• 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
Not open for further replies.

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
Founder: Sean Galloglaigh
Editor-In-Chief: Friedrich von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
Contributing Editor: StJaBa

The Voice of the Republic (VoR) is the party newspaper of the Free Republican Party (FR). As such it will deal with the policy issues of the Eutopian landscape from the party's perspectives.

Any of the listed individuals may post articles as they see fit. Any others must acquire permission (via PM) from the editor-in-chief. This includes party members not listed as contributing editors. The editors reserve the right to edit (without changing content), or refuse to print, any article received.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
The Pheonix Rises!

From the ashes of the collapsed NCA, the former conservative alliance, and the CDA in particular, the Free Republicans have arisen to bring new life to the Center-Right in EUtopian politics. This new movement intends to protect the social fabric of Eutopian soceity while improving the quality of that life for all her citizens.

We hope to do this by promoting job growth, free trade, sane environmental protection, decentralized government, and a consistent effort to find new ways to produce mutually profitable public/private cooperative ventures. Over the next few days this paper will further define the Free Republican Movement and what it means to be part of this moderate conservative presence in our political framework.

We have taken a savaging from various RD members and in particular the left of center newspaper which is called "The Public Interest." We do not wish to revisit the hostilities of former EUtopian politics. But over the next few days we will also examine the distinctions between our party and their's, that they may be honestly put in view, and people may choose what kind of future they desire. Contrary to the PI's assertion, it is not an "attack" to draw distinctions and make comparisons between two political parties. Rather, that is part of the process, so that people can make honest, educated choices about the future they desire.

I would like to take a personal note of thanks to Mr Petrarca, a reknowned voice of sound business practice in our community, for his willingness to take these duties.

SG
 
Last edited:

Petrarca

Cacique Occidens
5 Badges
Sep 25, 2001
2.798
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
Economic Disaster to Befall Nation?

Political Parties Attack Market Economics

The rapid outburst of political groups due to the collapse of the monarchy and inability of the current government to maintain its duties has led to assaults upon personal liberties by certain parties. In our continuing series on the economic condition of the nation, we bring you our first profile of the stances of various organizations on economics:

The Eutopian Socialist Reform Party (known as the ESRP) is notable among the many new political parties for its advocacy of subordination of business activities to an omnipotent "govt planning authority" that will control the economic flow of the nation with an iron fist. By making a preeminent government position that sets "target" for small, individual businesses to follow and manages the affairs of large businesses, the ESRP hopes to have citizens give up their control over the nation's economy to a faceless bureaucratic board.
By placing all responsibility in the hands of a government board, the ESRP would destroy the natural human impulse to act in self interest. Rather than harnessing that desire to work for the betterment of all the nation in market fundamentalism, the ESRP would create a group of government lackeys who have no interest in managing the nation's companies well- they will be paid and employed by the government, and have no incentive to improve the standing of the corporations and its employees. The historical example of such policies is clearly a negative one- state-controlled economies fare far worse than equivalent private enterprise economies.

The collapse of the state-managed Soviet Union, the woes endured by Argentina while Chile prospers, the lackluster results of Europe compared to North American and the Pacific Rim, China's slow progress to Taiwan's great leaps, and most notably, the abject failure of North Korea while the South succeeds all point out that state control, by creating no drive to strive for more, is flawed.

Hopefully the citizens of the nation will realize this fact, as the large part of the developed world has, and unshackle the nation's wealth from the control of lazy and uninterested bureaucrats, and put it in the hands of private individuals, each of whom will act to create more wealth, enriching the nation while doing so by creating a larger tax base. The inefficiencies of a nationalized economy compared to a market economy are so vast that we hold little hope for the future if parties such as the ESRP are put into power.

-The Editor
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
Why are we Pro-Life?

Perhaps the two most "extreme" positions in the Free Republican Movement are our positions on right to life and capital punishment. In the next two days, I intend to lay out our rationale for these positions. We understand that both are controversial, and perhaps pur party would be considerably more popular, and perhaps even more successful, if we dropped these planks and replaced them with a conscience clause. Far more popular, but less in line with what our heritage demands of us.

