Liberal Democracy - HQ

[Apebe]

Oups ... sorry. I mean the decalage between date of order and date of payment. The State always needs more time as a private company (who sometimes are abliged to pay before delivery or at delivery - in French we call that to pay at trucks ass).
This is inflationist, and this also immobilizes money ( for nothing )

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Right, I see what you mean, and it is also one of my biggest problems with an extensive state administration. Furthermore, I think the state's way of collecting taxes is sometimes downright criminal (thats in general, not Eutopia specific). For example, when the state taxes the wrong amount, and you notify them, you still have to pay the late fines, even though you told them about the money they were forgetting about. One of my biggest points is streamlining and cutting down on paperwork and administration as a whole, introducing computerized systems on all levels including education, and providing a permanent working country-wide service to solve problems that may arise with the new systems.

In short, the problem you present can be solved by improving state administration instead of simple cutting down on state interference.

 

[Besuchov]

To clarify on the less fortunate. We believe that it still is the role of the state to protect its citizens from poverty. In our nation their should be a minimal standard of living that noone should fall under. In practice this means:

1. A basic unemployment insurance(state financed/guaranteed but possibly privately managed). This insurance will keep a person 'afloat' for a limited amount of time so that he/she gets the chance to find a new job.

2. A minimum wage to ensure the basic standard of living, needs to be slightly higher than the basic welfare to encourage work.

3. A basic welfare check that is supposed to finance basic necessities for those who 'fall through the net' so that the basic standard of living is ensured.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Originally posted by Besuchov
To clarify on the less fortunate. We believe that it still is the role of the state to protect its citizens from poverty. In our nation their should be a minimal standard of living that noone should fall under. In practice this means:

1. A basic unemployment insurance(state financed/guaranteed but possibly privately managed). This insurance will keep a person 'afloat' for a limited amount of time so that he/she gets the chance to find a new job.

2. A minimum wage to ensure the basic standard of living, needs to be slightly higher than the basic welfare to encourage work.

3. A basic welfare check that is supposed to finance basic necessities for those who 'fall through the net' so that the basic standard of living is ensured.

I think I can agree with that, and so can my party.

 

[Besuchov]

Originally posted by Silent Eagle

....

Primarily, by investing funds in new job-projects, even if in state service (with the caveat: no unfair competition for private companies in the same sector) instead of dealing out the dole.

...

Sincerely,
Sebastian Fitzpatrick
Negotiator for relations between LD and RD.

What excactly do you mean with 'new job-projects'?

I am very sceptical about these things normally since I have so far failed to find a project that is both meaningful and does not compete with existing or possible private companies.

What I can see though is to have government investements that would have been done anyway be put of until there is a recession(sp?). Say a big highway needs a major overhaul within the next 5 years, if the unemployment is high we do it now otherwise we wait a while though not more than the 5 years.

 

[unmerged(2178)]

I applaud the Liberal Democrats' stances on cutting taxes to encourage consumer spending and increased privitization.
Would this lead to privitization - or increased private ownership anyway - of the health and educational areas?

As chairman of the Corporate Alliance I think my PAC will be most interested to see your party's development. If you need media time my own Omni-Media will be happy to extend you all courtesies.

 

[unmerged(3748)]

I kindly invite you to partake in the discussion in the newly opened "Coalition for Eutopian Progress" debate, which can be found here:

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58846

If you wish to comment, add, ask, whatever - do so right there!
I hope we can achieve a fruitful cooperation for the elections.

Kind regards,

Sebastian Fitzpatrick of the Rally for Democracy

 

[Besuchov]

Mr. Wagnaard

I thank you for your voice of support and the opportunity use your publication.

My stance, I also the stance of this party I believe, is that there is nothing that points to that the state would be better adept a managing the day to day running of a hospital or a school. It is our firm belief though that it is for the state to ensure that all EUtopians have an equal right to a minimum standard of education and health care. Therefor we beleive that the state should finance and guarantee this right for all EUtopians. What I mean by guarantee is that the state will enusre that:
1. All hospitals and schools must fulfil the basic required standard both when it comes to material standard as well as the quality of the care/education through special rules for these institutions.
2. The state will maintain readyness to step in should the company/region/'collection of citizens' either go bankrupt or fail to meet the standards set by the government. This does not mean that the company should be saved, no it will be just as bankrupt, it means that the state will run the hospital/school.

I hope that this answers your questions
Sincerely
Besuchov

 

[Apebe]

Originally posted by Wagnaard
Would this lead to privitization - or increased private ownership anyway - of the health and educational areas?

I hope we will we able to present a revolutionary concept about education financing !

