-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Domestic Policy
=============
Economical Topic
---------------------
Free Market : Y
State Companies ( Telephone, Airways, Shipyards ...) : N
State Intervention with negative budget policy : N
Minimum wage : n
Solidarity Taxes (like on Fortune) : N
Social and philosophical Topic
Death penalty abolition : N
Abortion : N ( conscious clause)
Homosexual Marriage : N
Gambling legalization : Y
Prostitution Legalisation : n
State morale based on Christian value : N
Defence Topic
Conscription : N
Increase of Defence budget : Y (better use of actual important budget)
International Policy
Kyoto Ratification ( free trade ): Y
WTO (in French OMC) Ratification : Y
NATO Ratification : n
EU future member : N
I just want to state as my beliefs are different than others especially within the abortian/gay 'marriage'/death penalty areas. I just want to say I don't mind being a minority in this party because the main thing is the free market and non interventionism.
Death penalty- the state should reserve it's right to judge it's citizens this way. Law and order can be kept this way though executing convicted criminals doesn't have to be on a day to day basis. Mass murders, serial killers, exceptional brutality.
Gay 'marriage' - if you look in the dictionary marriage is a traditional relationships for heterosexual couples. It is the natural way to form a family and bring up children. It is been THE way since the dawn of mankind. Psychologists agree that gay marriages brinking up 'their' children will have a decisive - negative- impact on the upbringing. Of course this isn't the rule of thumb but as a capitalist I heavily rely on nature to show me the correct path to take and I don't really care who sleeps with who but homosexuals can't reproduce and that alone is a danger to the nation.
Gambling- Why not? It should be legal, even though it's popular amongst criminalists and can be a bad habit causing people to loose fortunes I don't exactly see why the state should act as a nanny to every poor bugger that lost at the races
Prostitution - I am unsure. Are we talking about women that stand on the side of highways with their pants off? Public houses and therefore prostitution should be legal but provocation (such as I mentioned) should be penalised.
Abortion - Just because people are irresponsible doesn't mean they have the right to destroy potential life. Sure, endagering of life, rape, detected sickness in foetus OK. But somehow I don't beleive that a woman should have the right to just snap her fingers and go to the clinic everytime she forgets about anti conception. For gods sake, they're adults, the know what their doing.
Taxes- NOT progressive, linear - 8-15% of income. No VAT, no crypto taxes, no tariffs no nothing.
Nato and EU - Nato, this structure has no goal for know. It is a left over from the cold war. I beleive Eutopia should just ally with the states ignoring NATO. EU - What for? High taxes, big social spendings, giving away sovereignity, EURO, and not even in Europe- I'd rather join NAFTA or CEFTA.
=============
Economical Topic
---------------------
Free Market : Y
State Companies ( Telephone, Airways, Shipyards ...) : N
State Intervention with negative budget policy : N
Minimum wage : n
Solidarity Taxes (like on Fortune) : N
Social and philosophical Topic
Death penalty abolition : N
Abortion : N ( conscious clause)
Homosexual Marriage : N
Gambling legalization : Y
Prostitution Legalisation : n
State morale based on Christian value : N
Defence Topic
Conscription : N
Increase of Defence budget : Y (better use of actual important budget)
International Policy
Kyoto Ratification ( free trade ): Y
WTO (in French OMC) Ratification : Y
NATO Ratification : n
EU future member : N
I just want to state as my beliefs are different than others especially within the abortian/gay 'marriage'/death penalty areas. I just want to say I don't mind being a minority in this party because the main thing is the free market and non interventionism.
Death penalty- the state should reserve it's right to judge it's citizens this way. Law and order can be kept this way though executing convicted criminals doesn't have to be on a day to day basis. Mass murders, serial killers, exceptional brutality.
Gay 'marriage' - if you look in the dictionary marriage is a traditional relationships for heterosexual couples. It is the natural way to form a family and bring up children. It is been THE way since the dawn of mankind. Psychologists agree that gay marriages brinking up 'their' children will have a decisive - negative- impact on the upbringing. Of course this isn't the rule of thumb but as a capitalist I heavily rely on nature to show me the correct path to take and I don't really care who sleeps with who but homosexuals can't reproduce and that alone is a danger to the nation.