First, let me say that our party firmly states as one of our key principles that we are an inclusive party. No one has to accept every one of our principles to be a member of the FR. They merely have to be content to find the whole of the party's principles satisfactory. Secondly, the social agenda is, avowedly, the area where we are probably the most conservative. In market economics, we are pragmatic free marketers. In military matters, we demand economy as well as strength. In environmental matters, we are almost as left as any party in Eutopia, because of the current state of our environment. Though here we are thinking of ways to work within the free market system as well. So in all other matters, we are very nearly "raging centrists," with a slight tip to the right overall. And a few have said, "if it weren't for..." I'd join your party. My reply is, that ultimately, we are inclusive, but we can't include everyone.

We are Pro-Life, not anti-choice. We firmly believe that a woman has the choice not to be pregnant. We beleive that choice needs to be made before she engages in the activity that makes her pregnant. But at the moment of conception, all medical data points to a new life. The DNA is imprinted at moment one, and it is distinct from the parent's. Is that life dependant on the mother? Yes. Is it the mother's body? No. It's the baby's body that is aborted.

Also, the abortion industry (and yes, outside EUtopia, it is an industry), has made it a mission to squelch the information we have on the phychological trauma that these mothers, who were told they did not have a baby, go through after they act on the misinformation. We do not seek to make criminals out of mothers who are confused by lies told to them. We would make criminals of the industry that deludes them, however. Not only this, but part of the abortion industry's claim to legalization is it would be "safer" this way. Safer is a relative term. Aside from the fact that it certainly won't be safer for babies, the industry also does a very good job of hiding the fact that many abortion mills have horrific records when it comes to inadvertant sterilization of mothers, infection, and other proofs that they simply lack basic health concerns.

We are not here to make Solomon's choice. And thus we refuse to allow a mother to die when this procedure might save her life. We are not here to force trauma upon trauma. Thus we do not stand against abortion in the case of rape. Though we would add that we do not encourage it in this case. Many would-be parents could provide love to such a child, even if the mother could not. The issue is aborton for convenience. To that we say it is just as wrong to stand by and allow one to die without just cause as it is to do the killing oneself.

To elevate convenience over justice is to slaughter our conscience for the sake of comfort. One might say, "Yes, its a wrong choice, or so I personally think, but it's hers to make." Is it? A free society does not mean that we have to wait until before one makes a destructive act before we intervene. We try to stop murder, robbery, assault, etc, before they happen. Why is it wrong to stop abortion before it happens if it is a morally wrong choice?

And is it wrong to legislate morality? No. All law is moral law. Every law is passed because one thinks it will make a better society. On what judgment is that made? Always ethical grounds. A speed limit is set at 100kph because it is deemed dangerous to society to drive that vehicle above that speed on that road, to one's self and others. A seat belt law is passed for the same reason, and this is equally "intrusive." Don't you have a right not to wear a seat belt and endanger your life if you wish to? Not according to many nations. They deem it ethically wrong to stand by and allow you to ignore your own safety. They're certainly not worried about the driver of the car that hits you in that instance. If they have a seatbelt, they'll be fine no matter what happens to you. It's legislated morality. Even a leash law is legislated morality. It can't be avoided. All law is moral law. "All statecraft is soulcraft", as George Will aptly said.

So yes, this is moral legislation. All law is. But even if you could call this intrusion into her privacy, which I don't think you can, there are three people involved already, laws are legislated into privacy not infrequently as well. Is this bad? That must be judged on the basis of consistency with the ethics in view. We think it builds a safer and more just society to take a Pro-Life stand. So we will, we are prepared to sacrifice popularity for justice.

SG
 
Last edited:

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
But if Right-to-Life, Why Death Penalty?

This question has been put to me more than once. It is commonly assumed that if one is for the Pro-Life position regarding Right to Life, then we must automatically be against the death penalty on the same principle. The ironic thing is that this is usually maintained by people who "refuse to legislate morality" on right to life and then seek to do so on the death penalty.

But we do not share this fundamental self-contradiction. We do not because we are not judging this on the same principle. Right to life is a position with respect to innocents. Those who soceity would seek to name "undesirables" through no fault of their own but being alive and inconveniencing another by doing so.

