<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Third Party?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/</link>
	<description>Place. Limits. Liberty.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:57:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tea Party? &#124; Front Porch Republic</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-26808</link>
		<dc:creator>Tea Party? &#124; Front Porch Republic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-26808</guid>
		<description>[...] wonder. Does the Tea Party have enough energy and coherence to give birth to a viable third party? Could such a party benefit the American system? Obviously leadership is key and if the Tea Party [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] wonder. Does the Tea Party have enough energy and coherence to give birth to a viable third party? Could such a party benefit the American system? Obviously leadership is key and if the Tea Party [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22199</link>
		<dc:creator>rex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22199</guid>
		<description>Trobius, there are reams of thought by far more cable minds than myself on the subject of corporate personhood. For me it is the elephant in the room. I won&#039;t suggest a starting point for fear of directing an outcome, other than to say that nothing I have suggested was not a state law at one time in the past.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trobius, there are reams of thought by far more cable minds than myself on the subject of corporate personhood. For me it is the elephant in the room. I won&#8217;t suggest a starting point for fear of directing an outcome, other than to say that nothing I have suggested was not a state law at one time in the past.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22181</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22181</guid>
		<description>Phillip Blond&#039;s &quot;communitization&quot; ideas start to change mainstream politics in the UK:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/11/labour-manifesto-public-services-sector

http://www.respublica.org.uk/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Phillip Blond&#8217;s &#8220;communitization&#8221; ideas start to change mainstream politics in the UK:-</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/11/labour-manifesto-public-services-sector" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/11/labour-manifesto-public-services-sector</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.respublica.org.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.respublica.org.uk/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Siarlys Jenkins</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22076</link>
		<dc:creator>Siarlys Jenkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22076</guid>
		<description>I can support most of that. I am most firmly in support of 

3. Environmental stewardship
4. Too big to fail? Break it up.
5. Regulatory reform. In particular, end the legal fiction that a corporation is a &quot;person&quot; entitled to &quot;rights.&quot; (Glad to see someone already raised that. No, it is not too radical, although millions of dollars of lobbyist money and TV ads will be unleashed to cast it in that light.) A corporation is a fictional creation of government, and like government, needs to be tightly controlled, to protect the freedom of citizens, live human beings, who are sovereign.
9. Energy Independence -- the emphasis is on developing alternative energy sources that are clean, safe and renewable. (I would not support &quot;drill baby drill,&quot; although there is a place for some continued oil exploration. We need to focus on using petroleum resources for chemical and manufacturing purposes, instead of burning most of it.)
10. Foreign Policy. He doesn&#039;t say anything about whether we should be in Afghanistan for fear al Qaeda will get hold of Pakistan&#039;s nuclear arsenal. That&#039;s a tough one. But in general he&#039;s got national priorities and limits about right.

In general language, I could support points 1 and 2, but many people will read these words to mean many different things.

Fiscal Responsibility: There are times when government needs to engage in deliberate deficit spending. I believe it was David Brooks who wrote that after eight years of profligate deficit spending, Republicans in congress demanded a balanced budget at the one moment when deficit spending was essential. But we should be paying down the debt, saving for a rainy day, and cutting taxes (all three, if we are going to be prudent) when times are good, doubling the debt in good times and running it up even more in recession. Bailout of private firms, IF they are indeed &quot;too big to fail&quot; without taking millions of innocent people down with them, should become wards of the state and, per #4, sold off in smaller pieces to return them to private enterprise.

Federalism: This will be the stumbling block to any broad coalition. Let&#039;s be honest, every American has their own view of what the government should control, prohibit or regulate (in our neighbors&#039; choices) and what it should leave along (in our own). Federalism has been a cover for repeal of civil rights laws, allowing one state to pollute waters that flow into another, allowing one state to deny trial by jury in its state courts, etc. This needs more detail, but I could make a list a mile long of examples why I agree. The hesitation: states can be just as capable of tyranny as the federal government.

6. Tax Reform. A national sales tax has some good points, but I&#039;m not opposed on principle to an income tax, and I want either one to be progressive. The money needed to provide basic food, clothing and shelter, medical care, perhaps even a family car, should be taxed at a lower rate, if at all, than the higher level incomes paying for things that are much more discretionary. Survival first. 
A simplified income tax might abolish all deductions and credits, EXCEPT the first $20,000 of income, $50,000 for families with children, no matter how many children, and THEN have about 3 tiers, ending with 50% over $1 million. A simple national sales tax should, as many states do, exclude food, medicines, probably clothing.