Gambling- Why not? It should be legal, even though it's popular amongst criminalists and can be a bad habit causing people to loose fortunes I don't exactly see why the state should act as a nanny to every poor bugger that lost at the races
Prostitution - I am unsure. Are we talking about women that stand on the side of highways with their pants off? Public houses and therefore prostitution should be legal but provocation (such as I mentioned) should be penalised.
Abortion - Just because people are irresponsible doesn't mean they have the right to destroy potential life. Sure, endagering of life, rape, detected sickness in foetus OK. But somehow I don't beleive that a woman should have the right to just snap her fingers and go to the clinic everytime she forgets about anti conception. For gods sake, they're adults, the know what their doing.
Taxes- NOT progressive, linear - 8-15% of income. No VAT, no crypto taxes, no tariffs no nothing.
Nato and EU - Nato, this structure has no goal for know. It is a left over from the cold war. I beleive Eutopia should just ally with the states ignoring NATO. EU - What for? High taxes, big social spendings, giving away sovereignity, EURO, and not even in Europe- I'd rather join NAFTA or CEFTA.
Free Market- Y
State ownership of non-crucial economic spheres- N
Minimum wage- N
Environmental standards for businesses- Y
Prostitution- Y
Decriminalizing drug use- Y
Legalizing drug use- y
Gambling- Y
Conscription- N
Abortion- conscience vote
Death Penalty- Y if in certain situations
Homosexual marriages or unions- n
Homosexual adoption- y
Kyoto- same as M. Jetson
WTO- y
NATO- n
EU- n
State ownership of non-crucial economic spheres- N
Minimum wage- N
Environmental standards for businesses- Y
Prostitution- Y
Decriminalizing drug use- Y
Legalizing drug use- y
Gambling- Y
Conscription- N
Abortion- conscience vote
Death Penalty- Y if in certain situations
Homosexual marriages or unions- n
Homosexual adoption- y
Kyoto- same as M. Jetson
WTO- y
NATO- n
EU- n
Thank you for your quick reply. I will put this together now.
oups ... ' course Kyoto is environmental ... I typed into the wrong line
oups ... ' course Kyoto is environmental ... I typed into the wrong line
I think that I would like to become involved in this party so I will take the liberty of posting a version of the poll.
Domestic Policy
Economical Topic
Free Market : Y
State Companies ( Telephone, Airways, Shipyards ...) : N
State Intervention with negative budget policy : N
Minimum wage : y
Solidarity Taxes (like on Fortune) : N
Social and philosophical Topic
Death penalty abolition : Y
Abortion : y ( conscious clause)
Homosexual Marriage : y
Gambling legalization : Y
Prostitution Legalisation : Y
State morale based on Christian value : N
drugs legalization: N (or at lest that it is carefully investigated before action is taken)
Defence Topic
Conscription : N (though I see democratic reasons for having conscription I'll stick with N for now)
Increase of Defence budget : (bit difficult to say since I have'nt really analyzed the current one, we should have a strong armed force though)
International Policy
Kyoto Ratification ( free trade ): Y
WTO (in French OMC) Ratification : Y
NATO Ratification : Y
EU future member : y
Domestic Policy
Economical Topic
Free Market : Y
State Companies ( Telephone, Airways, Shipyards ...) : N
State Intervention with negative budget policy : N
Minimum wage : y
Solidarity Taxes (like on Fortune) : N
Social and philosophical Topic
Death penalty abolition : Y
Abortion : y ( conscious clause)
Homosexual Marriage : y
Gambling legalization : Y
Prostitution Legalisation : Y
State morale based on Christian value : N
drugs legalization: N (or at lest that it is carefully investigated before action is taken)
Defence Topic
Conscription : N (though I see democratic reasons for having conscription I'll stick with N for now)
Increase of Defence budget : (bit difficult to say since I have'nt really analyzed the current one, we should have a strong armed force though)
International Policy
Kyoto Ratification ( free trade ): Y
WTO (in French OMC) Ratification : Y
NATO Ratification : Y
EU future member : y
Though I note that Mr. Jools accept that not all his views will make official policy for the party I'll still answer some of them since an active debate is the core of any democratic party.
From an ethical standpoint I say that it is my belief that the state never had the right to take the life of its citizens. It has the right to defend its citizens from harm, a prisoner does not have the capacity to harm anyone.
