How about adding a right to factual, timely and truthful information and disclosure with stiff penalties for spin and outright lies? (except for national security stuff, real nat'l security stuff)

Are there going to be any platform bullet points on energy, food, defense foreign policy, etc.?

The platform is just about perfect, Karl.

Now, do you suppose we can find more than three or four brave souls to actually RUN on it?

I hope so, and I'll do my best to spread this around, but I'm not optimistic.

(Glad you're so danged stubborn though!)

OK then, here's one near and dear: I happen to enjoy and support our national parks. I consider the system, despite a few flaws, to be one of the few things the fed.gov has ever done well. But the Act that created them doesn't seem to have much basis under the First Principles.

So the question is, how would the Federationists treat our public lands, parks and other unique national treasures as far as preserving and protecting them from commercial exploitation as well as potential "foreclosure" type deals with foreign creditors?

Not talking about energy resource extraction from BLM scrub lands, which I agree should be maximized to the hilt. It's the Yellowstones and Yosemites that I'm concerned about losing. It's nice to think that public uproar would never allow such a thing, but since Sept 2008 we all know how much weight our little voices carry.

Separation of Academia and State - that'll keep eggheads with NO practical experience away from policy making positions

Political Appointments must be approved by popular vote

Abolish the IRS

Ban regulators from employment in the industry they regulate (both prior and post the regulatory position)

Congressional Term Limits

End Congressional benefits and exemptions from laws

Enforce Equal Protection under the Law (guess that is implied...)

Restore the "Checks and Balances" of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive Branches of .gov

Ban lobbyist and special interest groups

Remove Marxist policies from the current rules, regulations and policies

Restore capital punishment

Restore the principal of Majority Rules

Curtail Entitlements


2012 should be interesting!

Public land (e.g. National Parks, etc) is owned collectively by the citizens. We live in a representative republic; that's what they represent. Us.

The platform does not contain and will not be expanded to contain every piece of policy that is someone's pet expectation, project or belief. It can't. There's no purpose to a representative republic if you do not wish to be represented.

Eminent Domain abuses.

1. Any taking must be for a direct public purpose - the title of the property must remain with the government entity for 40 years minimum or revert back to the original owner or heirs or successors in interest.

2. Any new abridgment or limitation on a piece of property (e.g. declaring it a wetland or finding an endangered specie) is a taking and the government must buy the land at the previous market value, or pay equivalent compensation reflecting the decline in value from that now prohibited use. This includes new zoning restrictions. Ordinances directed at the use and not the property specifically that prevent the use of the property (e.g. no farming before 9am) are included.

I like the format of the platform, to state first principles then outline the Federationist position on various issues in light of those principles. Which it seems to me, is how political parties are supposed to have been operating all along.

Today's parties do come up with new platforms every election cycle, which ostensibly state their positions on current issues based on whatever their "first principles" may be. Honored nowadays mostly in the breach, however, here in ScaMerica.

Sooner the better, after things like:

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-....

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
...

re: drivers license

I can drive a motor vehicle for personal reasons on public roads without having to ensure I know how to operate said motor vehicle? I also don't have to buy insurance. I sure don't want to be the person that gets hit by this driver.

This doesn't sound like a good solution. Though I get the "liberty" thing, I do believe there is a responsibility of the state to ensure the "safe use" of public roads given the inherent and obvious risk motor vehicles present.

Drivers licenses are also state issued and I would argue a state does have the right to warrant such a need as a license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads even for personal purposes. Drive all you want on your own roads without a license.

If you want to ride a bicycle on public roads - have at it without a license, I'm not likely to be killed by your inept ability to handle a bicycle. However, a motor vehicle - without a license? I know that licensing does not ensure safety behind the wheel and we take an inherent risk when we step behind the wheel and decide to operate a car, but I would think the need to at least ensure a basic knowledge of operating such a vehicle and understanding the rules of the road is not a mark against my liberty.

ps - congratulations on the site... it looks great and what I've read so far reads very well.

good luck with it!

K

Duc888 wrote..

Corporations are not HUMAN(S).

They
Don't
Have
****ing
Rights.

Really ? So if i and other people decide to form a corporation that makes widgets... That has zero rights? So the government can come in an seize all the property owned by the corp on a whim ?

So people can fire bomb property owned by the corporation with zero consequence ?

That is what you think ?

Here you go. This is what I'm talking about, Karl.

Quote:

Senate antipiracy legislation introduced Thursday would dramatically increase the government’s legal power to disrupt and shutter websites “dedicated to infringing activities.”