Capital Punishment is a judgment upon those who have taken innocent life, and thus are guilty of crime. This puts them outside the status of the above groups and places them clearly in the criminal element. The just society must protect the innocent, and must punish in just proportion to the crime. We submit that on both of these standards, the only just punishment for murder or treason is to pay for the crime with one's own life.

On the first standard, if a murderer is merely incarcerated, that murderer can, through change of law at a later date, be paroled and murder again, or that person can escape and murder again. Neither of these possibilites are without precedent. Neither or these possibilities represent protection of the innocent. Let alone the very real possibility of a murderer committing further crimes in prison, up to and including further murders, also not an unheard of possibility. Society is not adequately protected from recidivism by murderers by life imprisonment.

On the second standard, punishment must fit the crime committed. That is a simple standard of justice as old as Genesis 7, where the death penalty is first prescribed specifically for murder. For those who think it somehow inconsistent with Christian principles that this be so, it is never revoked in Scripture. Even the famous John 8 passage about the woman the Pharisees wished to stone was not a murder, it was adultery (and there are legitimate questions about it's place in the original text in any case). The death penalty for murder is never revoked or even questioned. Why? Because there simply is no equitable punsihment for taking a life but the death of the murderer. The family will never get its child back. The victim will not be resurrected in this world. That innocent life is at an end. And there is no other way to pay for that crime. Life imprisonment provides neither closure nor equitable punishment.

AHH, but what about the murderer who is truly innocent? We have insisted that DNA testing be conducted in all capital crimes. If it is not possible to test for it, it is not possible to seek the penalty, But DNA testing is only 98% accurate, it is said. Well, this is on top of a trial conviction, first of all. Secondly, the process is new, and the accuracy of the test is closing in on perfection all the time. Ten years ago this was virtually unheard of, now it's very accurate. In a few years, it very well may be perfectly accurate. In any case, adding 98% accuracy on top of jury conviction, which is not an impercise method, and statistically we are approaching the absolute.

Many Europeans consider the death penalty a "far right" or "extreme" position. To this the argument has to be raised, "How did human nature change so quickly?" Not 60 years ago, the free nations of the world agreed that the best way to deal with many of the nefarious leaders of the Axis powers was the death penalty. This was done with virtually universal acclaim across the political spectrum. So when did human nature suddenly transform itself? The better question is, "Has it?" We are not 20 years removed from the Gulag and the Killing Fields. We are even less removed from a government that ran over its own citizens with tanks in public. We are 10 years from a government that gassed its own citizens, and that sleader of that nation read Mein Kampf and self-avowedly patterned his rule after the author's.

So when did human nature change? It simply hasn't. people are just as wicked as they were at Nuremburg. And as long as wicked people will perpetrate unspeakable evils on others, it is the duty of the just society to do all it can to stop them, and failing that, ensure they can never, ever, repeat the wickedness they wrought.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
Actions speak louder than words.

Recently the so-called "Public Interest" claimed that; "The NLP has become the latest minor party to be wooed by the FR and RD."

The truth of the matter is that the FR has been in consistent communication, public and private, with the NLP from Day 1. We have not done so merely to "woo" them. But because both parties saw that we shared a common vision for EUtopia. A vision that apparently was never communicated by the RD, if they too possess it. It may be true that the RD made a recent mad dash to gain the attention of the NLP, but it was the hare to the FR's tortoise. Hasty and late, the RD hoped to make up for the neglect of the NLP for weeks with one last ditch effort. Perhaps it will work with other parties, it did not with the NLP. We have never let our attention of the Nordic minority, or any minority in EUtopia, flag. For that reason the events we will conclude with transpired.

The same article claims that: "the FR's platform includes absolutely no commitment to minority rights, multiculturalism, or national self-determination." We are interested how the so-called Public Interest knows this. As the FR has not yet published it's platform. The PI may have read the Party's PRINCIPLES. But those are the broad stroke pillars upon which the FD is built, not a nuts-and-bolts platform. In this case, the reporting of the PI is not merely misinterpreting facts, it is factually errant.

Their article also says, "There is, in fact, but a single passage in the FR's platform which so much as mentions "minorities" - and it is by no means clear that this refers to ethnic minorities." Besides the fact that they have once again committed the factual error outlined above, which is not merely semantic but an intentional choice made on the party's formation. It might be added that repeating a word in a document does not make it any more or less important de facto. It might also be added that we considered it unnecessary to make such a distinction simply because we have no desire to. Race, creed, and ethnic minority were all intended and all equally meant to be protected.