From the standpoint of law and order I say that so far it has not been shown that states that kills its prisoners have fewer crimes.
A would also suggest that a criminal that knows he face the death sentence run the risk of being more of a danger to society since he has absolutely no reason to surrender peacfully to the police and would instead form an even greater danger to society when fighting to the death.
From a libertarian standpoint I would not like to live in a state that has the right to decide who will live and who will die, that much power belongs to no organization.
The definition of marriage you put forward is the one set by the major religions. Who are we to tell them what they should put in their religion? True, but we are making the rules in a secular state and not in a church. As far as the laws of a secular state is concerned a marriage(or what ever one might want to call it) is a union between two people that have choosen to share their life, a union that carries with it certain legal priviliges. As a liberal I cannot accept that the state should tell its citizens exactly who they must choose since it has basically no impact on the working of the state. Some might argue that the marriage should produce children. The fact of the matter is though that firstly gay people will still not produce any children even if we do not allow them to 'marry' and secondly should we forbid people who cannot/do not want to have children to enter into marriage? If it is a question of the definition of the word marriage, that in truth could be said to have been invented by the church, I would not be against separating the 'marriage' of the secualar state from that of the church by doing as some other countries has done that is to name it 'partnership' or something like that.
Then on to gay adoption. First of all I would like to challange the idea that the idea of two people raising a child has been around since "the dawn of mankind". If I look back at the history of my ancestral land Sweden, in the old day child raising was the collective duty of the extended family. Small children was almost exclusively raised by the women of the extented familly(apart from the mother, grandparents, aunts, cousins and the like) and when the boys got older they were separated to enter into the world of men. The idea that the two person 'core' familly should take on the sole responsibility of childraising is roughly 100 years old and is in the process of being erroded in most western societies where child rasing is more and more becoming the responsibility of various institutions such as daycare centers.
Now, I'm not saying that there is something wrong with the 'core' familly I'm just challanging the idea that it has allways been the naturall and only sound way, I'm also challanging the right of the state to decide what is 'natural'. It is true that many adoption agencies oppose gay adoptions. From what I gather they have two major objections(except for the religous ones that also would like to add the 'its unnatural' aspect), first they claim that it would be difficult to get countries that for moral reason oppose gay adoptions to give their children up and secondly they claim that since a lot of adopted children grow up with psychological problems(bad memories, a sence of rootlessnes or perhaps racism) the added problem that comes with the stigma that homosexuality carries with it in our present society would be an extra burden to an allready troubled child. The first one is relatively easy to answer, there is nothing that prevents us from only trying homosexal parents in cases where the giving country does not forbid it, there is many more children that needs adoption than we can ever find parents for. The second has some bearing. However this is not the only thing that children can get picked on in school for. Should we forbid adoption of children that are genetically prone to becoming fat? Racism exist, should we forbid people of different skin color to adopt? and so on. The views of the society is also something that is in constant change. In the US a 150 years ago black people where slaves, 50 years ago black people could not sit in the same bars as white people in parts of the country, today the secretary of state is black. Even today the animosity towards gays in EUtopia has decreased so much that it does not make is a greater danger to be the adopted child of a gay couple than it is for example to be a fat child or to be an immigrant child in an all white school.
And finally, the only really important part in the gay adoption part of this post. Adoption is primarilly not for the sake of the parents but for the sake of the children, this kind of debate (or at least the people favouring gay adoption) tend to focus overly on the rights of the parents. The fact of the matter is that in the world as a whole there are far more children awaiting possible adoption than there are willing(and suitable) parents. I find it very hard to believe that an underfunded, overcrowded orphinage in Moldavia or Bangladesh can really provide a better future for a child than a loving couple in wealthy EUtopia, notmather if these parents are of the same of different sex.
On Nato. Nato may not at present have a big clearly defined enemy. That does not in my opinion render NATO obsolete. All nations feel that they need armed forces for their protection. The way I see it NATO still has a function.
First it provides a collective security that enebles the individual nations to feel secure while at the same time being able to spend slightly less on defence since they can rely on their neighbours.
Secondly, the integration of the armed forces of various smaller countries provide a transparancy and cooperation that fosters trust between the memberstates when they know what the neighbours army is doing are working togeather with it.
Thirdly, just because no threat exists now does not mean there wont be any in the future. NATO is a good framwork for meeting emerging threats, now and in the future.
