Liberty Party of The North Pacific

Chasmanthe:
1. What is your policy on Govindia?

2. Do you believe that Flemingovianist expression should be extended or curtailed?
Click to expand...
1. We don't have a policy on individuals, though I'm sure members of the party have varying opinions of various people. I personally have no opinion of Govindia because I don't know him that well, except that I've witnessed firsthand his contributions to the NPA and I applaud his dedication.

2. We support religious freedom for everybody -- but especially Flemingovianists. :P *shamelessly panders to the religious majority*
 
Iro:
Hey Libertarians! Room for one more? Iro like Liberty Party.
Click to expand...
Of course. :) Welcome to the Liberty Party!

Roster as of 24/09/2012:

Cormac Docherty
madjack
unibot
Mahaj
ADGN8
peoples empire
Kingborough
Redamerica
Iro

Please ignore the roster in the OP; I've lost the ability to edit that post.
 
Iro:
Great! So what do I do now?
Click to expand...
We need to schedule a party meeting to discuss party structure, leadership and suggested revisions to the platform. I had been planning to schedule one for last weekend, but several people weren't around so we're going to try again for this weekend. In the meantime you can start working with the party to advance some of the issues in our platform in the Regional Assembly as soon as you're remasked. :)
 
All right, we're going to aim for a party meeting at 6 p.m. EDT on Sunday in #lptnp. My apologies to our British and Australian members -- it's extremely challenging finding a time that isn't too early for Australians and too late for Brits. This meeting will be fairly early in the morning in Australia and fairly late in Britain, but hopefully not so early/late that no one will be able to make it.
 
Cormac Docherty:
Military Policy
The Liberty Party of The North Pacific affirms that the principal purpose of The North Pacific Army (NPA) should be the defense of The North Pacific and that all secondary activities should be beneficial to regional security and defense. We advocate blanket authorization for the Minister of Defense to pursue the defense, liberation and restoration of any founderless region that is being or has been invaded, believing that the defense of founderless regions will gain allies willing to come to our defense when necessary. Acknowledging that unjustified invasions are both unjust and counter to The North Pacific's interests, we insist that any invasion must be politically justified and should therefore have the approval of the Delegate, the Minister of Defense and a majority of the Council of Five or a declaration of war from the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
Why don't throw in the Judicial system and the Queen of England while we're at it? In fact, before we plan any operation we should start by telling everyone who isn't directly a member of the NPA our intention, that way our target never sees the attack coming.
 
Blue Wolf, what you've bolded is the current Council of Five policy.
 
madjack:
Blue Wolf, what you've bolded is the current Council of Five policy.
Click to expand...
This.

It doesn't make sense for a party -- or a region, for that matter -- that advocates the values of freedom, democracy and justice to engage in arbitrary raiding. The military policy in our platform, which is identical to current executive policy, is designed to ensure that arbitrary raids don't happen while still allowing for justified invasions. As Unibot said elsewhere, this isn't Europeia. When we say we're for freedom, democracy and justice we actually mean to demonstrate that through our actions rather than putting it on a header as a pretty but meaningless slogan.
 
madjack:
Blue Wolf, what you've bolded is the current Council of Five policy.
Click to expand...
No, what I've bolded is the Delegate's policy that he has mandated for the NPA. The Council of Five is allowed to vote on the matters, and for that matter exist, because the Delegate declares it so. All this could easily change either with a new policy direction by the delegate himself or with the election of a new delegate.

In the literally sense, the NPA Doctrine that the RA passed states that the NPA doesn't take orders from the Council of Five, we take them from the MoD and the Delegate.

Cormac Docherty:
The military policy in our platform, which is identical to current executive policy, is designed to ensure that arbitrary raids don't happen while still allowing for justified invasions.
Click to expand...

Your policy is a slight revamp of the Unibot Doctrine that has already failed in the RA. In fact it's almost identical.

The NPA has a policy laid out for raiding, its been voted on by the RA and agreed upon by the NPA. We don't need further red tape to "restore honuor" or protect "values of freedom, democracy and justice". We already have a structure in place.

Now, by all means, if you want to make it even harder for the NPA to conduct legitimate activities, that's all you, but don't pretend like you're putting a leash on an out of control military that "engage(s) in arbitrary raiding" when we're already wearing a collar.
 
Blue Wolf II:
No, what I've bolded is the Delegate's policy that he has mandated for the NPA. The Council of Five is allowed to vote on the matters, and for that matter exist, because the Delegate declares it so. All this could easily change either with a new policy direction by the delegate himself or with the election of a new delegate.

