activities.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MCdread
This doen't look like a classical liberal party to me Hitro, it seemsmore a kind of a modern social-democrat...

I didn't say classical liberal party, I said liberal party, and a modern "Social Democratic" party is a (neo-)liberal party.
And I happen to be in favour of a classical Social-Democratic party.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by MCdread
This doen't look like a classical liberal party to me Hitro, it seemsmore a kind of a modern social-democrat...

Classical liberal in the sense of political/personal freedom, as well as significant economic freedom.

 

[Speedo]

Sounds like the same 'ol liberals to me. No thanks.

 

[MCdread]

Originally posted by Hitro

I didn't say classical liberal party, I said liberal party, and a modern "Social Democratic" party is a (neo-)liberal party.

I guess you're right.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Hitro

Not at all, free economics in the true sense are as inefficient as extreme Socialist economics (like a planned economy). Inefficient in enhancing the majority's standard of life, that is. And in my view that has to be the goal. Economic growth per se isn't anything to aim for if the profit is distributed in a way that means decline in the standard of life for most and a massive increase for a few (but to the point where it doesn't really matter anymore).
So the answer has to be a mixed system in which the negative effects of both extremes are controlled.
The large corporation's interest are not the interests of the people, the state and even the free market. The state needs to put regulations in place that ensures competition and prevent exponential growth of a few at the expense of the most (which is the logical development of a free market).

I don't think that way. The US has a pretty liberal economy and always had, and it was not only a minority who profitted. You may argue that there are many poor people there, and I agree. But even a poor american lives better then the average person of the world.
And what is the interest of the corporations? Make money. What is the interest of the people? Make money. If the economy does well, the people do well.
Wealth should be distributed via education, not some artificial socialist system. If all people receive the same education, they have equal chances of succeeding in the work market. This is social justice.

Originally posted by Hitro

A party who "recognises" that is not Socialist.

Maybe, but both the Socialist Party in France and the Worker Party in Brazil have recognised it, at least in practice.

Originally posted by Hitro

Sorry, but that is one of the reasons why I really dislike the opportunistic liberal center the most of all, more than the Conservatives. While the latter, like the real left, have opinions all that comes from the center are empty phrases, like "progressive" policies or the majorly overused word "reforms", without any clear way of guiding things. They think everything, economy, social problems etc., would just work itself out if you let it be and that is simply not the case. It is basically as illusional as (real) Communism or the idea that Jesus will save the nation.

The extreme right and the extreme left may have all the "exciting ideology", but that's all there is to it: ideology. It's the center, with moderation, that achieves the best results.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Speedo
Sounds like the same 'ol liberals to me. No thanks.

Meh, cannot please everyone, but rather trying to pick up the alienated demographic that I and many others seem to belong to.