Fourthly, for all the differences NATO represent the long term bond and mutual comitment to create a secure future between the USA and Europe. This alone should be enough reason to be a part of NATO.
From an ethical standpoint I say that it is my belief that the state never had the right to take the life of its citizens. It has the right to defend its citizens from harm, a prisoner does not have the capacity to harm anyone.
From the standpoint of law and order I say that so far it has not been shown that states that kills its prisoners have fewer crimes.
A would also suggest that a criminal that knows he face the death sentence run the risk of being more of a danger to society since he has absolutely no reason to surrender peacfully to the police and would instead form an even greater danger to society when fighting to the death.
From a libertarian standpoint I would not like to live in a state that has the right to decide who will live and who will die, that much power belongs to no organization.
In this quote you have adressed to issues, gay marriages and gay adoptions. In my opinion separate issues(though it would be unwise to have the second without the first) so I will adress them separatly.
The definition of marriage you put forward is the one set by the major religions. Who are we to tell them what they should put in their religion? True, but we are making the rules in a secular state and not in a church. As far as the laws of a secular state is concerned a marriage(or what ever one might want to call it) is a union between two people that have choosen to share their life, a union that carries with it certain legal priviliges. As a liberal I cannot accept that the state should tell its citizens exactly who they must choose since it has basically no impact on the working of the state. Some might argue that the marriage should produce children. The fact of the matter is though that firstly gay people will still not produce any children even if we do not allow them to 'marry' and secondly should we forbid people who cannot/do not want to have children to enter into marriage? If it is a question of the definition of the word marriage, that in truth could be said to have been invented by the church, I would not be against separating the 'marriage' of the secualar state from that of the church by doing as some other countries has done that is to name it 'partnership' or something like that.
Then on to gay adoption. First of all I would like to challange the idea that the idea of two people raising a child has been around since "the dawn of mankind". If I look back at the history of my ancestral land Sweden, in the old day child raising was the collective duty of the extended family. Small children was almost exclusively raised by the women of the extented familly(apart from the mother, grandparents, aunts, cousins and the like) and when the boys got older they were separated to enter into the world of men. The idea that the two person 'core' familly should take on the sole responsibility of childraising is roughly 100 years old and is in the process of being erroded in most western societies where child rasing is more and more becoming the responsibility of various institutions such as daycare centers.
Now, I'm not saying that there is something wrong with the 'core' familly I'm just challanging the idea that it has allways been the naturall and only sound way, I'm also challanging the right of the state to decide what is 'natural'. It is true that many adoption agencies oppose gay adoptions. From what I gather they have two major objections(except for the religous ones that also would like to add the 'its unnatural' aspect), first they claim that it would be difficult to get countries that for moral reason oppose gay adoptions to give their children up and secondly they claim that since a lot of adopted children grow up with psychological problems(bad memories, a sence of rootlessnes or perhaps racism) the added problem that comes with the stigma that homosexuality carries with it in our present society would be an extra burden to an allready troubled child. The first one is relatively easy to answer, there is nothing that prevents us from only trying homosexal parents in cases where the giving country does not forbid it, there is many more children that needs adoption than we can ever find parents for. The second has some bearing. However this is not the only thing that children can get picked on in school for. Should we forbid adoption of children that are genetically prone to becoming fat? Racism exist, should we forbid people of different skin color to adopt? and so on. The views of the society is also something that is in constant change. In the US a 150 years ago black people where slaves, 50 years ago black people could not sit in the same bars as white people in parts of the country, today the secretary of state is black. Even today the animosity towards gays in EUtopia has decreased so much that it does not make is a greater danger to be the adopted child of a gay couple than it is for example to be a fat child or to be an immigrant child in an all white school.
And finally, the only really important part in the gay adoption part of this post. Adoption is primarilly not for the sake of the parents but for the sake of the children, this kind of debate (or at least the people favouring gay adoption) tend to focus overly on the rights of the parents. The fact of the matter is that in the world as a whole there are far more children awaiting possible adoption than there are willing(and suitable) parents. I find it very hard to believe that an underfunded, overcrowded orphinage in Moldavia or Bangladesh can really provide a better future for a child than a loving couple in wealthy EUtopia, notmather if these parents are of the same of different sex.