A major feature of the Protect IP Act, introduced by 11 senators of all stripes, would grant the government the authority to bring lawsuits against these websites, and obtain court orders requiring search engines like Google to stop displaying links to them.

“Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing content and products,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the bill’s main sponsor.

The proposal is an offshoot to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act introduced last year. It was scrapped by its authors in exchange for the Protect IP Act in a bid to win Senate passage.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05....

Quote:

Really ? So if i and other people decide to form a corporation that makes widgets... That has zero rights? So the government can come in an seize all the property owned by the corp on a whim ?

The people who own it DO have rights. The corp itself does not.

Quote:

However, a motor vehicle - without a license?

What exactly is that worthless piece of plastic in everyone's pocket good for?

It does not mean that the person having one is going to operate their vehicle safely. It is nothing more then a tax paid every three to five years and your also signing a contract converting an unalienable right of freedom of movement into a privilege. By signing that contract you promise not to disobey a **** ton of opaque rules varying state to state and if you do they hose you for your hard earned money.

Quote:

I would think the need to at least ensure a basic knowledge of operating such a vehicle and understanding the rules of the road is not a mark against my liberty.

That is exactly what drivers ed. in high school was for,to teach new drivers the rules of the road and how to drive their car safely.

I drive a commercial truck for a living (semi) I cover an average of 102k miles/year accident free at the moment,but what I see people DOING in their car's is unbelievable. This is the part that causes accidents period!

When people stop reading newspapers,putting on make-up,jerking off,getting blown,eating a cup of soup and talking on their *******n cell phones or sending text messages and pay ATTENTION to what they are doing the roads would be 100 times safer.

That worthless piece of plastic does not stop personal Irresponsibility.

Yep, YAPP - Yet Another Political Platform. Been there. Done that. Been done dozens of times by dozens of people, never amounts to anything. The reality is that someone needs to actually get in the ring and try to knock out a statist in an actual election that matters (nope, the county board and town council don't matter).

That said - I'll bite - here's my 2 cents. Everyone has their little pet suggestions, and no platform will meet 100% of more than one person's desires, but IMO this platform is pretty good - with one huge exception. There is no discussion of taxation. Duc888 is the only one to have brought it up, and Karl seems to have ignored the issue.

Let's start with the real problem. The Federal Reserve.

Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. -Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century

The solution to the problem of The Fed is to allow private parties to coin and use money of their choosing. That would put The Fed out of business. The ruling class's solution was ingenious - enact a national income tax and then force all transactions to be translated back to dollars and taxed. It's no surprise that The Fed and the national income tax came into existence at about the same time. That way the inflation created on purpose by The Fed is taxed! Today's law requires all transactions in any currency or metal to be translated back into dollars, and income tax must be paid on the nominal (dollar denominated) gain. And at regular income tax rates, not capital gains rates. That's why gains in gold bullion are taxed at regular income rates, whereas gains on the gold ETFs are taxed as capital gains, a ridiculous state of affairs.

The solution is very simple. Get rid of the income tax. The Fed would cease to exist within 3 years of that event.

So my suggestion is that all of Karl's platform is fine, but if you really want to fix things, become a single issue candidate and voter advocating for the abolition of the income tax - replace it with a national sales tax, VAT tax, whatever, but the income tax, which is the ultimate control The Fed has on money, and thus on all economic activity, must go.

FWIW, here's what we're up to in Wyoming. http://www.wycountryparty.org

Karefree wrote..

re: drivers license

I can drive a motor vehicle for personal reasons on public roads without having to ensure I know how to operate said motor vehicle? I also don't have to buy insurance. I sure don't want to be the person that gets hit by this driver.

So it would make it better if you got hit my a licensed drive instead ? huh? People have valid DL, and no insurance now. What is your point.

Karefree wrote..

This doesn't sound like a good solution. Though I get the "liberty" thing, I do believe there is a responsibility of the state to ensure the "safe use" of public roads given the inherent and obvious risk motor vehicles present.

And how does a piece of paper do that ? And define safe use: DUI checkpoints, DL, registration inspection checkpoints ? All good ? What if i have a car that can panic stop from 60mph in 100 feet, and others around me have cars that can only do that in 120 feet. I slam on my breaks, and they plow into me - simple physics. How is that safe ? That is a 20% differential in stopping distance. Should we equalize via government law that to ensure that never happens ?

Karefree wrote..

Drivers licenses are also state issued and I would argue a state does have the right to warrant such a need as a license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads even for personal purposes. Drive all you want on your own roads without a license.

Really? People's property is confiscated to pay for those roads, why should they not be able to drive on them without additional fees.

