New Democratic Party [NSG Senate | HQ]

[The Nihilistic view]

The New democratic party (and fairly center) isn't actually going to be the first party to enact party censorship laws is it?

[Soviet Canuckistan]

You would have to do something absolutely terrible to be kicked out by the entire council and the majority of the party.

Not according to the first part of the proposal, by voicing my opposition to our relations with other parties or coalitions I break the rule. If I break a rule multiple times, people are hardly just going to keep letting me off.

It will surprise me if anyone gets kicked out or even reprimanded for any opposition to the party line on this.

[Britanno]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how clamping down on my right to voice my opinion, such as the example I provided, is fair.

You are wanting to damage the party's reputation and relationships with the current coalition. Therefore, you must be silenced.

I want us to leave, so obviously I want the relationship damaged.

I do not, however, seek to stain its good reputation.

[Britanno]

It will surprise me if anyone gets kicked out or even reprimanded for any opposition to the party line on this.

That may be true, but the fact that it will be classed as rule breaking to even try to persuade people to support us leaving the Progress Coalition is still not exactly impressive.

[Costa Alegria]

I want us to leave, so obviously I want the relationship damaged.

I do not, however, seek to stain its good reputation.

You are doing so by asking us to leave. Either shut up or leave. Your choice.

[Maklohi Vai]

Wait, so if I say something like "I want the NDP to leave the Progress Coalition" I could be removed from the party?

No, and here's why:

Statements which are made not only in direct contravention to the stated policy of the party regarding inter-party relationships,
You're in violation of this, but this isn't the major kicker of the rule.

but furthermore with the demonstrated intent and effect of breaking or harming those relationships, are treasonous.
There is intent to break the relationship, but not to harm it beyond that. There is no perceived effect from the statement, however, and that's where you're let off. Just because you say "I want the NDP to leave the Progress Coalition" doesn't mean that we're actually just going to leave, or that our relationship with the Progress Coalition will be harmed just by that statement. Repeatedly using this over and over to try and stir something up, however, would likely be harmful to the relationship and therefore full under this definition.

A treasonous offense makes a member subject to removal from the party with unanimous council approval and a majority vote from the party membership.
And as SovCan pointed out, it would be unlikely that this would happen.

[Costa Alegria]

So why are these policies put in place if those that contravene them go unpunished?

[Soviet Canuckistan]

So why are these policies put in place if those that contravene them go unpunished?

Because we still want freedom of speech.

[Britanno]

You are doing so by asking us to leave. Either shut up or leave. Your choice.

So I cannot support this party while opposing its coalition?

but furthermore with the demonstrated intent and effect of breaking or harming those relationships, are treasonous.
There is intent to break the relationship, but not to harm it beyond that. There is no perceived effect from the statement, however, and that's where you're let off. Just because you say "I want the NDP to leave the Progress Coalition" doesn't mean that we're actually just going to leave, or that our relationship with the Progress Coalition will be harmed just by that statement. Repeatedly using this over and over to try and stir something up, however, would likely be harmful to the relationship and therefore full under this definition.

What do you class as stirring something up? Would you class attempting to gain support for our withdrawal of the Progress Coalition stirring things up?

A treasonous offense makes a member subject to removal from the party with unanimous council approval and a majority vote from the party membership.
And as SovCan pointed out, it would be unlikely that this would happen.

I suppose we should make a law saying that if 3/4 of the population agree, all Aurentine Muslims should be executed? It is extremely unlikely to happen, but I'm just using your logic.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

You are doing so by asking us to leave. Either shut up or leave. Your choice.

So I cannot support this party while opposing its coalition?

but furthermore with the demonstrated intent and effect of breaking or harming those relationships, are treasonous.
There is intent to break the relationship, but not to harm it beyond that. There is no perceived effect from the statement, however, and that's where you're let off. Just because you say "I want the NDP to leave the Progress Coalition" doesn't mean that we're actually just going to leave, or that our relationship with the Progress Coalition will be harmed just by that statement. Repeatedly using this over and over to try and stir something up, however, would likely be harmful to the relationship and therefore full under this definition.

What do you class as stirring something up? Would you class attempting to gain support for our withdrawal of the Progress Coalition stirring things up?

A treasonous offense makes a member subject to removal from the party with unanimous council approval and a majority vote from the party membership.
And as SovCan pointed out, it would be unlikely that this would happen.

I suppose we should make a law saying that if 3/4 of the population agree, all Aurentine Muslims should be executed? It is extremely unlikely to happen, but I'm just using your logic.

1. You can
2.No, that's just your opinion
3.That violates international law, this doesn't.

[Costa Alegria]

Because we still want freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is fine when you aren't actively trying to sabotage the party and/or coalition. I'm sick and tired of trying to pick up the pieces because one loud-mouthed idiot with less sense than brain cells can't get the connection between his brain and his mouth to stop working for one second. We needed some control over this party to stop these people from wrecking a nice and productive coalition once again.