If having an early abortion is destroying a 'potential life' then so is male masturbation or for a women not trying to get pregnant between every menstruation cycle. We might pass moral judgment of irresponsible that are sloppy wiht contraception(which using in the first place also destroys 'potential life') but that does not give the government the right to decide that a person should be forced to create and bear a new life. At one point a featus becomes a life, towards the end of the pregnancy we can be rather sure that it is while it sounds rather silly to call an egg cell and a sperm cell a human being. To excactly decide where in between this line is drawn os something that is to much for the state to decide for the state and should be left to the individual and their conscience/God. At one point however an individual is created and then it becomes the responsibility of the state to protect this individual, therefore we must set a limit where the featus cease to be 'potential life' and becomes an individual.
On Nato. Nato may not at present have a big clearly defined enemy. That does not in my opinion render NATO obsolete. All nations feel that they need armed forces for their protection. The way I see it NATO still has a function.
First it provides a collective security that enebles the individual nations to feel secure while at the same time being able to spend slightly less on defence since they can rely on their neighbours.
Secondly, the integration of the armed forces of various smaller countries provide a transparancy and cooperation that fosters trust between the memberstates when they know what the neighbours army is doing are working togeather with it.
Thirdly, just because no threat exists now does not mean there wont be any in the future. NATO is a good framwork for meeting emerging threats, now and in the future.
Fourthly, for all the differences NATO represent the long term bond and mutual comitment to create a secure future between the USA and Europe. This alone should be enough reason to be a part of NATO.
To me, the abortion issue is simple. Sperm and egg cells are part of a larger organism. The zygote is its own organism. Nothing potential about it. Seeing how we've agreed to leave this one to a conscience vote, there's little point in debating it further.
The sticking points right now seem to be-
Capital Punishment
Gay unions & adoption
Decriminalization of drug use(sending users to rehab, not prison)
Legalization of marijuana
Membership in-
Kyoto Treaty
EU
Nato
I think if we don't take some steps toward a more practical drug policy, we aren't truly libertarian. In America, that is the main issue that separates libertarians from left and right. The drug war doesn't prevent drug use; it funnels money into organized crime; and it fills up prisons with drug offenders, allowing violent criminals early release dates. And in my view, government's purpose is to protect us from others, not from ourselves.
The sticking points right now seem to be-
Capital Punishment
Gay unions & adoption
Decriminalization of drug use(sending users to rehab, not prison)
Legalization of marijuana
Membership in-
Kyoto Treaty
EU
Nato
I think if we don't take some steps toward a more practical drug policy, we aren't truly libertarian. In America, that is the main issue that separates libertarians from left and right. The drug war doesn't prevent drug use; it funnels money into organized crime; and it fills up prisons with drug offenders, allowing violent criminals early release dates. And in my view, government's purpose is to protect us from others, not from ourselves.
Just because we have not(and most likely will not) reach a coherent view on some issues does not mean we should not debate that, debating is a part of the democratic process. If we would end up in a position where we would be a part of the government we would also have to at least take some sort of stand, until then we do not have to though.
I have no problem with sending drug users to rehab centers instead of prison, in fact that is what I believe should be done. The fact that drugs are illegal enables the state to force adicts into a care program, if not we would not have a legal way of doing so.
On marijuana, it might be so that they should be legalized. I just ask that we promote a carefull approach where the effects and dangers be carefully evalutated before any concrete law is passed(or abolished) and not just legalize it out of principle.
I also believe that we can hardly call ourselves libertarians if we approve of the death penalty. We don't believe the state has the right to tax people to hard but we do beleive that the state has the right to kill them...
I have no problem with sending drug users to rehab centers instead of prison, in fact that is what I believe should be done. The fact that drugs are illegal enables the state to force adicts into a care program, if not we would not have a legal way of doing so.
On marijuana, it might be so that they should be legalized. I just ask that we promote a carefull approach where the effects and dangers be carefully evalutated before any concrete law is passed(or abolished) and not just legalize it out of principle.
I also believe that we can hardly call ourselves libertarians if we approve of the death penalty. We don't believe the state has the right to tax people to hard but we do beleive that the state has the right to kill them...
I AM a libertarian but mostly in the economical sphere but socially I am VERY conservative that's why I would probably fit better in a liberal conservative party more but no such has formed and I don't wish to create one.