It might also be added that they attempt to say that our commitment to federalism is only incidentally protective of minority rights. This is mind reading. Dubious at best. In truth, it is part of our conviction, which is why we made it clear to the NLP from day 1 in our conversations.

Further from the article:
"The FR's Chair further suggested that his party is "the" federalist party of Eutopia, as evidenced by the fact that the party's very name reflects its belief in federal principles. In fact, it does not: neither "free" nor "republican" necessarily suggest a commitment to federalism, especially in a societal context where a specific interpretation of these terms may not be shared by all. More importantly, by the FR's logic, we are presumably justified in claiming the RD and LD to be "the" champions of democracy in Eutopia - after all, they are the only parties to explicitly include "democracy" in their names... " Aside from the fact that we define the republican and federalist form of government we desire in our principles, where else did he find our decentralization emphasis? We might also say, "yes it does entitle you to claim to defend democracy, if that means direct democracy, a practice we reject as spurious in our principles. If you wish to defend the tyranny of the majority unchecked, feel free." Of course that would contradict their calims to protect minorities, but this is because the RD wishes to be all things to all people, and lacks any serious political core.

The PI also says concerning the FR's environmental stance; "Finally, the FR claims that it shares the NLP's environmental concerns. In fact, the FR's platform makes it clear that they believe in the protection of the environment only to the extent that it imposes no economic burden: 'We believe in protection of the environment without hamstringing our economy.' As any objective observer will be able to discern, this does not compare favourably to the RD's strong commitment to sustainable development and the development of environmentally friendly technologies."

Another misinterpretation, again committing the factual error we previously mentioned. But here combining it with a misinterpretation of what we mean by "hamstringing." We never said "imposes no economic burden." Rather the term hamstringing, by nature, carries the specific concept of grievious injury. The point being we will not CRIPPLE the economy to protect the environment. We believe that the environment can be protected and jobs created, if we look for means to do so. The fact that we have taken the lead on the environmental issue in the "coalition for Progress" in suggesting innovative POSITIVE ways to bring business and industry along in environmental protection is here overlooked, almost certainly intentionally. It isn't the left's best hour to be outdone on environmental ideas by the FR.

Finally, the fact of the matter. The NLP and the FR have merged. The NLP saw this as being in their best interests. Why? becauswe despite all the verbiage in the RD program, the FR HAS been the better friend, and we now will be their best home. We welcome the NLP under the umbrella of the FR, and continue to be the party that best represents the interests of the traditionally disadvantaged in Eutopiam through active concern and bringing them into a vibrant economy, as opposed to entrenching them as second class citizens as the RD program will.

SG
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
What are these people smoking?

In a howl of pain that can be heard across EUtopia City, the Public Interest cried foul at being laid bare by our article.

Leaving aside their rather dubious view of interpreting facts. Let me set straight the factual error of the matter. The NLP and the FR have merged, as we announced here and to the public at other locales. The NLP was not "dissolved." Negotiations for this possibility have been ongoing for the better part of a week as the party chairs for both entities can affirm. We have accepted the NLP under the FR roof because, simply put, we have a common vision for the future of EUtopian as a whole and a decided interest in providing progressive ways of protecting the minorities of the nation. Not tired methods that merely promote the existence of the underclass, but rather methods that provide the people of the nation, regardless of background, the opportunity to succeed. We might add the former head of the NLP, in further proof of this, has been handed the minorities relations portfolio for the party and been informed it is his position in an FR-led cabinet as well.

The RD is currently discussing the implementation of Affirmative Action. A very old and unfortunate attempt at aiding minorities that, while noble in aspiration, is failed in practice consistently. The United States has had 40 years of affirmative action programs, and they have not aided the reduction of the underclass. Why not? The short answer is, it doesn't address the problem. Affirmative Action does not encourage success, rather it encourages reminding people of their inferior position. As a result, the person who receives a job as a minority always has to wonder, "Was I really good enough to work here." And the person in the majority when passed up asks, "Did I not get hired because some (insert derogatory term for minority here) was given the job to fulfill a government quota."