7. Immigration. Sounds good as worded, but many people will twist those words to mean what they want it to mean. And, I don&#039;t think we want to build prisons to hold literally millions of undocumented immigrants -- which means we will have to deport them and try to keep them from coming back.

8. Health care. I want lots of choices, including a public options financed by premiums. That is a cost effective way to hold private companies&#039; feet to the fire, rather than clumsy price regulation. Whatever subsidies government provides for those who can&#039;t afford coverage should be equally available no matter which public or private option an individual chooses. What most Americans have a real problem with, which will be an obstacle to this program, is that SOMEONE has to pay for every bit of health care delivered. We have to be honest about that. It may be me, for myself, from my own money, it may be insurance companies, from my premiums and those of others (shared risk), it make be government (me and all my fellow taxpayers), it may be medical care providers (forced to accept payment below cost of delivery), but it will all be paid for in the end. Let&#039;s be honest about who should pay what.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can support most of that. I am most firmly in support of </p>
<p>3. Environmental stewardship<br />
4. Too big to fail? Break it up.<br />
5. Regulatory reform. In particular, end the legal fiction that a corporation is a &#8220;person&#8221; entitled to &#8220;rights.&#8221; (Glad to see someone already raised that. No, it is not too radical, although millions of dollars of lobbyist money and TV ads will be unleashed to cast it in that light.) A corporation is a fictional creation of government, and like government, needs to be tightly controlled, to protect the freedom of citizens, live human beings, who are sovereign.<br />
9. Energy Independence &#8212; the emphasis is on developing alternative energy sources that are clean, safe and renewable. (I would not support &#8220;drill baby drill,&#8221; although there is a place for some continued oil exploration. We need to focus on using petroleum resources for chemical and manufacturing purposes, instead of burning most of it.)<br />
10. Foreign Policy. He doesn&#8217;t say anything about whether we should be in Afghanistan for fear al Qaeda will get hold of Pakistan&#8217;s nuclear arsenal. That&#8217;s a tough one. But in general he&#8217;s got national priorities and limits about right.</p>
<p>In general language, I could support points 1 and 2, but many people will read these words to mean many different things.</p>
<p>Fiscal Responsibility: There are times when government needs to engage in deliberate deficit spending. I believe it was David Brooks who wrote that after eight years of profligate deficit spending, Republicans in congress demanded a balanced budget at the one moment when deficit spending was essential. But we should be paying down the debt, saving for a rainy day, and cutting taxes (all three, if we are going to be prudent) when times are good, doubling the debt in good times and running it up even more in recession. Bailout of private firms, IF they are indeed &#8220;too big to fail&#8221; without taking millions of innocent people down with them, should become wards of the state and, per #4, sold off in smaller pieces to return them to private enterprise.</p>
<p>Federalism: This will be the stumbling block to any broad coalition. Let&#8217;s be honest, every American has their own view of what the government should control, prohibit or regulate (in our neighbors&#8217; choices) and what it should leave along (in our own). Federalism has been a cover for repeal of civil rights laws, allowing one state to pollute waters that flow into another, allowing one state to deny trial by jury in its state courts, etc. This needs more detail, but I could make a list a mile long of examples why I agree. The hesitation: states can be just as capable of tyranny as the federal government.</p>
<p>6. Tax Reform. A national sales tax has some good points, but I&#8217;m not opposed on principle to an income tax, and I want either one to be progressive. The money needed to provide basic food, clothing and shelter, medical care, perhaps even a family car, should be taxed at a lower rate, if at all, than the higher level incomes paying for things that are much more discretionary. Survival first.<br />
A simplified income tax might abolish all deductions and credits, EXCEPT the first $20,000 of income, $50,000 for families with children, no matter how many children, and THEN have about 3 tiers, ending with 50% over $1 million. A simple national sales tax should, as many states do, exclude food, medicines, probably clothing.</p>
<p>7. Immigration. Sounds good as worded, but many people will twist those words to mean what they want it to mean. And, I don&#8217;t think we want to build prisons to hold literally millions of undocumented immigrants &#8212; which means we will have to deport them and try to keep them from coming back.</p>
<p>8. Health care. I want lots of choices, including a public options financed by premiums. That is a cost effective way to hold private companies&#8217; feet to the fire, rather than clumsy price regulation. Whatever subsidies government provides for those who can&#8217;t afford coverage should be equally available no matter which public or private option an individual chooses. What most Americans have a real problem with, which will be an obstacle to this program, is that SOMEONE has to pay for every bit of health care delivered. We have to be honest about that. It may be me, for myself, from my own money, it may be insurance companies, from my premiums and those of others (shared risk), it make be government (me and all my fellow taxpayers), it may be medical care providers (forced to accept payment below cost of delivery), but it will all be paid for in the end. Let&#8217;s be honest about who should pay what.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trobius</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22074</link>
		<dc:creator>Trobius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22074</guid>
		<description>Rex- your idea against &quot;corperate personhood&quot; intriges me.  Please don&#039;t feel rejected.  It may just be that the idea is being mulled over in the minds of many.  I hope it grows legs.  I have never heard that proposed before and I am not having any serious conflicts with it after five minutes of thought.  Hopefully those with more advanced thought on the matter will weigh in soon.  Again, I would love to see it become an idea that is debated broadly and perhaps adopted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rex- your idea against &#8220;corperate personhood&#8221; intriges me.  Please don&#8217;t feel rejected.  It may just be that the idea is being mulled over in the minds of many.  I hope it grows legs.  I have never heard that proposed before and I am not having any serious conflicts with it after five minutes of thought.  Hopefully those with more advanced thought on the matter will weigh in soon.  Again, I would love to see it become an idea that is debated broadly and perhaps adopted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ben</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22071</link>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22071</guid>
		<description>Why doesn&#039;t this proposed platform address the right to life?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why doesn&#8217;t this proposed platform address the right to life?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22056</link>
		<dc:creator>rex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22056</guid>
		<description>Mark, the easy one first: I bought into Illich pretty heavily in the late 70&#039;s and early 80&#039;s. It is a shame he could not transition to plain speech. I reformed with the realization that as long as someone can bonk you on the head head take everything from you anarchy is doomed. (A concussion from the WTO demonstrations in Seattle may have helped that thought a long a bit.) Illich was brilliant - taking is less so, but arguing has a cost in brutal society. 