As for Abortion
--------------------
I know that treating the combined egg and sperm cell as life is a little overboard but what I'm worried about in legalising all forms of abortion is the moral matter. What will happen with responsibilty if our citizens will be brought up in an atmosphere of NO RESPONSIBILTY since every decision they take (like having sex without anticonception) they will make themselves the victims because "They're too young" and "not ready for having kids, and they just want to have fun". This wreaks to me of moral decadence.
Gay 'marriage'
------------------
Since Besuchov agreed that calling these partnerships as marriage is not appropriate I will not call it such.
What I reckon for gays is that they want to have the security and legal tie with their partners, to secure their future in a sort of way. Gay couples don't seek some religious ceremony but more of a legal one. What they want
-Common taxation
-Inheritance rights
-To be treated as a close family member legaly (like asking for information in hospitals etc...)
This is acceptable and logical, no?
Death Penalty
------------------
The death penalty is one of the guarantees of the power of the legislative branch. DP should be used in murder cases. How should I explain this... It is a power that can control certain elements in society that decide not to part of it (to be a criminal). Criminals are dangerous to soceity and state. You are making me feel as though the State is a danger to criminals.
It seems that that you and I agree on the basic principle that just because you combine a sperm and an egg it automatically becomes an idividual. Then, after reading your post, I can't help but wonder: is really teching good old morals to the younger generation really the right reason to bring a child into this world?
If we believe what young people have to much sex(I know I don't
) I really think that we should find a better way at communicating this than to make them pregnant.Gay couples may very well seek a religous seremony, we are however not a religous party deciding the future in a church, we are a political party aspiering to decide the future of the secular state of EUtopia. I see no reason why the state should differentiate between homo- and hetero-sexuals as far as this is concerned. What I suggest is that we separate the term 'marriage' and the term 'partnership' and let the church be concerned with marriage. Technically this means replacing the term marriage in the law with the new partnership that basically is the same thing but also is open to gays(when you marry in church you would, as far as the state is concerned, automatically enter into a partnership and you will not know the difference).
The legislative branch, aka the state, needs to be able to assert its power so that it can fulfil its primary mission, to protect the people. That is why we, the people, have bestowed upon it a monopoly on violence. However, no construct nor any individual is without error. Therefor we also need to impose on the state the principle that it must only use the minimum amount of force to protect the people, the prisoner in his cell does not precent a threat to anyone. If we do not uphold this principle it is not the criminals to whom the state may become a threat, it is to all of us.
Reminder: GEORGE JETSON=EDDIE TEACH
Party views overview:
Free Market
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
State Companies ( Telephone, Airways, Shipyards ...)
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
State Intervention with negative budget policy
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
Minimum wage
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
Solidarity Taxes (like on Fortune)
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson ???
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
Death penalty abolition
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - ABSTAIN
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
Abortion
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - conscience clause
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - conscience clause (nay)
Apebe - conscience clause (yea)
Besuchov - yea
Homosexual Marriage
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
Gambling legalization
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
Prostitution Legalisation
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
State morale based on Christian value
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
Drugs legalisation
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - yea
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe ???
Besuchov - NAY
Conscription
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
Increase of Defence budget
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - nay
Besuchov ???
Kyoto Ratification
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
WTO Ratification
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - yea
Jools - yea
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
NATO Ratification
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - nay
Besuchov - YEA
EU future member
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
This list is finished. Please point out any mistakes to me.
Jean, you can post this on the first post for others to see. I hope we'll make our policy from these (i.e. giving a CAPITAL case vote 2points and low case vote 1 point) and make some ammendments to finally make a program. We'll also add some more no doubt.
Party views overview:
Free Market
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
State Companies ( Telephone, Airways, Shipyards ...)
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
State Intervention with negative budget policy
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
Minimum wage
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
Solidarity Taxes (like on Fortune)
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson ???
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
Death penalty abolition
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - ABSTAIN
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
Abortion
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - conscience clause
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - conscience clause (nay)
Apebe - conscience clause (yea)
Besuchov - yea
Homosexual Marriage
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
Gambling legalization
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
Prostitution Legalisation
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
State morale based on Christian value
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
Drugs legalisation
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - yea
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe ???
Besuchov - NAY
Conscription
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
Increase of Defence budget
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - nay
Besuchov ???