The result? The old hatreds are fostered, not set aside. The RD chair has indicated he is willing to implement AA and keep it in practice "as long as it takes" to remove generations of inequality. all it will do is breed generations more of inequality. So I guess we will have this in perpetuity if he has his way.

We would suggest that what is needed more than a handout is an opportunity. Free Enterprise zones in inner cities or minority areas to encourage people to do business in an area they wouldn't, or to reduce the cost of doing business so that someone who wouldn't succeed perhaps may. Education in how to run and succeed in small business offered to all EUtopian citizens, with a special emphasis on minorities, so that they can learn how to succeed without the Government dole. In short, rather than an environment that punishes and forces the people to do the will of the government in a typically authoritarian manner that is pervasive in big government advocates, we would suggest fostering an environment that encourages people to act in a way that overlooks differences and encourages sucesss regardless of background.

This I suppose is novel to the left. But in the end it might actually solve the problem. The left has had 40 years of its ideology to prove it doesn't work. We might be excused to ask if we can have a quarter of that time to prove our idea will.

SG
 
Last edited:

Petrarca

Cacique Occidens
5 Badges
Sep 25, 2001
2.798
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection

First Eutopian Shipping Company Launches


2002-09-12

(New Lancaster City/Eutopia) Eutopia's First Shipping company was today inaugerated. The company will deal with import/export of all kinds from Europe and the US. General Manager Mr Jarle Juks of JUKS IMPORT & EXPORT was proud to announce that "Eutopia will no longer have to rely on foreign shipping for its transport needs."

The newly founded company operates out of New Lancaster City and will in short time be able to supply clients with any cargo/merchandise found on the other sides of the Atlantic.

"But this is but the beginning..." said Mr Juks "We aim to diversify into private air, rail and road travel and will labour to connect both Eutopians around the country as well as providing them with an easy connection to the rest of the world...after all the world is getting smaller"

The company will primarily cater to organizations, but also hope private customers will see the benefit in engaging JUKS IMPORT & EXPORT. According to Mr Juks: " We live in a great nation, but let us not forget that there is a larger world out there with much to offer, customers of goods/merchandise not normally available here, or available at outrageous prices will hopefully see us as an alternative"

For more information contact: JUKS IMPORT & EXPORT
 

Petrarca

Cacique Occidens
5 Badges
Sep 25, 2001
2.798
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
An Open Letter to the Nation

Friedrich von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

My fellow citizens of Eutopia,

As we near what is perhaps the most crucial place in the democratic life of our state, the fast-approaching general elections, I felt compelled to write you, as a private citizen and a candidate for Parliament, and exhort you all, regardless of party or affiliation, race or creed, to do your duty to the democracy which we all hold so dear, and find time and occasion to get to the polling station. That should be first priority for all of us, to strengthen and solidify the freedoms for which we have fought so hard.

But there are those in opposition to the party to which I belong, the Free Republican Party, who have suggested otherwise. In recent party discussions, I do not mind revealing to you that the matter of the monarchy has arisen, and what place, if any, it has upon national platform in these elections. It is my earnest belief that it is a minor consideration compared with far more vital issues, and that the people of Eutopia want more vital and personal considerations such as health care and taxes, law and order, addressed first. However, some have suggested that I in particular have motivation for the restoration of the monarchy. This could not be further from the truth, and as you go to the polls and cast your votes, I would ask you to keep this promise in mind: I, Friedrich von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, will never seek nor suggest any personal involvement in the restoration of the monarchy. If such a thing is to ever come about, it will be at -your- urging, not mine. I am first and foremost a democratic citizen, and seek no personal privilege or merit beyond the opportunity to serve your interests in Parliament.

Together, we can secure equality and the freedoms it promises, with one goal in mind. Not monarchy, not tyranny, not self-import or distinction ... but democracy for Eutopia.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
The End of Freedom?