In the literally sense, the NPA Doctrine that the RA passed states that the NPA doesn't take orders from the Council of Five, we take them from the MoD and the Delegate.
Click to expand...
This is all true, but it misses the point that there's nothing radical about the military policy in our platform unless one considers current executive policy to also be radical. You may well consider it radical but I don't think a majority of citizens feel the same given that there has been no outcry against this policy, which has been in place for some time.

It is the position of the Liberty Party that the current policy should be maintained by a Delegate from the Liberty Party and, if possible, codified into law by the Regional Assembly. We will be pursuing the latter course soon. If you don't like that, you're free to create a political party with a different military policy -- but at least bear in mind that we've been up front and entirely transparent about implementing this policy whereas the Delegate from the Progressive Party has been willing to implement an identical policy, shall we say, more quietly.

Blue Wolf II:
Your policy is a slight revamp of the Unibot Doctrine that has already failed in the RA. In fact it's almost identical.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the so-called "Unibot Doctrine," but what I can say with absolute certainty is that this policy is not just almost identical but entirely identical to the Eluvatar Doctrine -- the doctrine of your party's Delegate. If you want to complain about this policy perhaps you should do so within the Progressive Party first.

Blue Wolf II:
The NPA has a policy laid out for raiding, its been voted on by the RA and agreed upon by the NPA. We don't need further red tape to "restore honuor" or protect "values of freedom, democracy and justice". We already have a structure in place.
Click to expand...
The structure in place requires the Delegate to approve missions, and the Delegate has in turn decided to make Council of Five approval a prerequisite for his own approval. That's entirely consistent with the NPA Doctrine. That said, I agree with you that it would be preferable to have this openly decided by the Regional Assembly rather than more quietly by the Delegate -- which is why the Liberty Party will pursue amendment of the NPA Doctrine to codify this policy well in advance of the next Delegate election.

Blue Wolf II:
Now, by all means, if you want to make it even harder for the NPA to conduct legitimate activities, that's all you, but don't pretend like you're putting a leash on an out of control military that "engage(s) in arbitrary raiding" when we're already wearing a collar.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I think the NPA has done a great job of engaging only in justified invasions throughout my time here. This policy is designed to ensure that such remains the case, not to suggest that the NPA has been doing something wrong that needs correction.

EDIT: So apparently Blue Wolf is no longer a member of the Progressive Party, but he was at the time this policy was implemented and for some time after -- so all of the above is still valid. Ish. :P
 
The structure in place requires the Delegate to approve missions, and the Delegate has in turn decided to make Council of Five approval a prerequisite for his own approval.
Click to expand...

Not correct. The structure in place allows missions to be authorised by the Delegate or The Minister for Defence.

The MoD is essentially an appointed position, and no the council of 5 is of no importance as it is not legally recognised. Any decisions made that are not in conjunction with the Delegate could result in the dismissal of the MoD. There is nothing to stop the Delegate from sacking any minister at any time.

Also, I think its worth noting that the RA essentially went for a centrist policy. Rejecting going either one way or the other. Executive policy has not been in sync with the legislation, in meaning only a defender agenda is pursued. (Good or bad). This will likely only be changed with a change of Delegate.

The Co5 is not recognised in law. Essentially I only see it as a way to assist the Delegate in finding his ministers. There is no limit to the Delegates authority over the council of five, nor is there anything to prevent him from dismissing any minister. This all comes down to a judgement call by the Delegate. If you are to pass laws that require missions be approved by the Co5, it would have to be included into law. It's my belief that in its current form, it would not pass the regional assembly.
 
That said, the law as passed only allows missions "consistent with adopted regional defense and diplomatic policies." The Council has set regional defense policies allowing operations against designated hostiles and to protect regions at the NPA's discretion excluding nazi or nazi-esque regions.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Not correct. The structure in place allows missions to be authorised by the Delegate or The Minister for Defence.

The MoD is essentially an appointed position, and no the council of 5 is of no importance as it is not legally recognised. Any decisions made that are not in conjunction with the Delegate could result in the dismissal of the MoD. There is nothing to stop the Delegate from sacking any minister at any time.

Also, I think its worth noting that the RA essentially went for a centrist policy. Rejecting going either one way or the other. Executive policy has not been in sync with the legislation, in meaning only a defender agenda is pursued. (Good or bad). This will likely only be changed with a change of Delegate.

The Co5 is not recognised in law. Essentially I only see it as a way to assist the Delegate in finding his ministers. There is no limit to the Delegates authority over the council of five, nor is there anything to prevent him from dismissing any minister. This all comes down to a judgement call by the Delegate. If you are to pass laws that require missions be approved by the Co5, it would have to be included into law. It's my belief that in its current form, it would not pass the regional assembly.
Click to expand...
That's true. My point was that within that structure the Delegate has made his approval of missions contingent upon approval by a majority of the Council of Five, so this is the de facto policy on invasions even if it's not the policy spelled out in the NPA Doctrine. And it's consistent with the NPA Doctrine in that the Delegate can seek the approval of whomever he wants prior to giving his own approval.

