[Clausewitz]

All votes that are tallied are from the Voting Booth thread right?

Yeah, and there are still about two days left in the election.

A conservative government (PNL, FRP/LC, CA, PUC) would be able to form if it had seven more seats, which isn't impossible, but it's unlikely.

On the other hand, I count three people in this thread who have voiced support for LC but haven't voted for it...

edit: 2

[RonPaulalways]

Liberty Caucus members, go here to vote:

viewtopic.php?f=89&t=103939&start=50

I request a review of the following policy position:

Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

For the purposes of political stability and security, I contend that limiting and controlling immigration, in order to maintain ethnic-cultural homogeneity, is vital.

Remember the communist revolution of Russia was largely funded by foreigners and run by non-Russians.

[Clausewitz]

Both CanadianCapitalist and MichaelUj voted Liberty Caucus as you can see here. I am hoping that they will vote here later at night or tomorrow but just in case they don't vote at all, Dan, I just want you to see that they did want to vote for the Liberty Caucus.

It's up to Dan to say if Michaeluj's vote will be counted absentee. He did say he'd count Kilgore's absentee vote, but Kilgore explicitly voted for POP in an earlier vote.

Canadiancapitalist actually posted in the voting thread yesterday to say that he supported LC but didn't want to vote for it because he thought voting wouldn't accomplish anything or something, though it was deleted for being a non-vote.

He did so even though the Reds (RF, SLDs, SN) have been within a seat or two being able to form a Red government virtually the whole time and most likely anyone who votes in this election will cause a seat to change hands because the electorate is small, so it's hard to say that his vote doesn't matter. For the sake of having an interesting game, I hope he changes his mind...

And...are LC and FRP going to finally, formally join up at some point?

[Dr House]

Well he's an anarchist, so it makes sense he'd take such an unreasonable position.

[RonPaulalways]

The Liberty Caucus provides the recipe for explosive economic growth.

The welfare States of Europe have underperformed in terms of growth and rise in average wages relative to the Asian tigers which have pursued an industry-friendly policy of low social spending.

Ingliz has taken the time to create a table contrasting States' social spending levels and their economic growth:

Social Spending / Annual GDP growth % (2005)

#1 Japan: 15.7 % of GDP / Ireland 5.5% #1

#2 New Zealand: 17.5 % of GDP / US: 3.2% #2

#3 Ireland: 18.4 % of GDP / Denmark: 3.05% #3

#4 Canada: 21.8 % of GDP / Canada: 2.9% #4

#5 Australia: 21.9 % of GDP / Australia: 2.8% #5

#6 United States: 23.4 % of GDP / Sweden: 2.7% #6

#7 Netherlands: 24 % of GDP / Japan: 2.6% #7

#8 Austria: 24.6 % of GDP / Norway: 2.26% #8

#9 United Kingdom: 24.6 % of GDP / Finland: 2.9% #9

#10 Norway: 25.1 % of GDP / New Zealand: 1.9% #10

#11 Italy: 25.3 % of GDP / UK: 1.82% #11

#12 Finland: 25.6 % of GDP / Austria: 1.8% #12

#13 Denmark: 27.5 % of GDP / Netherlands: 1.13% #13

#14 Germany: 28.8 % of GDP / Germany: 0.96% #14

#15 Sweden: 30.6 % of GDP / Italy: -0.04% #15

As you can see, the states with the highest economic growth tend to have lower social spending.

This table does not include South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and China, which have had the most rapid economic growth of any nations in the last 40 years, and have very low social spending.

For example, South Korea's social spending only makes up 6.1% of GDP:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/37/31613113.xls

and it has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea

The economy of South Korea is a highly developed[1] trillion dollar economy that is the fourth largest in Asia and 13th largest in the world. It sustained double-digit economic growth for decades, growing faster than any other major economy in the 20th century.

China likewise has very low social spending, as this graph on health care spending as a percentage of GDP demonstrates:



Don't embrace welfarism. The welfare state relegates a nation to mediocrity. There is a better way: vote economic freedom. Vote Liberty Caucus (LC), or if you prefer a less libertine nation with a stronger government, vote Conservative Alliance (CA) or Pan-National League (PNL).

[Attica]

Why is this not in the Liberty Caucus thread? Oh that's right, Ronpaulists don't know how to cordially use the internet :P

[RonPaulalways]

I had no idea that each party was limited to just one thread.

If that's the case I can delete this and move this to the Liberty Caucus thread.

[Dan]

Greetings.

The CA has initiated a public discussion of a possible centre-right coalition, and we would request the LC be a part of these talks.

We are wary of the dangers to our freedom posed by a potential left-leaning coalition, and would like to create a strong, moderate conservative alternative. While the right-wing parties may not agree on everything, we can all agree that a left-wing coalition wreak devastation on our freedoms, and we consider that we could put aside our differences to unite against this threat to our freedom.