It seems the "Freedom Party," the splinter party formed by Mr Geroge Jetson from the Libertarian Party, has seen fit close its doors and rejoin its parent party. Suddenly the LP is a resurgent force in EUtopian politics and seeks even to enter it's own Presidential candidate. Whether this will draw from the FR or from the LDP, or neither, remains to be seen. But this may force the FR to sharpen the distinctives between itself and the Libertarians if it moves into a coalition with the RD. Talks along this line continue to move with surprising civility with both sides seeming willing to make compromises that very well could lead to a better EUtopia for all.
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
The Free Republican Party Hits the Streets!

Election season has descended upon EUtopia once again. And the time has come for all members of the movement to bestir themselves to their greatest endeavors.

We have the opportunity to obtain a strong position in the politics of EUtopia, but we need to make ourselves known loudly and strongly in the election season. We have several options open to us, but none if we do not earn our proer place in Parliament.

We must also fully support the nomination of our candidate Mr Jacob-Lundgren. As he tours EUtopia, be sure to greet him loudly and warmly. I personally am sure we can accomplish a great victory in this election, if only we believe that we can.

For Freedom and Duty,
SG
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
Election Season at a Glance

As Party Chair Sean Galloglaigh predicted, the election will come down to where the Independants and non-registered parties of EUtopia decide to cast their votes. so far, they have been doing so for Mr Jacob Lundgren even when they do not cast an FR party vote for Parliament. The result to this point is a standing that looks like it will give a Parliamentary tie to the FR and the RD, but the odds look good that the President will be FR. Half the population has voted and been counted unofficially, and the FR holds a slight lead in the Parliamentary race, and a clear lead in the Presidential.

Of course there is plenty of time for the winds to change, as not even all members of the two largest parties have voted yet. In the end, voter turnout, plus the FRs early strategy of canvassing the non-alligned members, will be crucial elements in the final result.
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
Still time to make your voice heard!

Sean Galloglaigh was seen today thanking independants and others for their support of Mr Lundgren and the FR party. So far their support has more than counter-weighted the decision of the LDP to thrown the majority of its weight behind the RD candidate. It also means that if both parties can get all their members to vote, the Parliament will be closely split, but slightly tipped to the FR.

But here is the rub, as a close examination of the ballots shows that not all members of the FR are yet accounted for. There is plenty of time for you to make your voice heard and carry our party to triumph! The support of the rank and file of the EUtopian populace shows the grass-roots support our movement enjoys. All that is needed to translate this to victory is your continued support during these next few days.

To those who have stood and been counted, FR or others who have stood under our banner this season, you have my thanks. We will endeavor to serve the interests of this nation to the best of our ability, in whatever capacity we are presented. It brings me pride personallly to see this party resonate with the people of our great nation.

With humility and gratitude,
Sean Galloglaigh
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
A letter to the editor.

From a party member, this does not express the opinion of the VoR.

Dear Editor and readers of the Voice of the Republic,

It appears now, as the election is nearing its mid-point, that Mr. Jacob Lundgren of the Free Republicans has a very good chance at the presidency, and the Free Republicans may seize a slight majority in parliament. This is largely due to immense support from unregistered parties (one of which has officially expressed its support). However, not all of the people have voted, and certainly this includes a large number of members of the Rally for Democracy, which has so far seen relatively low turn-out. There are three things which we must be concerned about in the current situation.
The first is that all of the Free Republican votes coming in could slow down and stop as most of the FR has gone to the polls already. Then the remaining Rally members will cast their votes and ‘rally’ (no pun intended) for their team. This could pose an enormous threat, so optimism should be limited for a while.

The second concern is what would happen if a Free Republican president was elected with a FR-controlled parliament. What will the Free Republicans’ goals for the coming term be if this happens? Will they pass laws and try to form EUtopia’s future, or will they stay to the known methods of the past, keeping our nation stable and reacting to any crises? The Free Republicans need to think about their strategy for the coming term: reform the government and the nation, or keep things the way they are—the philosophy “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.”
The third consideration—and the one we most need to consider—is how the Free Republicans will fare if the Rally for Democracy makes a strong showing in the end and wins the presidential elections, getting a majority in parliament also. What will the FR party do to alter its strategy for more success in the next election? How will it gain support? And what can it do while it has only a small voice in Parliament?
The road for the Free Republicans is a bumpy, and the one thing the party and its leaders need to do is plan ahead.
Sincerely,

Charles Scott Morgan
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
The Reply from the Chair's perspective.