I disagree with you that current executive policy has not been in sync with the NPA Doctrine, for the reasons stated above. It is more difficult to get approval for invasions but it's also true that invasions carry more diplomatic and military risks for The North Pacific than defenses, liberations and detags do. Pursuing a defender agenda would mean refusing to authorize any invasion, not making it more difficult for invasions to be authorized.

In regard to the Council of Five, you're right that it's not recognized in law and that would be a problem in codifying this policy. Even those in favor of this policy may not be in favor of legally recognizing the Council of Five. I'll have to discuss with other Liberty Party members whether or not we should pursue legislating this policy, but one thing that is crystal clear and non-negotiable is that it would be inconsistent with the Liberty Party platform for a Delegate from this party to pursue anything but the current military policy.
 
Pursuing a defender agenda would mean refusing to authorize any invasion, not making it more difficult for invasions to be authorized.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Many outright defender regions authorize invasions with political justification -- 10000 Islands come to mind as a current example.

Simply put a "defender" region is a region that supports and (actively or inactively) engages in the defense of founderless regions from arbitrary and unjustified invasions and likewise refrains from aiding, engaging in or supporting the arbitrary and unjustified invasions of founderless regions. The conduct of politically justified invasions is compatible with being a "defender" region. Examples: 10000 Islands, Texas, The Rejected Realms, The Allied Republics.

A "raider" region is a region that supports and (actively or inactively) engages in arbitrary and unjustified invasions of founderless regions and likewise, refrains from defending any founderless region without political justification. The conduct of politically justified invasions is compatible with being a "raider" region. Examples: Take your pick, The Black Riders, The Black Hawks, The Black Whatever and yes, The Cat Burglars (albeit without the same extent of damage caused to its victims).

A "centrist" region is a region that both supports and (actively or inactively) engages in the defense of founderless regions from arbitrary and unjustified invasions AND the invasion of founderless regions for arbitrary and unjustified reasons. The conduct of politically justified invasions is compatible with being a "centrist" region. Examples: Osiris (I believe they identify as 'independent'), The North Pacific (?), Taijitu (Grey Army is up, yes?).

An "independent" region only supports and (actively or inactively) engages in any military conduct when it is politically justified and deemed necessary -- a deviation from this principle leads an 'independent' region to defenderism, raiderism and centrism. The conduct of arbitrary and unjustified invasions or defenses based on apolitical ethics is incompatible with being an "independent" region. Examples: Equilism, The New Inquisition and Europeia (ideally the last two, but in practice they can both lean towards raiderism).

A "neutral" region is a region that does engage in military activity actively or inactively notwithstanding invasions and defenses that have trivial political consequences (i.e, warzones). Examples: Wysteria, Europe, Absolution, The South Pacific (subject to change, I believe).
 
Thanks for the clarification, Unibot. I basically agree with that.

My point was simply to counter claims that the Liberty Party is pursuing a defender agenda in the sense that we only want the NPA defending, a claim that some have made. While I think it's fairly clear that the Liberty Party's military policy would lead to the bulk of the NPA's activity being defense, liberation and restoration, our military policy doesn't rule out politically justified invasions -- so those who are claiming that the NPA would never invade under this policy are simply wrong. It likely wouldn't be invading on a regular basis but the claim that we have ruled out invasions is false.

I'm still waiting for those who advocate a policy in which the NPA would be raiding -- that is, engaging in arbitrary invasions of random targets -- to explain how that is consistent with The North Pacific's core political values and our fundamental identity as a founderless region, and how raiding would be beneficial to either our diplomatic interests or our domestic security.
 
Cormac Stark:
so those who are claiming that the NPA would never invade under this policy are simply wrong. It likely wouldn't be invading on a regular basis but the claim that we have ruled out invasions is false.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok. So you're just highly restrictive and abrasive towards all raider operations requiring literal votes to authorize any raider mission while giving defender missions of any nature, size, or scope a free pass with absolutely no supervision nor oversight.

Seems totally fair and not at all leaning towards one side, especially not the defender side.




Oh, and sarcasm doesn't lend itself well over the inflection deprived media that is the internet. Just putting that out there.
 
Sorry i missed stuff, but I had to be away for a while. What did I miss? Did we set up any leadership?
 
Iro:
Sorry i missed stuff, but I had to be away for a while. What did I miss? Did we set up any leadership?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not. I've been having trouble organizing a party meeting because of differing time zones. I'm going to try again for this weekend.