If he doesn't like it here, he can leave. No one is stopping and quite frankly, I don't want to be dragged into a coalition with people I have no intentions of working with or I despise for some ideological circle-jerk.

So I cannot support this party while opposing its coalition?

If you supported the party, you'd support the coalition it's in too.

[Britanno]

If you supported the party, you'd support the coalition it's in too.

Your logic:

I support Britain,
I do not support the EU.
I do not support Britain.

Freedom of speech is fine when you aren't actively trying to sabotage the party and/or coalition. I'm sick and tired of trying to pick up the pieces because one loud-mouthed idiot with less sense than brain cells can't get the connection between his brain and his mouth to stop working for one second. We needed some control over this party to stop these people from wrecking a nice and productive coalition once again.

I'm not trying to sabotage the coalition, I'm merely stating my support for us leaving it. There is nothing to say it couldn't survive without us.

No authority is legitimate if it cannot be questioned.

[Geilinor]

You are doing so by asking us to leave. Either shut up or leave. Your choice.

So I cannot support this party while opposing its coalition?

but furthermore with the demonstrated intent and effect of breaking or harming those relationships, are treasonous.
There is intent to break the relationship, but not to harm it beyond that. There is no perceived effect from the statement, however, and that's where you're let off. Just because you say "I want the NDP to leave the Progress Coalition" doesn't mean that we're actually just going to leave, or that our relationship with the Progress Coalition will be harmed just by that statement. Repeatedly using this over and over to try and stir something up, however, would likely be harmful to the relationship and therefore full under this definition.

What do you class as stirring something up? Would you class attempting to gain support for our withdrawal of the Progress Coalition stirring things up?

A treasonous offense makes a member subject to removal from the party with unanimous council approval and a majority vote from the party membership.
And as SovCan pointed out, it would be unlikely that this would happen.

I suppose we should make a law saying that if 3/4 of the population agree, all Aurentine Muslims should be executed? It is extremely unlikely to happen, but I'm just using your logic.

"Stirring things up" would be doing something that irreparably damaged our relations with the Progress Coalition or got us kicked out. You can say "I want us to leave the Progress Coalition", but not do something to purposefully destroy our relations with it so we would have no choice but to leave. Or if you caused the coalition to break apart in a similar way to the original one. Don't gloat to the leftists about defeating a socialist bill, for example.

[Britanno]

"Stirring things up" would be doing something that irreparably damaged our relations with the Progress Coalition or got us kicked out. You can say "I want us to leave the Progress Coalition", but not do something to purposefully destroy our relations with it so we would have no choice but to leave.

You see that makes sense. I want us to leave, but I'd never sabotage our relationship with the Progress Coalition for us to be forced to leave.

[Geilinor]

If you supported the party, you'd support the coalition it's in too.

Your logic:

I support Britain,
I do not support the EU.
I do not support Britain.

That's different from breaking a party whip, for example.

[Britanno]

That's different from breaking a party whip, for example.

What he is saying is that you can only support something if you support the organisations it is within.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Aye.

[Beta Test]

Let me make my stance clear: I don't want anyone to leave the Progress Coalition during the duration of Maklohi's term. I support the government. I'm sure those who have been around long enough will remember the infamous "Red Fox" incident. No one wants that to happen again. So, we should end this discussion until the end of Maklohi's term. At election time we should review the situation.

[New Democratic Party of Aurentina]

Following recent events, a vote was started regarding our membership in ProgCo and the possibility of a coalition with the right. Three of five council members have voted in favour of staying in the ProgCo (the last two have not logged on since the vote began), and thus the NDP will be staying in the ProgCo for the foreseen future.

Four votes counted. Still unanimous.

[Costa Alegria]

Your logic:

Not my logic. Nice try, but not even close.

My logic: people who don't want to support what they party does and who it associates with can get lost.

I'm not trying to sabotage the coalition.

If you weren't trying to sabotage it, you wouldn't want it to leave.

No authority is legitimate if it cannot be questioned.

Yeah, you can take that libertarian crap and get out.

[Gothmogs]

Another bill I wrote that I completely forgot about: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=16067748#p16067748 (For the hall of fame)

[Battlion]

Hall of fame still not updated from things sent days ago :/

[Next Washington]

many things are not updated... i first applied for a party that doesn't even exist anymore...

i also wana be part of the hall of fame... so, here's some stuff from me for you to read through

i'd appreciate comments!