The confirmed agnostic bit is an affectation. Personally, I love the British term &quot;confirmed bachelor&quot; - it is unassuming, free of gossip, and avoids the vulgar in an eloquent manner. I am hesitant to express myself here, but for many years I considered the question of the existence of a higher being not worthy of a capable  mind. So much has been written by less than capable minds, what could I add? Suffice to say that I have always avoided the dogmatic. An open agnostic seems a far more defensible position than a seeker. A seeker, &#039;though a romantic image, is lost. An open mind is merely open. Looking often defeats its purpose through effort of looking. 

Mark I look forward to you future thoughts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, the easy one first: I bought into Illich pretty heavily in the late 70&#8242;s and early 80&#8242;s. It is a shame he could not transition to plain speech. I reformed with the realization that as long as someone can bonk you on the head head take everything from you anarchy is doomed. (A concussion from the WTO demonstrations in Seattle may have helped that thought a long a bit.) Illich was brilliant &#8211; taking is less so, but arguing has a cost in brutal society. </p>
<p>The confirmed agnostic bit is an affectation. Personally, I love the British term &#8220;confirmed bachelor&#8221; &#8211; it is unassuming, free of gossip, and avoids the vulgar in an eloquent manner. I am hesitant to express myself here, but for many years I considered the question of the existence of a higher being not worthy of a capable  mind. So much has been written by less than capable minds, what could I add? Suffice to say that I have always avoided the dogmatic. An open agnostic seems a far more defensible position than a seeker. A seeker, &#8216;though a romantic image, is lost. An open mind is merely open. Looking often defeats its purpose through effort of looking. </p>
<p>Mark I look forward to you future thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion, and the Limits of Localism &#124; Front Porch Republic</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22009</link>
		<dc:creator>Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion, and the Limits of Localism &#124; Front Porch Republic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:33:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22009</guid>
		<description>[...] WV. Last week I published a piece suggesting ten positions that might serve to constitute a platform for those who are disillusioned [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] WV. Last week I published a piece suggesting ten positions that might serve to constitute a platform for those who are disillusioned [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark T. Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22005</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark T. Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22005</guid>
		<description>Rex,
Two questions about your self-description if I may.
1) what&#039;s a &quot;confirmed agnostic&quot;? Sort of sounds like &quot;dogmatic agnostic&quot; and since agnostic means &quot;to not know&quot; it seems an agnostic (at least one who believes in the possibility of knowledge) should be an &quot;open agnostic&quot; or a &quot;seeker&quot; or something along those lines.

2) what&#039;s a reformed anarchist? 