There are also gas taxes. So if i were to only ever drive on my private road, my property would still be confiscated from me to build the public roads. Still have zero right to use them ?

Karefree wrote..

If you want to ride a bicycle on public roads - have at it without a license, I'm not likely to be killed by your inept ability to handle a bicycle.

You are also likely to not be killed by hitting a motor cycle or scooter either. Does that still meet your test, of have it it no license.

You are also more likely to be on the wrong end of an accident if say you have a 2.5# car vs a 4k# car. Should the owner of the 4k# car have to under go more licensing and pay more $$ to operate that car on public roads ?

Karefree wrote..

However, a motor vehicle - without a license? I know that licensing does not ensure safety behind the wheel and we take an inherent risk when we step behind the wheel and decide to operate a car, but I would think the need to at least ensure a basic knowledge of operating such a vehicle and understanding the rules of the road is not a mark against my liberty.

Are you really arguing that a multiple choice test given at age 17 does that ? Basic rules of the road can be learned by someone in oh 5 minutes. Various signs, traffic lights etc etc. But that is not enough, you still need to pay the government $$ for that, else goto jail ?

If i don't have a license and drive 20k mi/yr and never hit anyone or cause an accident, I should still be fined and/or loose my freedom for not buying the piece of paper if i am caught without one ?

Or hell. Say some kid has been operating vehicles for years cars, trucks whatever, on their private property. Has no DL. Now take say someone, lets say they live in a city, that has never had to use a car in their life. They go and pay $$ for a license. That one is OK, but the kid with no DL, well that's the safety hazard - after all he has no license, and thus no assurance that he has basic knowledge of operating such vehicle ?

That is your argument ? Really ?

==

Now take a simple example. Prevailing speed on the highway is 80mph with a speed limit of 65. I am going 80, as is everyone else. But hell i am one unlucky SOB, and am the one that the cop decided to pull over and fine. Now I pay the fine, get points attached to my license.

Now, being unlucky, this happens 5 more times in, say a month. Now I have racked up enough points where the government has taken away my license. Now what. Was i unsafe ? Is this just ? Whatever.

In any case now i have no DL.

So now if i continue to do the very same thing, keep up with the flow of traffic, and not do the limit of 65, rather 80 mph, this BTW ensures that there is NOT a 15 mph speed differential, and i get caught, well more fines.

So just what is the difference between having a DL and not. Seems that i met all your conditions. Except now i am driving with out a license, and may have my freedom taken away from me in addition to paying even more fines.

How is that reasonable ?

Quote:

The people who own it DO have rights. The corp itself does not.

Christ.

Thanks Asimov for the interjection of common sense.

I'm not advocating anarchy, merely suggesting that people come before corporations. Corporations should "do no harm" to people. Period.

I thought most could figure that out.....I guess not.

Quote:

Really ? So if i and other people decide to form a corporation that makes widgets... That has zero rights? So the government can come in an seize all the property owned by the corp on a whim ?

So people can fire bomb property owned by the corporation with zero consequence ?

That is what you think ?

aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

That would be "no"

Okay?

Corporations rights do not trump individual rights.

I STILL have no "right" to fire bomb your corporation.

Get real.

Duc888 wrote..

Corporations rights do not trump individual rights.

OK that is interesting. Only I don't know what it means. SO ... what do you mean ?

Wordsmith quibble:

I own my body, but do I own my mind?

Maybe restate it such that each PERSON owns himself or is a self-owner. A human is not merely a body.

A wordy version that could be edited down

Everyone owns their own person, has THE right to choose what they do and what happens to them, and is responsible for the choices and the results of those choices.

Note in the original: "has A right", or "has THE right".

Also:

"if you cannot afford to purchase required medical care for cash"

I would add something about not requiring any such purchase to be FDA or government approved and done by someone with AMA membership or otherwise restricted. If I can use a 3d-printer or find a machine ship with CNC mill to create a hip joint from the exact same materials others use and get a surgeon from India with proven training, and a team to do it for $10k, I should be able to. And if I need drugs, I should be able to import them from Canada or find someone with chemistry skills to provide them cheaper than the criminal Pfizer. They shouldn't demand I either pay $200k or not get treatment.

Also, too specific, but the general idea: People called for jury duty should be paid $25/hour in 4 hour increments, and it would include any time they are sequestered. Employers or individuals can also get a refundable tax credit for any dollar difference between the above compensation and their standard wage, salary, or pay.

"Creation of unbacked credit..." - I would add, "Just as naked shorting itself is criminal...". The naked shorting scandals where there were proxies for way over 100% of shares outstanding are the same - counterfeiting anything drives the value down.