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Originally posted by Besuchov
2. The state will maintain readyness to step in should the company/region/'collection of citizens' either go bankrupt or fail to meet the standards set by the government. This does not mean that the company should be saved, no it will be just as bankrupt, it means that the state will run the hospital/school.

I hope that this answers your questions
Sincerely
Besuchov

So, basically, you say that private enterprises should get a shot at running hospitals/schools, but that the government should step in if things go wrong. How can you trust the government to to a good job then any better than you can trust the government to run those institutions now? In my eyes, this clause, however reasonable and correct, makes your suggested privatisation of education and healthcare a moot point.

 

[unmerged(2178)]

Interesting! And you will hear no argument from the CA about corporate welfare! We believe that the market will correct itself, and those who cannot adapt are better off in a less decision oriented career.

I recognize that the government has a vested interest in ensuring that a basic level of standards are kept to. Indeed that is as it should be. It is when governmental interference reaches the point that jobs are lost and businesses destroyed that it becomes a problem.

Perhaps an adaptation of the voucher system which periodically emerges in the USA? As the citizens are still being taxed to finance education they should be re-imbursed amount should the exercise their right to supervise their child's education by sending him/her to a private school. This would stimulate a whole new sector of the economy and the state schools would not lose out either.

 

[Besuchov]

Originally posted by Silent Eagle
So, basically, you say that private enterprises should get a shot at running hospitals/schools, but that the government should step in if things go wrong. How can you trust the government to to a good job then any better than you can trust the government to run those institutions now? In my eyes, this clause, however reasonable and correct, makes your suggested privatisation of education and healthcare a moot point.

The main point is that we do not seek to restrict the running of such institutions to the government alone since there is nothing that says that the government autmomatically does a better job, it the people themselves can provide something better than the government there is no point for the government to interfere.

However, it is the governments responsibility that noone is without basic education and healthcare and therefor the government has to be prepared to step in should occasional private institutions fail. The same thing could of course happen if the state runs these institutions(say a regional branch of the central government missmanaged a school, then the central government must step in with resources and new leadership) this is however taken for granted and does not really need to be pointed out.

 

[Apebe]

I would like the party to start talking about Nuclear Energy.

I've contacted Mr. Timothy who is a nuclear physician and he has comunicated his enthousiasm. We are hoping that he will soon join the ranks of our party and have anctive role in elaborating a complex energy & environment care program.

We are also avaiting news from Mr. HughBartlett who was enthousiastic about joining our Party. It seems now that he shows some sentiments about his ERP.

 

[Apebe]

Official Proposition for Mr. HughBartlett :

We would be delighted at LD's if M. Hughbartlett would join the Party to be responsible of Social Matters. A sport section could also be openend if he would like to.

I also suggest Mr. Besuchov to be our Presidential Candidate....

 

[hughbartlett]

Done. And first on the list, or second? I think you deserve first for all your work. The ERP is now defunct, and I am a member of the LD. I hope that my position as friend of the RD stays as it is, and knowing the moral character of the members of that party, I believe that it will.

 

[Apebe]

Allright and Welcome.

This is a suggestion :

Presidential Candidate :
Mr. Besuchov.
substitute Mr. Apebe

Paliament List :
1. Mr. Hughbartlett
2. Mr. Timothy
3. Mr. Besuchov
4. Mr. Apebe

Party President : Apebe. ( responsible for cohesion, new members ...)
Party Spokesman : Besuchov ( voice of the party, image, major candidate)
Party 1st Secretary : Hughbartlett. (responsible for elaborating polls within the party, following and holding up debates, register us and watch that we are in conformity with board rules ) ...

 

[hughbartlett]

Sounds good to me, but I think that as premier founder of the party you should get the honour of regerstring it. (that and i'll be less active for a few days, i have school exams)

 

[Apebe]

Internal affairs will be dispatched as following :

General Idealogy : Mr. Besuchov
Social Policy : Mr. Hughbartlett
Economical Policy : Mr. Apebe
Energy and Environment : Mr. Timothy
(...) more to come

 

[Apebe]

Originally posted by hughbartlett
Sounds good to me, but I think that as premier founder of the party you should get the honour of regerstring it. (that and i'll be less active for a few days, i have school exams)

okay I'll do that as soon as Timothy will join ... (please Timothy ! join = 3rd time =)

 

[hughbartlett]

I think a mr. patric123 will be interested; I tried to get him to join the ERP, and he was interested, but I couldn't contact him b/c his inbox was full. Also, is this mr. timothy online? becaus if he isn't,. i am sure that 1 or 2 times would be enough...

I hope that this will be a prosporous party, unlike the ERP...