[Suska]

feel free to use em

[RonPaulalways]

^ Sweet! I like the first one.

The CA has initiated a public discussion of a possible centre-right coalition, and we would request the LC be a part of these talks.

I would fully support such a coalition.

[Suska]

Sweet! I like the first one.

thanks, take it. please... that red thing hurts my eyes.

I would fully support such a coalition.

he said "talks"... talk is easy, i don't like the sound of "coalition" dont like the look of the CA for that matter.

[Dan]

he said "talks"... talk is easy, i don't like the sound of "coalition" dont like the look of the CA for that matter.

What's your problem with the CA?

What's the problem with a coalition?

We might not agree on everything, but certainly the LC and the CA can agree that letting the RF or the SN have any influence at all would be disasterous, and that having the SLD have too much influence wouldn't be that good either.

The only way to completely marginalize the SLD is a centre-right alliance. To marginalize the RF and SN is a little easier as the SLD could be used, but even then some of the SLD are sympathetic to the SN.

We need to work together, to work through our minor differences to prevent the left from becoming strong.

[Suska]

I won't agree to a formal alignment. Let's talk, but there's more than minor differences between us Dan, we'll handle it as specific issues arise. The SLD seems to have a broad majority, they don't seem ready to be marginalized. I'll talk to them and the other parties just like I'll talk with you. If there's a good compromise I'm open to it, if not the force of votes will prevail. If we lose we try again next time.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
Sweet! I like the first one.
thanks, take it. please... that red thing hurts my eyes.

Done!

BTW, what is it about the CA platform that's so intolerable to you? I looked through it and it's pretty good all around, maybe I missed something.

[Suska]

Done!

much much better *adjusts RPA's golden tie* there ya go... Very classy.

The Conservative Alliance believes in a generally non-interventionist foreign policy and believe in intervening only when our country's national interest is at stake. That being said, we believe in supporting our allies as much as possible. We will work our foreign policy in the best interest of our country.

So, instead of withdrawing troops and closing overseas bases were taxing cigarettes right? No. I wouldn't require a radical withdrawal but the policy must change.

No-fault divorce shall be removed.

Why? First you say marriage is a private matter and civil union is legal matter then - but you can't just get a divorce, you have to have a good reason...

All full citizens shall have the unlimited right to bear arms.

Doesn't specify assault rifle or pistol status, just throw the gates open huh? I dunno about that...

Apart from not addressing all the issues I would have liked to address... What about the Federal Reserve? What about Civil Rights in regard to such things as the Patriot Act? What about Nukes? What about Economic Stimulus?

Our own platform needs to address patents and intellectual property rights. I take it as a given we're a Ron Paul Libertarian Party, maybe we need to make that clear. I read The Revolution and accept its tenets in principle and generally in detail; without any objections which need to be discussed before publishing any specific proposals.

[Suska]

i regard the shadowy Liberty a design copout but I don't have time right this minute to build a new illustration. This looks good to me for now.

[Dan]

So, instead of withdrawing troops and closing overseas bases were taxing cigarettes right? No. I wouldn't require a radical withdrawal but the policy must change.

The policy is simply the good of the nation, with a general tendency to non-interventionism.

Why? First you say marriage is a private matter and civil union is legal matter then - but you can't just get a divorce, you have to have a good reason...

That's a good point it does seem somewhat contradictory.

The ending of no-fault divorce is if the current system of family law is kept, as it renders the marriage contract meaningless. But the general preference is to remove the current system of family law entirely.

Doesn't specify assault rifle or pistol status, just throw the gates open huh? I dunno about that...

I throw open the gates for full citizens, those who ahve already performed national service and belong to a local militia.

Apart from not addressing all the issues I would have liked to address... What about the Federal Reserve? What about Civil Rights in regard to such things as the Patriot Act? What about Nukes? What about Economic Stimulus?

It's a platform, it can't be too specific. But in general, an opposition to the FR, an opposition to any Patriot Act measures aimed at citizens, in favour of nuclear power development, in favour of maintaining a defensive nuclear force, and a general opposition to economic stimulus.

Also, just because it's in the CA platform does not mean that terms of a coalition will not be negotiated.

[Suska]

does not mean that terms of a coalition will not be negotiated

I gathered that from your other post. I agree but i'm not sure what the meaning of a coalition is then - because I haven't got a clue how this parliamentary system will work...

Alright, I'm finding your positions more or less agreeable. Thanks for responding.

[Rancid]

I've joined the LC (Inductor Capacitor circuit right?)

[canadiancapitalist]

Say no to mediocrity and yes to a meritocracy! Liberty 4 lyfe.