"An "uninvited" guest is not a guest or an immigrant, he or she is an invader and is INITIATING FORCE upon every citizen of this nation by their mere presence, along with INITIATING FORCE against those who are seeking to become citizens through legal means". - I think "Violating the common property rights" in the first case, and would drop the second half. Stealth is more fraud than force.

Corporations are a legal fiction allowed or not allowed by the state. They are not created by nature, God, or whatever you might want to indicate as a fundamental axiom. The state says if you file these papers, a corporation springs into existence. Because the very existence of a corporation comes from and is defined by the state, it has NO RIGHTS, only the privileges the state gives it. That might mean protecting the investor's property, that might mean forcing it to use union labor, it might mean a quarterly looting with TSA like inspection.

OK again. If i form a corporation to make widgets, then on a whim, government can seize all its property? After all, Its just a privilege, right ? That privilege is revoked. No harm to foul, right ?

How about i form a corp, corp is successful, i float stock, random people buy the stock. Government revokes the privilege of property ownership from the corp. Property is seized and destroyed, or gifted to a corporation that is more liked by TPTB. My corporation is worthless. Equity holders now hold stock that has nothing behind it and is now worthless too. That ok as well?

Low: Get a ****ing grip and stop offering intentionally stupid scenarios.

The OWNERS *DO HAVE RIGHTS* including the right NOT TO BE ROBBED like you describe.

The owners are also PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the actions of the company.

A point on the TSA, I would extend it to any or all public places or forms of transport (they want to have a no ride list for trains), and any or all agencies that demand a search. Either the kiddie-porn-x-ray or the physical******are over the top.

"A private home or bedroom" - public homes? outside bedrooms?

The Government has no right to interfere or even be concerned with what happens between consenting adults in any (private|nonpublic) place. (I disagree on the DoMA because it prevents individual states from defining marriage - the error is that it doesn't go far enough in eliminating any definition of marriage at any level, which you make clear later).

In the case of the TSA and DoMA, perhaps a generality would be better than a specific.

(bailouts) "those who demand such must be treated as thieves and prosecuted,"...
They are free to demand anything. If they threaten, they are terrorists not thieves. They are free to attempt to panhandle within the constraints of the 1st Amendment. I don't see prosecuting those who merely "demand" a bailout without any further threat. I do see using the anti-terror laws against those who threaten to collapse any part of the economy.

"Federationists stand for sound money - not through the chimera and false God of a "Gold Standard" but rather by prosecuting fraudulent acts in the banking and credit system". - I would add "and by not interfering with settlement of private contracts or transactions where the parties should be free to choose the medium of exchange". The government as a party can demand federal reserve notes, but if I want platinum in payment, I should be free to demand actual platinum. One other point on this plank - reading it as is, it sounds like it would also ban fractional reserve banking. Savings and checking accounts aren't "investors loaning capital", the bank is taking the money and loaning it increasing the supply of credit. I'm not sure if this is intended by the wording.

"Where your "castle" is extended..." - If I own the private parking lot, I think I can demand you not bring a car with a gun in it. The point is valid but makes the plank wordy. I would strike the "car on parking lot" section just to save space, but maybe others want to keep it in.

Asimov wrote..

Low: Get a ****ing grip and stop offering intentionally stupid scenarios.

The OWNERS *DO HAVE RIGHTS* including the right NOT TO BE ROBBED like you describe.

"OWNERS *DO HAVE RIGHTS* " is a far cry from corporations have no rights, is it not ?

In any case it seems as if you are saying corps have no rights, but people make up corps, therefore the people have rights, therefore their property cannot be taken from them. IOW, a corporation is just short-hand from those 100 people over there who own it, any property rights stem, not from the corp (as it has none) but from the inherent rights of the individual owners who are people, and therefore do have property rights.

OK i can buy that a bit but....

Though i am not seeing that very workable. Especially when you add

Asimov wrote..

The owners are also PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the actions of the company

Corporation is made. Corp buys a factory, and therefore owns it. Or if you wish, people who have shares (public or private) own it.

Now there is an accident, factory blows up. Who has responsibility for damage ? The legal entity of the corp, or the individual owners aka share holders? Seems in your example, the corporation is indeed fiction, and therefore everything attaches, including property rights, down to its individual shareholders, not the corp.

So now what? ie) Can you attach a tort to the individual owners and make them personally responsible for the accident ?

Since the property rights (and others) of the corp only stem from the individuals, well how could you _not_ hold shareholder X personally responsible for any financial payment of a lawsuit ?

In other words, the question is basically: If property rights of a corp is a simple pass through right derived from the individual owner, then how could liability not be the same ?

How is this workable?