Family Incentives Act

---

Foreword
Every modern civilization relies on enough young people who support the older ones, directly by caring about them, or indirectly, by taxes. But nowadays we see that the age pyramid changes dramatically: The old people are getting more and more, while there are areas where people have an average child number at or below 1. That means, this one child has to (partially) pay for three people in the future (parents + itself). Now, this quote is about 1/1, meaning one tax-paying person indirectly cares for another one (a retired person, student, child, ...).
In the short term this quote must be stopped from raising, in the long term even lowered. Therefore the Aurentina government shall provide special incentives, directly and indirectly, for families. Thereby the number of children will rise and the quote will lower.

---

I. In the following, "family" is defined as a two people who have one or more child of which they are fully responsible. That includes married couples with one or more child(ren) as well as registered partnerships with one or more child(ren). The law does not divide between a child as a result of sexual interaction between these two people and between an adopted child.
"Parents" is defined as the two people, regardless of their sex, who are registered as the persons reponsible for the child(ren).

II. Families shall be granted the following direct incentives:
a. A direct money transfer from the government to the parents each month. This payment shall be 100 NSG$(our currency?) per child between 0 and 18 years per month. If the child is between 18 and 24 years old, this payment shall be 50 NSG$ per child and per month.
b. This amount of money must only be paid if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. Both parents must receive the offer of 5% more free days from their employers.
d. Direct incentives end when the child reaches the age of 25 years.

III. Families shall be granted the following indirect incentives:
a. One of the parents shall be allowed to lower his fiscal relevant income by 500 NGS$ per child and per year.
b. This reduction may only happen if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. This reduction may only happen until the child reaches the age of 25 years.

IV. Single families, meaning one of the partners left the partnership by cancelling the relationship or death must receive the following treatment:
a. The incentives mentioned in II.a. and II.c. must be doubled. The age limits stay the same.
b. The reduction mentioned in III.a. must be doubled. The age limit mentioned in III.c. must remain the same.
c. II.b. and III.b. also apply for single families.
d. II.d. also applies for single families.

---

Epilogue
This law will successfully increase birth rates as families and those who want to found a family are supported by the government. The government grants parents the possibility of incentives for both raising their children easier and actively influencing their own future as they, when they are retired, will have an easier life due to increased workforce.

Child Protection Act

---

Foreword
Children in Aurentina are already granted their rights by the (International Law Act). Also the children's rights for education were settled by the Public Education Act. But there is currently no control of the government concerning the adherence of this law. Therefore Aurentina shall develop a Child and Youth Protection Agency. This agency shall actively control the children's living standards and also have the authority to punish parents who infringe the upper mentioned laws.

---

I. In the following, "child" is defined as a person with an age between 0 and 10 years. "Youth" and "youngster" refers to persons between 10 and 18 years. Also, the Child and Youth Protection Agency is referred to as "CAYPA".

II. This law is valid for children and youngsters.

III. The goverment must found the CAYPA.
a. This agency must be contactable by every child and youngster. Information how to contact is shall be visible in schools and public buildings.
b. This agency must be contacted by persons whose profession is dedicated to the well-being of children and youngsters when they think parents infrige the Public Education Act or the International Law Act. This include all public personnel as well as doctors and psychiatrists.

IV. Parents who actively act against the previous mentioned laws must receive punishment settled by a court.
a. Parents who for the first time, according to the court, neglect their parental duties, shall receive special treatment and observation by the CAYPA.
b. Parents who receive three punishments from the court, not regarding whether the reasons behind are related to children and youngsters or not, will be forced to hand over all their children to the CAYPA.
c. Parents who violently abuse one or more child or youngster shall, in addition to the loss of their children to the CAYPA, receive extra punishment in the form of imprisonment.
d. Parents who sexually abuse one or more child or youngster shall, in addition to the loss of their children to the CAYPA, receive the highest punishment setable by the court.

V. Children and youngsters who have been taken away from their family by the CAYPA shall receive special treatment.
a. Those children and youngsters shall receive special psychological treatment.
b. Those children and youngsters shall be handed over to a foster family specially chosen by the CAYPA.
c. Those foster families shall be granted the rights mentioned in the Family Incentives Act.

---

Epilogue
The well-being of children and youngster, as they are seen as less powerful than adults, must be granted in everyy civilized society. Aurentina must care about its next generation.

[Battlion]

Must be honest, I completely disagree with that definition of family...

[Lamaredia]

Your logic:

Not my logic. Nice try, but not even close.

My logic: people who don't want to support what they party does and who it associates with can get lost.

I'm not trying to sabotage the coalition.

If you weren't trying to sabotage it, you wouldn't want it to leave.

No authority is legitimate if it cannot be questioned.

Yeah, you can take that libertarian crap and get out.

Costa, you seriously need to shut the fuck up. He's entitled to his own opinion, and it's not like he's going into the ProgCo thread screaming that we are leaving it. You don't have the right to censor people.