An SD.net Political Party?

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-05-27 01:07am

The "Why Doesn't Anyone Run For Office" thread had me thinking ... well, technically I'd been thinking about it for a while, but only brought it together recently. How does the idea of running SD.net as a political party sound?

What I mean is, members of this board would attempt to piece together political parties in a hypothetical nation-state. The idea would be similar to that of the American 3rdParty.com - to try to cobble together a coherent platform (or several, depending on how widely people disagree) from the disparate ideologies here, and see what people value the most in the name of solidarity. Mostly I believe it would be interesting to see to what political alliances of this board would look like, and whether it would resemble anything in real life.

The most obvious, and dangerous, downside here would be the threat of polarizing the board, since it would inevitably involve every single politcal issue, ever Just as difficult could be trying to agree on a manner of debate - would seperate threads havebe created for each issue, and would a seperate forum have to be created? The whole thing has the potential, perhaps likelyhood to devolve into a complicated fiasco, but I believe it holds some potential.

So here. Does this proposal sound feasible?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-27 01:21am

A few things such as support for secularism and social liberalism seem very common on this board but I think your chances of uniting many people behind a common economic policy are slim and as for foreign policy well good luck.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-05-27 01:35am

I'd support it.

The trick, of course, would be getting sufficient publicity to make any difference in any election -- and by difference, I don't mean affecting which of the two major parties gets elected, but rather to actually get our candidate elected.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-27 01:42am

This could be a fun hypothetical exercise. It wouldn't make for a good real-world party, though--realistically, only a few dozen at most would participate, and they'd be scattered all over the world.

EDIT: And I would imagine at LEAST two parties would come out of SDN. There's just no way to get a concensus on economic and foreign policy, or on a lot of domestic policy.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-05-27 02:25am

One SDN political party? Nope.

Several political parties based on SDN? Possible.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-05-27 02:28am

A SD.net political party would be fun but is unlikely to win in an election since it does have the money or the publicity skills needed to contest in an election.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-05-27 02:37am

If the more well-known third parties have less than a chance of a child growing up with Fred Phelps unbeaten, I'd have to say that a party based from SDnet would be more around the chances of the KKK Grand Dragon signing an affidavit confirming that Jesus was Jewish.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-05-27 03:14am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:If the more well-known third parties have less than a chance of a child growing up with Fred Phelps unbeaten, I'd have to say that a party based from SDnet would be more around the chances of the KKK Grand Dragon signing an affidavit confirming that Jesus was Jewish.

Meh, this would be more of a hypothetical exercise than anything else, to see what collection of policies would appeal the most to members of the forum at large (although the resulting platform would probably be more successful than, say, the Time Cube party). In other words, a "Which hypothetical party would you vote for?" If there were an actual election, it would be a localized poll thing.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-27 08:15am

there would have to be a few parties

The Socialist Libertine Alliance

The Gay Liberal Capitalists

The Anal Anacro-Authoritarian party

The Libertarian Neo-Napalm Party

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-05-27 10:41am

The 'I have no idea of which party I belong to, from the list Col. Crackpot provided' Party.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-27 11:04am

I propose the Kang and Kodos parties for SD.Net.

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2004-05-27 11:45am

A simple indication would be the dmeographic spread of Sd.netters. This way, local efforts can outweigh media coverage. "Put it on a piece of paper and shove through letterboxes" can be effective and is still the primary campaign tool over here in the UK.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-27 03:33pm

could be... interesting

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-27 03:52pm

I can see at least two parties, which I have taken the liberty of naming:

Liberal: As in Classical Liberal. Free market capitalism, limited government, social liberalism. Regulations exist, but they're kept as unobtrusive as possible. The Liberal Party would prefer to use government "nudge" the market in such a way that a clean environment, well treated employees, etc. are favored. Some kind of basic universal health care may or may not be favord. If it is, it likely won't be anything more than a safety net to ensure people don't go bankrupt over something like appendicitis. Low taxes and limited government spending are the rule.

Foreign policy is mostly of the Realist school. Nation-states are the primary actors and the purpose of government is to protect its own national interests. There's room for humanitarianism, but altruistic concerns take a backseat to advancing and preserving national power. A strong, modern military is vital, as is the willingness to use it.

The Liberal Party favors free trade.

Labor: Social democrat. The free market exists but is subject to considerable state control, in order to prevent the abuses common to laissez faire economies. The universal health care system is a given, and is fairly extensive and robust--and expensive. Taxes are higher and aimed at income redistribution. The state is socially liberal.

Foreign policy is internationalist. The Labor Party believes the interests of all mankind are the interests of the state, and the world can be improved--and, coindidentally, the state's security ensured--by cooperating with other states. A strong military is necessary as the final insurance against foreign aggression and a tool for keeping the peace worldwide, but military force should never be the first option.

The Liberal Party favors trade, but it must be socially responsible, and corporations do not have the right to buy and sell freely in repressive states, or to allow their overseas contractors to abuse their employees.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-05-27 03:56pm

Unless this party would profess SOME conservative beliefs and values, I would not support it at all.I would quickly become disillusioned with the party because of it's liberal and social-democratic platform. A platform for which I am 100% against.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-05-27 03:58pm

i'm sure that we'd be financially conservative at least. i doubt very many people on here like spending tons of money on useless programs or equipment.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-27 03:59pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:Unless this party would profess SOME conservative beliefs and values, I would not support it at all.I would quickly become disillusioned with the party because of it's liberal and social-democratic platform. A platform for which I am 100% against.