Kyoto Ratification
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
WTO Ratification
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - yea
Jools - yea
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
NATO Ratification
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - nay
Besuchov - YEA
EU future member
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
This list is finished. Please point out any mistakes to me.
Jean, you can post this on the first post for others to see. I hope we'll make our policy from these (i.e. giving a CAPITAL case vote 2points and low case vote 1 point) and make some ammendments to finally make a program. We'll also add some more no doubt.
Code:
Reminder: GEORGE JETSON=EDDIE TEACH
Party views overview:
[b]Free Market[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
[b]State Companies ( Telephone, Airways, Shipyards ...)[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
[b]State Intervention with negative budget policy[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
[b]Minimum wage[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
[b]Solidarity Taxes (like on Fortune)[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson ???
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
[b]Death penalty abolition[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - ABSTAIN
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
[b]Abortion[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - conscience clause
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - conscience clause (nay)
Apebe - conscience clause (yea)
Besuchov - yea
[b]Homosexual Marriage[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
[b]Gambling legalization[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
[b]Prostitution Legalisation[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
[b]State morale based on Christian value[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
[b]Drugs legalisation[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - yea
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - YEA
Apebe ???
Besuchov - NAY
[b]Conscription[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - NAY
Apebe - NAY
Besuchov - NAY
[b]Increase of Defence budget[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - YEA
Jools - YEA
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - nay
Besuchov ???
[b]Kyoto Ratification[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout NAY
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
[b]WTO Ratification[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - yea
Jools - yea
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - YEA
Besuchov - YEA
[b]NATO Ratification[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - nay
Apebe - nay
Besuchov - YEA
[b]EU future member[/b]
---------------------------
Jean Passeportout - nay
Jools - NAY
George Jetson - yea
Apebe - yea
Besuchov - yea
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure I've voted on most of those-
state companies- no
state intervention- you mean industry bailouts?- no
Solidarity taxes- no idea what those are
minimum wage- yes
death penalty- abstain
abortion- No(conscience vote)
homosexual marriage- yes
gambling- Yes
prostitution- Yes
state based on Christian values- No
drug legalization- yes
Conscription- No
Increase defense budget- no
Kyoto- no
WTO- yes
EU- no
NATO- yes
state companies- no
state intervention- you mean industry bailouts?- no
Solidarity taxes- no idea what those are
minimum wage- yes
death penalty- abstain
abortion- No(conscience vote)
homosexual marriage- yes
gambling- Yes
prostitution- Yes
state based on Christian values- No
drug legalization- yes
Conscription- No
Increase defense budget- no
Kyoto- no
WTO- yes
EU- no
NATO- yes
JETSON!!!
Could you please distince between a capital (NO) and non capital (no). A NO is a strong emphasis a small case vote is a view that you can change/adjust whatever.
I'll put everything up tonight or tomorrow morning. Not now, because then all the new posts will not say they're new.
Originally posted by Jools
JETSON!!!
Could you please distince between a capital (NO) and non capital (no). A NO is a strong emphasis a small case vote is a view that you can change/adjust whatever.
Someone should tell me these things
I shall review what is capital/non-capital for me.Edit: After reviewing my 'choices' I would like like to decrease the size of my nay's on nato and conscription. I believe NATO to be a good thing but it is not critical that we currently join and I see redeeming qualities about conscription.
I would also like to upgrade my yea on 'homosexual marriage' but I do not object to calling it 'partnership'.
edit2: About the defence budget. Do we even know what the defence budget currently is?
Last edited:
I believe you miss my vote on Drugs Leg. That shall be yea.... (small yea)
Now we are strongly set right concerning our economical views. I therefore recommend to balance with a left position on social views (death penalty abolition + abortion reglemented right). If we want to be active in the elections we shouldn't be catagorized as extremists.
Now we are strongly set right concerning our economical views. I therefore recommend to balance with a left position on social views (death penalty abolition + abortion reglemented right). If we want to be active in the elections we shouldn't be catagorized as extremists.
I just read the first post of the thread and there I see the Party line is for Death sentence and against Kyoto ratification. I thought I was in Eutopia not in Texas. I can understand different opinions, but I can't be active in a parti whose official politcal engagement is against my orientation and beliefs. If these topics aren't changed minimum to "individual conscience slause" or so ... I will have to resign my engagement.
- Status