First, I agree the election returns look good at this point. the credit for that goes to our party members for getting out the word, and to the efforts we have made in promoting common causes with the non-registered parties and NGOs that align to the center-right. The election looks better overall for Mr Lundgren than the FR in Parliament, though results are starting to even out on this ground. It seems to be a fair assertion that we will seat no less than 5 MPs, just as likely our whole slate. If this is the case, the election must be called a success on any terms. In truth, there are just as many FR members who have not yet voted as RD, from my count. And if the RD will make up the deficit, it will be from the independants, which have so far swung heavily to the FR at least in the Presidential race. That said, we have constantly emphasized the possibility of a change sweeping this election which could undo our work. We must finish strong.

Second, what are the FRs goals if we control Parliament? Six seats will not control Parliament. We will be forced to form a coalition or rule as a minority. Or even, if we fail to form a coalition with one of the other two parties, quite possibly have an FR President presiding over a coalition led by the other parties. This last possibility is one we must seek to avoid. To waste the efforts of those who have labored for us by refusing to take up the obligation to govern would be an unmitigated disaster. If that occurs, we can count on a term of gridlock.

It is our intention to form a coalition if we win the election. At this point, the more likely party appears to be the RD, as the LD has shown no interest in negotiating with anyone regarding the formation of a coalition. Obviously if the LD would show interest, they'd be generally closer in alignment to us. But they have been quite intransigent to this point. The RD leadership has similarly expressed displeasure at the intransigence of the LDP. The RD leadership, if not some of the rank-and-file, has been more than willing to negotiate on a wide range of issues. Thus it would seem that forming a coalition with them would best allow for governing the nation.

Policy? The 5 point program of the FR is clear, we will seek to decentralize some of the current government power and privatize businesses that are capable of making a profit on their own terms. We will seek to make capital punishment more humane and eliminate the possibility of it being used in cases where only circumstantial evidence exists. We will seek to protect the lives of infants who cannot speak for themselves and refuse to allow the nation to march down the path of infanticide for convenience's sake. We will take on board the advice of the military think tanks and look for ways to make our military more economical without reducing its ability to carry out its mission. We will work for free trade. We will encourage business to clean itself up, lest it face the need for punitive environmental damages. Where business does clean its own act up, we will seek to reward them for doing so. And we will continue, though our decentralization, education, and promotion of opportunity, to elevate the minorites and seek to reduce the underclass.

We are against higher taxes, against legislation that would cripple economic growth, and against policies that would distinguish by race, creed, color, or gender, IN ANY WAY. The FR promotes the responsible freedom of all EUtopians, and encourages them to use freedom to make choices that benefit the whole. Where they use them to sponser prejudice, they will find the FR standing firmly athwart their practices. Where others seek to use past actions as a means to continue sponsoring prejudice through set-asides, quotas, and reverse discrimination, we will also fight for the rights of citizens to be judged on merit alone.

This is the FR's vision, from the Chair's position. And this is the EUtopia we hope to govern.

Most Sincerely,
Sean Galloglaigh
FR Chair, VoR Founder
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
A Rough Draft

The Skeletal Platypus, which seems to be the voice of the Libertarian Party, and the PI seem to be having a shouting match lately on the issue of conscription. Interestingly, it has been stated by some that "conservatives" generally favor conscription.

Really? I forgot to read this in Russell Kirk's "Conservative Mind" or Edmund Burke's writings. The core values of conservatism are protection of the institutions and the encouragement of responsible freedom. Someone needs to explain how a draft figures in either of these values unless we are at war. Communist regimes have typically instituted drafts, so have fascist regimes. it exists across the political spectrum. This is not a right-left issue.

So what do I think? My own opinion is the draft is not necessary during peactime. That does not mean I think the instant abolition of conscription is a good idea either. Rather, we should commit ourselves to transforming the military to a strictly volunteer force over the next 5-10 years. The pool of draftees should be incrementally reduced while we build up the recruiting base necessary to promote a volunteer force. The exact specifications and timetable for this would have to be hammered out in such a way as to protect the current force structure.