Tyler Kazakov:
Hey Cormac, may I join?
Click to expand...
Accepted.
 
With the Regionalists pushing through a bill to try to take away the ability to reaffirm equality rights, we should be trying to pass some sort of bill that would require the WA delegate to treat all citizens, WA or Non-WA as equals. But the only way to allow it to conflict and win against this stupid WA bill is to get the equality rights put into the Bill of Rights.
 
I'd like to discuss a change to the LP platform:

Military Policy
The Liberty Party of The North Pacific affirms that the principal purpose of The North Pacific Army (NPA) should be the defense of The North Pacific and that all secondary activities should be beneficial to regional security and defense. We advocate blanket authorization for the Minister of Defense to pursue the defense, liberation and restoration of any founderless region that is being or has been invaded, believing that the defense of founderless regions will gain allies willing to come to our defense when necessary. Acknowledging that unjustified invasions are both unjust and counter to The North Pacific's interests, we insist that any invasion must be politically justified and should therefore have the approval of the Delegate, the Minister of Defense and a majority of the Council of Five or a declaration of war from the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
Would read:

Military Policy
The Liberty Party of The North Pacific affirms that the principal purpose of The North Pacific Army (NPA) should be the defense of The North Pacific and that all secondary activities should be beneficial to regional security and defense. Insisting that unjustified invasions are both unjust and counter to The North Pacific's interests, we nevertheless recognize the right of the people to determine the region's military direction and we respect the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific (the Legal Code), The North Pacific Army Doctrine.
Click to expand...
I would like for us to discuss/debate this platform change for a day or two and then I'd like us to vote on the change in this thread.

I'll get the ball rolling on discussion. I believe this change is needed because while I believe that arbitrary invasions are incompatible with the values of The North Pacific and the Liberty Party, I also believe that it is inconsistent with the Liberty Party's emphasis on democracy to essentially ignore and contradict the military policy enacted by the Regional Assembly. Moreover, on a more practical level, I believe that this change to our platform would bring in more members to our party who agree with the rest of the platform while also allowing people with diverse views on military policy to continue holding and advocating their own views.

Others' thoughts are welcome and encouraged.
 
Tyler Kazakov:
Disagree, we need to raid some as well.
Click to expand...
To clarify, the proposed change to the platform is actually more open to potential invading than the original platform.

I would still like to hear from other party members as well. :)
 
I think it's a bizarre change, it's giving into a group of people whose argument makes no sense. "RARRH, You're undemocratic because this bill said the region could decide if the region is raider or not" is not a valid argument, if we have a military stance and vision for the region that's perfectly in line with the NPA Act. What would be -not- in line with the NPA Act would be to silence opinions on the Military and question the legitimacy of saying the NPA ought to do this or that.

Likewise, the statement is inconsistent. "We have an opinion the NPA should ought to do X, but we also recognize we have no right to an opinion because one law we passed refrains from dictating a specific opinion, it expects regimes to have an opinion itself ?????"

Just cut the last part out, that keeps it from being weird and withdrawaling:

Military Policy
The Liberty Party of The North Pacific affirms that the principal purpose of The North Pacific Army (NPA) should be the defense of The North Pacific and that all secondary activities should be beneficial to regional security and defense. Furthermore, we insist that unjustified invasions are both unjust and counter to The North Pacific's interests.
Click to expand...

Perhaps including some justification:

Military Policy
The Liberty Party of The North Pacific affirms that the principal purpose of The North Pacific Army (NPA) should be the defense of The North Pacific and that all secondary activities should be beneficial to regional security and defense. Furthermore, we insist that unjustified invasions are both unjust and counter to The North Pacific's interests on the basis that The North Pacific's domestic agenda of goodwill and liberty should be mirrored in its interregional agenda; likewise, invading regions arbitrarily fosters interregional animosity and new enemies unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
 
I believe Cormac's statement is not "we have no right to an opinion" but "we will democratically try to oppose raiding but if the majority votes for raiding we won't throw a fit like certain others may want us to."
 
Obviously I support the change, having proposed it.

Right now that means we have 5 in favor and 2 against. I will leave this open for another 48 hours; the platform will not be edited unless a majority of members (at least 6 members) vote to approve the edit. Anyone who joins the party during this 48 hour period will not be eligible to vote on this platform change.
 
With 5 votes in favor of the suggested change to the platform and 2 against, the amendment has failed to receive majority support and will not be amended into the platform.
 
Do we have a party position on the recall? I think it may be wise to abstain with either choice bringing up a Progressive. We either have to choose from an active or an inactive one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top