Not to pry. I&#039;m just curious. And I&#039;m glad you&#039;re hanging around FPR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rex,<br />
Two questions about your self-description if I may.<br />
1) what&#8217;s a &#8220;confirmed agnostic&#8221;? Sort of sounds like &#8220;dogmatic agnostic&#8221; and since agnostic means &#8220;to not know&#8221; it seems an agnostic (at least one who believes in the possibility of knowledge) should be an &#8220;open agnostic&#8221; or a &#8220;seeker&#8221; or something along those lines.</p>
<p>2) what&#8217;s a reformed anarchist? </p>
<p>Not to pry. I&#8217;m just curious. And I&#8217;m glad you&#8217;re hanging around FPR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-22001</link>
		<dc:creator>rex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:28:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-22001</guid>
		<description>Mark, it looks as though there is no interest in discussing this. That is a shame, I am an awkward fit here on here on the FPR, and I may not remain long. As a confirmed agnostic, and a reformed anarchist, I find myself agreeing with many of the pragmatic views expressed here, but embarrassed by the codgery of many of the posts and comments as expressed. Que sera. Your proposal, although not framed as such, has merit. See you across the bonfire.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, it looks as though there is no interest in discussing this. That is a shame, I am an awkward fit here on here on the FPR, and I may not remain long. As a confirmed agnostic, and a reformed anarchist, I find myself agreeing with many of the pragmatic views expressed here, but embarrassed by the codgery of many of the posts and comments as expressed. Que sera. Your proposal, although not framed as such, has merit. See you across the bonfire.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Agenda: Political or Economic? &#124; Front Porch Republic</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-21840</link>
		<dc:creator>The Agenda: Political or Economic? &#124; Front Porch Republic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:39:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-21840</guid>
		<description>[...] TX. The Front Porch Republic has been graced by two contributions from Mark Mitchell and Caleb Stegall on the political agenda for front-porchers. And while one may quibble with this [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] TX. The Front Porch Republic has been graced by two contributions from Mark Mitchell and Caleb Stegall on the political agenda for front-porchers. And while one may quibble with this [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Cheeks</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-21820</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Cheeks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:22:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-21820</guid>
		<description>How about FPR Conservative-Democrats? But no socialized medicine, and we&#039;ll give Arben and his fellow travelers the lead on writing up a gummint re-distribution program to be hammered out in committee and on the floor of the House, which, by the way, is chosen by lottery...truly democratic!
DW and Katherine get their federalism, states&#039; Rights, nullification plank, while incorporating and jawboning Caleb&#039;s thoughtful proposals as well, all in the appropriate committees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about FPR Conservative-Democrats? But no socialized medicine, and we&#8217;ll give Arben and his fellow travelers the lead on writing up a gummint re-distribution program to be hammered out in committee and on the floor of the House, which, by the way, is chosen by lottery&#8230;truly democratic!<br />
DW and Katherine get their federalism, states&#8217; Rights, nullification plank, while incorporating and jawboning Caleb&#8217;s thoughtful proposals as well, all in the appropriate committees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Some articles for your consideration &#124; Conservative Heritage Times</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-21814</link>
		<dc:creator>Some articles for your consideration &#124; Conservative Heritage Times</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-21814</guid>
		<description>[...] Porch Republic.com has gems to look over: &#8220;Third Party?&#8221;, &#8220;Long Live the Luddites!&#8221;, and Populist [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Porch Republic.com has gems to look over: &#8220;Third Party?&#8221;, &#8220;Long Live the Luddites!&#8221;, and Populist [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark T. Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-21796</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark T. Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-21796</guid>
		<description>Rex,
This question of corporate personhood is important, and the implications, as you intimate, are far-reaching. What would it take to get this issue on the radar? My sense is that as a plank in a political platform it might just be too radical. Perhaps too distracting. I may be wrong on this. I would like to hear what others think of this suggestion. Such an amendment would certainly change the nature of the game.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rex,<br />
This question of corporate personhood is important, and the implications, as you intimate, are far-reaching. What would it take to get this issue on the radar? My sense is that as a plank in a political platform it might just be too radical. Perhaps too distracting. I may be wrong on this. I would like to hear what others think of this suggestion. Such an amendment would certainly change the nature of the game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-21784</link>
		<dc:creator>rex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-21784</guid>
		<description>Mark, I would sign onto that party&#039;s platform in a minute. The only thing that I would change is to strengthen number four:

#4 Pursue a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood. Corporations are to be chartered for a specific purpose and definite duration. Corporations are prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, from making political contributions, or engaging in lobbying activity. Free speech does not apply to corporations. Corporations that violate laws may face the dissolution of the charter. Owners and managers may be prosecuted for criminal activity conducted by the corporation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, I would sign onto that party&#8217;s platform in a minute. The only thing that I would change is to strengthen number four:</p>
<p>#4 Pursue a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood. Corporations are to be chartered for a specific purpose and definite duration. Corporations are prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, from making political contributions, or engaging in lobbying activity. Free speech does not apply to corporations. Corporations that violate laws may face the dissolution of the charter. Owners and managers may be prosecuted for criminal activity conducted by the corporation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/third-party/#comment-21730</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971#comment-21730</guid>
		<description>It would seem prudent that any platform constructed has to be done so against a clear understanding of how power is derived and wielded to shape our world. Outside of repressive violence two means should be recognized; votes cast through the democratic process and votes obtained from the deployment of capital. It is the latter form of power that is not recognized as an equal to, if not greater at times than, democratic power. Understanding these two sources of power would have resulted in a very different American Constitution than the one drawn up and if a third party, or reformed party, is going to be effective long term it has to frame policy, including re-framing the constitution, in the light of this knowledge.

I tend to agree with all ten positions but would make the following comments:-

[1.] Keynesian stimulus should remain in the tool kit for extreme situations (Marshall Aid after the Second World War, for example, was Keynesian). The Federal Reserve has to be democratized and co-ordination of financial regulation undertaken at Federal level.

[2.] The Swiss model of canton decision making methods and how these are harmonized with central government should be examined in greater detail and greater use made of internet voting for candidates and referenda.

[4.] Big is not necessarily always bad it depends who is benefiting and who is being exploited.

[6.] Technically in a digital age it is possible that the amount of sales tax an individual pays could be related to their expenditure over set periods and automatically sampled at set intervals. There is a big privacy issue here but at worst if a high sales tax is implemented a bar could be set below which those who opt to be means tested could pay no sales tax at all.

[8.] Competition in health care is a laudable idea but cartels can easily operate in this service sector especially amongst professionals who use their professional bodies to control the numbers entering their profession. For example, in the UK per capita treatment costs are approximately half that of the US. This is because health care is predominantly run by non-profit making government funded and regulated trusts. Responsiveness for non-emergency treatment is much worse than the US although the government has recently announced that after 18 weeks a patient can receive treatment privately. I suspect that the poor responsiveness for non-emergency treatment is due to inadequate health care professional staffing just as the cause of high cost is in the US. Drug companies too exploit their position and other methods of drug production need to be urgently investigated.

[10.] It really is time that the US took stock and stopped trying to export a dysfunctional form of democracy to developing countries. Joseph E. Stilglitz makes this point admirably in his book “Making Globalization Work.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would seem prudent that any platform constructed has to be done so against a clear understanding of how power is derived and wielded to shape our world. Outside of repressive violence two means should be recognized; votes cast through the democratic process and votes obtained from the deployment of capital. It is the latter form of power that is not recognized as an equal to, if not greater at times than, democratic power. Understanding these two sources of power would have resulted in a very different American Constitution than the one drawn up and if a third party, or reformed party, is going to be effective long term it has to frame policy, including re-framing the constitution, in the light of this knowledge.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with all ten positions but would make the following comments:-</p>
<p>[1.] Keynesian stimulus should remain in the tool kit for extreme situations (Marshall Aid after the Second World War, for example, was Keynesian). The Federal Reserve has to be democratized and co-ordination of financial regulation undertaken at Federal level.</p>
<p>[2.] The Swiss model of canton decision making methods and how these are harmonized with central government should be examined in greater detail and greater use made of internet voting for candidates and referenda.</p>
<p>[4.] Big is not necessarily always bad it depends who is benefiting and who is being exploited.</p>
<p>[6.] Technically in a digital age it is possible that the amount of sales tax an individual pays could be related to their expenditure over set periods and automatically sampled at set intervals. There is a big privacy issue here but at worst if a high sales tax is implemented a bar could be set below which those who opt to be means tested could pay no sales tax at all.</p>
<p>[8.] Competition in health care is a laudable idea but cartels can easily operate in this service sector especially amongst professionals who use their professional bodies to control the numbers entering their profession. For example, in the UK per capita treatment costs are approximately half that of the US. This is because health care is predominantly run by non-profit making government funded and regulated trusts. Responsiveness for non-emergency treatment is much worse than the US although the government has recently announced that after 18 weeks a patient can receive treatment privately. I suspect that the poor responsiveness for non-emergency treatment is due to inadequate health care professional staffing just as the cause of high cost is in the US. Drug companies too exploit their position and other methods of drug production need to be urgently investigated.</p>
<p>[10.] It really is time that the US took stock and stopped trying to export a dysfunctional form of democracy to developing countries. Joseph E. Stilglitz makes this point admirably in his book “Making Globalization Work.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

