The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Modern Whig Party

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal.

This statement doesn't sit well with me for I hope obvious reasons:

Quote:

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal.

Also I am tired of States' Rights. I just have a funny feeling that as soon as more responsibility and legislative duties are pushed to States the new battle cry will be County rights! Followed by City rights! Followed by neighborhood rights! Followed by get off my lawn!

That said, their other platforms sound emminently reasonable and closer to my slant than either party atm. However, they need to find the spell/grammar check button and /friend it.

Revived by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the grassroots movement has quickly new members

This statement doesn't sit well with me for I hope obvious reasons:

Quote:

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal.

It seems clear to me that more freedom can be had w/ smaller sections of people than a huge nation of people that have different tastes in what they want. That's why I advocate states right, Hopwin's fears for yard-rights is a little silly.

People are so disinterested in poitics of the nation, except when it comes time to demand compensations for something, perhaps things that affect them locally can get them more mobilized into taking a part in their government.

Oddly enough, voter turnout for local elections is almost nil in years where there are no federal elections.

The federal government has no say in my level of property tax, the condition of my roads, my rubbish removal, my sewage and water lines, my electricity, the condition of our schools, the pay of our teachers, the distribution of business licences or zoning rights, the fire taxes attached to my cars.

Federal policy impacts everything, but certainly doesn't do the finish-work on spending or policy.

Author:	Ulfynn [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:45 am ]
Post subject:	Modern Whig Party
I'm curious what folks thoughts are on the Modern Whig Party. I stumbled on this website while doing some other reading. They have an interesting platform. They seem to offer a drive for fiscal responsibilty with social liberty along with a desire to promote states rights.

Author:	Talya [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:48 am ]
Post subject:
It's not perfect, but it's better than your current choices.

Author:	Ulfynn [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:18 am ]
Post subject:
Exactly my thinking. One of the biggest challenges they would face is that in order to enact any of (what I consider to be) the better parts of their platforms, would require dramatic systemic changes to our goverment's current M.O.

Author:	Hopwin [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:
This statement doesn't sit well with me for I hope obvious reasons: Quote: SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal. Also I am tired of States' Rights. I just have a funny feeling that as soon as more responsibility and legislative duties are pushed to States the new battle cry will be County rights! Followed by City rights! Followed by neighborhood rights! Followed by get off my lawn! That said, their other platforms sound emminently reasonable and closer to my slant than either party atm. However, they need to find the spell/grammar check button and /friend it.

Author:	Adrak [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Hopwin wrote: This statement doesn't sit well with me for I hope obvious reasons: Quote: SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal. Also I am tired of States' Rights. I just have a funny feeling that as soon as more responsibility and legislative duties are pushed to States the new battle cry will be County rights! Followed by City rights! Followed by neighborhood rights! Followed by get off my lawn! That said, their other platforms sound emminently reasonable and closer to my slant than either party atm. However, they need to find the spell/grammar check button and /friend it. Well said All your membership now belongs us! Quote: Revived by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the grassroots movement has quickly new members

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Modern Whig Party https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1695	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Beryllin [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Modern Whig Party
I suspect I couldn't really get on board. I'd have to see greater detail than that site offers. Too many generalities for me.

Author:	Rynar [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Hopwin wrote: This statement doesn't sit well with me for I hope obvious reasons: Quote: SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal. Also I am tired of States' Rights. I just have a funny feeling that as soon as more responsibility and legislative duties are pushed to States the new battle cry will be County rights! Followed by City rights! Followed by neighborhood rights! Followed by get off my lawn! That said, their other platforms sound emminently reasonable and closer to my slant than either party atm. However, they need to find the spell/grammar check button and /friend it. That clause leads to a quick devolution to exactly where we are now, and then farther down the same road. The base problem is, "How does the government become compelled? Who does the compelling, and what is the process?"

Author:	Ulfynn [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:
"When the government is compelled to legislate morality..." I missed (or perhaps mis-read; I don't remember it anyhow) this on my first pass through. That could spell trouble, but is actually too vague to tell. You could argue that passing a law prohibiting murder is legislating morality. I realize this is probably not the lines you were thinking along, but we'd have to see more about the lines MWP were thinking along.

Author:	Wwen [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:
It seems clear to me that more freedom can be had w/ smaller sections of people than a huge nation of people that have different tastes in what they want. That's why I advocate states right, Hopwin's fears for yard-rights is a little silly. People are so disinterested in poitics of the nation, except when it comes time to demand compensations for something, perhaps things that affect them locally can get them more mobilized into taking a part in their government.

Author:	Rynar [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Wwen wrote: It seems clear to me that more freedom can be had w/ smaller sections of people than a huge nation of people that have different tastes in what they want. That's why I advocate states right, Hopwin's fears for yard-rights is a little silly. People are so disinterested in poitics of the nation, except when it comes time to demand compensations for something, perhaps things that affect them locally can get them more mobilized into taking a part in their government. Oddly enough, voter turnout for local elections is almost nil in years where there are no federal elections.

Author:	Wwen [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:
Honestly, I think that people all have the ability to be smart on their own, but when you join a giant group of political party A, B, or Z everyone gets real stupid. I dunno, I have little hope that any real progress will be made until after everything finally falls apart.

Author:	Rynar [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:
100% agreed.

Author:	Stathol [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Rynar wrote: Oddly enough, voter turnout for local elections is almost nil in years where there are no federal elections. Yes, but isn't that exactly what you would expect in a system where the federal government is basically running the show, and the state and local governments are relatively powerless? Whether this perception is accurate or not, people only bother voting in the federal elections because they believe that these are the only governmental positions that actually matter anymore.

Author:	Rynar [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:17 pm ]
Post subject:
The federal government has no say in my level of property tax, the condition of my roads, my rubbish removal, my sewage and water lines, my electricity, the condition of our schools, the pay of our teachers, the distribution of business licences or zoning rights, the fire taxes attached to my cars. Federal policy impacts everything, but certainly doesn't do the finish-work on spending or policy.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Hopwin [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Wwen wrote: It seems clear to me that more freedom can be had w/ smaller sections of people than a huge nation of people that have different tastes in what they want. That's why I advocate states right, Hopwin's fears for yard-rights is a little silly. Obviously the yards-right was tongue in cheek but my point remains valid. If more freedom (or similar tastes as you indicated) can be had with smaller population segments then it is logical to state that if you keep sub-dividing the nation you get to a section that is homogenous to your beliefs, values, tastes, etc. If this line of reasoning is followed to its natural conclusion then you end up going from National->Regional->State->County->Municipality->Neighborhood->Family

Author:	Hopwin [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: The federal government has no say in my level of property tax, the condition of my roads, my rubbish removal, my sewage and water lines, my electricity, the condition of our schools, the pay of our teachers, the distribution of business licences or zoning rights, the fire taxes attached to my cars. Federal policy impacts everything, but certainly doesn't do the finish-work on spending or policy. Agreed, this is why I've been arguing for a decade that the Presidency really doesn't have that much impact on my life. I think part of the reason people don't follow local politics is that they don't have as much information on the issues and stances. John Stewart isn't on TV every night talking about how school levy 6 isn't really a tax increase but a continuation of a prior increase that goes to pay for buses or whatnot. People aren't informed/educated/motivated enough to make these decisions themselves. This is a big contributing factor to explain why we have a two-party system in the first place imho. You can pick an issue and vote party-line because of it.