There are enough economic conservatives to form a party here. A social conservative party would be a fringe party, though.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-27 03:59pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:Unless this party would profess SOME conservative beliefs and values, I would not support it at all.I would quickly become disillusioned with the party because of it's liberal and social-democratic platform. A platform for which I am 100% against.

Fiscal conservative values or social conservative values? I wouldn't expect too much in the social conservative corner.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-05-27 04:09pm

SirNitram wrote:
EmperorSolo51 wrote:Unless this party would profess SOME conservative beliefs and values, I would not support it at all.I would quickly become disillusioned with the party because of it's liberal and social-democratic platform. A platform for which I am 100% against.
Fiscal conservative values or social conservative values? I wouldn't expect too much in the social conservative corner.

I would hope that fiscal conservatism would be endorsed by this "party". As for Social Conservatism, I wouldn't expect much, but I would like to see the standard family values, do community service, and become good productive citizens line that modern SoCons campaign about.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-27 04:12pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
EmperorSolo51 wrote:Unless this party would profess SOME conservative beliefs and values, I would not support it at all.I would quickly become disillusioned with the party because of it's liberal and social-democratic platform. A platform for which I am 100% against.
Fiscal conservative values or social conservative values? I wouldn't expect too much in the social conservative corner.
I would hope that fiscal conservatism would be endorsed by this "party". As for Social Conservatism, I wouldn't expect much, but I would like to see the standard family values, do community service, and become good productive citizens line that modern SoCons campaign about.

Family values.. If there was a more nebulous term used in politics, it would have to be 'community'. I'd have to know what you mean by that to even take a stab at whether there'd be much support. But I've seen this term abused enough to want to know what someone means by it.

Community service was met generally well here, as long as it's unenforced, in regards to some plan Kerry has about creating a community service requirement.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-05-27 04:18pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
EmperorSolo51 wrote:Unless this party would profess SOME conservative beliefs and values, I would not support it at all.I would quickly become disillusioned with the party because of it's liberal and social-democratic platform. A platform for which I am 100% against.
Fiscal conservative values or social conservative values? I wouldn't expect too much in the social conservative corner.
I would hope that fiscal conservatism would be endorsed by this "party". As for Social Conservatism, I wouldn't expect much, but I would like to see the standard family values, do community service, and become good productive citizens line that modern SoCons campaign about.

define "family values."

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-05-27 04:32pm

I would support a compromise definition of family values that supports and preaches the old idea of close-nit families. With the rise of the internet, pop culture, and the media, the family unit has been drifting apart for a long time now. Kids are now doing drugs, drinking, committing violent crimes, and becoming more and more disrespectful to thier elders and having more and more unproteched sex. Conversely, Parents are not teaching or talking to thier kids about these kinds of things. The lack of communication in the home is what is leading our youth down a trouble road. What I would support is the idea that we need to re-establish communication in the home and possibly reign in the negative influence so we can have a better future for our children and thiers.

On the Community service thing, I would not make it forced on the General populace. What I would do is increase tax credits for those who donate to non-profit organizations like the Red Cross or the Boys and Girls clubs of America, as well as Shelters for the homeless. I would also increase tax credits for those who volunteer for these types of non-profit services. These increases in tax relief for doing good deeds such as these would be an incentive for the General populace to do more.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-05-27 04:38pm

Kids are now doing drugs, drinking, committing violent crimes, and becoming more and more disrespectful to thier elders and having more and more unproteched sex.

*giggle* You think this has just started happening? Clearly the definition of 'kids' has changed over the years since a couple hundred years ago, those 'kids' were adults. I also see the term 'family values' changing over and over again and I don't see what a goverment could do (with out going tyranical) to solve the problems you see.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-27 04:43pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:I would support a compromise definition of family values that supports and preaches the old idea of close-nit families. With the rise of the internet, pop culture, and the media, the family unit has been drifting apart for a long time now. Kids are now doing drugs, drinking, committing violent crimes, and becoming more and more disrespectful to thier elders and having more and more unproteched sex. Conversely, Parents are not teaching or talking to thier kids about these kinds of things. The lack of communication in the home is what is leading our youth down a trouble road. What I would support is the idea that we need to re-establish communication in the home and possibly reign in the negative influence so we can have a better future for our children and thiers.

Fine to say, but the mechanics of it aren't point and click. Teenagers have always rebelled and been disrespectful of their elders... All the way back to Socrates, if not further. The return of sex is simply because society isn't being overshadowed by religious propaganda about it being evil and bad.

On the other fork of the tongue, I fully support iniatives to promote awareness of safe sex, condoms, the pill, the whole nine yards.

The government, however, simply can't solve many of these problems. It requires something very simple: Responsibility. Making governments work to do these things for parents will merely accelerate the problem, as it will let them not take responsibility.

On the Community service thing, I would not make it forced on the General populace. What I would do is increase tax credits for those who donate to non-profit organizations like the Red Cross or the Boys and Girls clubs of America, as well as Shelters for the homeless. I would also increase tax credits for those who volunteer for these types of non-profit services. These increases in tax relief for doing good deeds such as these would be an incentive for the General populace to do more.

I can agree to this sort of thing. Community service is good stuff, and any way to get people to add more is a good effort.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-05-27 06:22pm

Actually, unprotected sex among teenagers have dropped significantly in recent years.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

An SD.net Political Party?

Good/bad?

An SD.net Political Party?