What is more alarming, in my own opinion, is that the Navy and Air Force are being allowed to atrophy at an alarming rate. These both need to be modernized. Protection of our sea lanes and maitenance of clear skies over EUtopia ought to be our FIRST military priority. No one invades if they cannot get troops here. We could have NO army and defend our island if we had a strong enough Air Force and Navy, the Battle of Britain demonstrated this, and we have a whole lot more ocean protecting us than they did. Yes war has changed in 60 years, but the problem of amphibious warfare is still the same, "How do you get troops onto enemy shores?" You cannot march troops across an ocean. There are only two ways to get them here. Air drop or amphibious landing. Thus our FIRST priority in defense spending needs to be to ensure that NEITHER possibility can EVER happen.

Army proponents do not like to hear that. But until they can demonstrate troopers can walk on water, they're stuck with the reality of logistics. This does not mean I'm for a smaller Army, but I am in favor of modernization of the Navy and Air Force as the priority in the military budget.

A further note on SP/PI discussions. Recently Mr Vasco proposed two definitions. One for reactionary and one for revolutionary. We suggest that you take those definitions with a pound of salt. A check of the dictionary would indicate that revolutionary has nothing to do with political spectrum, and reactionary is a term for the EXTREME right, because it seeks to recreate an earlier time. The opposite term for the extreme left is Radical, which seeks to annihilate existing social structures to create one in it's preferred image.

SG
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
Dear Sir,

I have read your recent article, entitled "A Rough Draft," with great interest. I applaud your efforts at contributing to a sober discussion of the conscription issue and military policy in general, and find myself in agreement with many of your points.

If I may be permitted to point out one minor fault: the disagreements between the SP and PI do not revolve around the issue of conscription - at least at this time. The major points of difference are the (alleged/denied) inaccuracy in election coverage by one of the papers, the SP's election interview with one of Eutopia's leading citizens, and the PI's characterization of the LP.

Yours sincerely,
Melanchthon
Citizen

My apologies. This dispute was actually in the Military NGO.
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
The last push

The final day of voting approaches. Currently the Free Republicans hold a 5 vote lead in both the Presidential and Parliamentary races over the RD, with the LD predictably trailing. The question at this point is a question of algorithms at this point to determine whether or not the FR will hold 5 or 6 seats. The nation waits, holding its collective breath, to see if change sweeps the nation or the old order remains in power.

The FR contiunues to hold a guardedly optimistic view of the election. Obviously 5 seats and the Presidency in itself would not be a bad result, but the 12th seat, which is still capable of tipping in any direction, is the prize at stake. All of which is to say, if you're out there and have yet to vote, you still have the time and need to do your duty.

SG
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
A not unsurprising action.

Recently the founder of the ECL Mr Coveilha said that the FR had "ignored" or even "insulted" the ECL regarding its proposals. Nothing could be further from the truth. In truth, the record shows a long and civil discussion between Mr Vasco and myself on the issue of minimum wage in the FR HQ. Apparently it did not occur to Mr Coveilha to verify his facts before he spouted off. The record also shows that the FR Chair promised to continue the discussion in the ECL HQ if Mr Vasco wished. That discussion was not resumed at Mr Vasco's wish, either by deliberate action or unintentional oversight. But it was not stopped by the Free Republican Party.

Wanton slander of the right by the labor union only shows the political leanings of the organization. Unfortunately, Mr Coveilha seems to lack the ability to disagree agreeably. Or the ability to verify his facts. Which one is not our place to guess.

SG
 

unmerged(4007)

En Til'Za
May 23, 2001
2.627
0
Visit site
A Party for the Party!

The FR held off a furious rally in the closing hours by supporters of the RD to close with a stunning 6 seat win in the Parliament and the Presidency as well. The result means that, in theory, the FR would not need a coalition to govern. But in truth, in order to fill the cabinet positions and not have to hold up legislation for when all members are present, necessity may dictate otherwise. In either case, this is a time of celebration.

Mr Galloglaigh saluted the gallant fight the RD put on to retain its status, and saluted the party for their labors and the hard fought victory. He then took his bow to Mr Jacob Lundgren, who will have the ultimate duty in forming the Executive he desires, as the Parliament looks towards it's own obligations.

For Freedom and Duty! Congratulations and thanks to all who have stood with us in this time.

SG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.