the peoples revolutionary party The People's Revolutionary Party (P.R.P.) [HIRING!]

[uncannierlink 225]

11 hours ago, DLimit said:

How much privacy? Each and every human being possesses the Right to privacy as long as subjects do not infringe the criminal Laws of the state. In other terms, government agents are expected to attain probable cause or a warrant from a judge, in order to infringe one's Right to privacy. 

The majority cannot enact such Laws against the minority considering that it infringes their Right to Liberty. In fact, one cannot enact any policies that causes one group to be supposedly inferior or superior to another group, excluding certain government-based jobs that involves attaining certain privileges. For example, a Law enforcement officer shall possess the privilege to search and seize a criminal's items during an arrest.

Verbal abuse shall be measured within the judicial system depending on whether the verbal abuse is an act of harassment. An individual possesses the Right to state "F*ck you" as long as it is not a repetitive act that offends an individual or party. However, an individual that possesses a permit to protest within the street possesses every Right to express their ideals within their physical boundaries without being charged for harassment considering that the "victim" could easily depart from the location.

You are listing unconstitutional scenarios. The Constitution mentions that the representative could reject any proposition by the People as long as the proposition is unconstitutional.

You're constitution is not all encompassing. You're adding things as present hypothetical scenarios. Who stops the majority from violating the constitution? What if the minority believes the majority is violating their rights but the majority believes they aren't? Who decides? The majority.....

[DLimit 167]

3 hours ago, uncannierlink said:

You're constitution is not all encompassing. You're adding things as present hypothetical scenarios. Who stops the majority from violating the constitution? What if the minority believes the majority is violating their rights but the majority believes they aren't? Who decides? The majority.....

It is identical to stating "Who stops the majority from committing homicide?"... Law enforcement officers.

[uncannierlink 225]

11 hours ago, DLimit said:

It is identical to stating "Who stops the majority from committing homicide?"... Law enforcement officers.

 

 

No, it's not. The law enforcement officers are enforcing the laws created by the majority. The question has no answer, because in your system if the majority wills it, it will be.

Edited May 10, 2017 by uncannierlink

[DLimit 167]

8 hours ago, uncannierlink said:

No, it's not. The law enforcement officers are enforcing the laws created by the majority. The question has no answer, because in your system if the majority wills it, it will be.

The majority cannot enact a Law that is Unconstitutional. Thus, the representative of the party is capable of rejecting the proposal of the majority as long as it is unconstitutional.. Thus, Law enforcement officers would be obligated to incarcerate or execute individuals that intend to utilize violence as a means towards enforcing the unconstitutional Law based on the sole premise that the individuals would be committing acts of treason, high treason, and terrorism.

Edited May 10, 2017 by DLimit

[uncannierlink 225]

5 hours ago, DLimit said:

The majority cannot enact a Law that is Unconstitutional. Thus, the representative of the party is capable of rejecting the proposal of the majority as long as it is unconstitutional.. Thus, Law enforcement officers would be obligated to incarcerate or execute individuals that intend to utilize violence as a means towards enforcing the unconstitutional Law based on the sole premise that the individuals would be committing acts of treason, high treason, and terrorism.

 

Ah. So the party representative can veto anything he doesn't approve of. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

 

Is the party representative chosen by popular vote? Because it's kinda the same problem if he is. Also, there are other ways to violate people's rights than through violence. Look at Jim Crow America. Those people believed everything was perfectly in line.

[DLimit 167]

5 hours ago, uncannierlink said:

Ah. So the party representative can veto anything he doesn't approve of. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

 

Is the party representative chosen by popular vote? Because it's kinda the same problem if he is. Also, there are other ways to violate people's rights than through violence. Look at Jim Crow America. Those people believed everything was perfectly in line.

The party representative cannot veto any proposals that are CONSTITUTIONAL.

The People elect the representative by voting for The People's Revolutionary Party. However, The People's Revolutionary Party shall be expected to replace the  representative that commits an act of "Misrepresentation" with a different member that is capable of representing the interests of the people.

[uncannierlink 225]

1 hour ago, DLimit said:

The party representative cannot veto any proposals that are CONSTITUTIONAL.

The People elect the representative by voting for The People's Revolutionary Party. However, The People's Revolutionary Party shall be expected to replace the  representative that commits an act of "Misrepresentation" with a different member that is capable of representing the interests of the people.

 

 

 

So "The Party" controls the head of state? What are the requirements for being a member of the party?

 

Also, just because he isn't supposed to veto proposals that are constitutional, doesn't mean he can't. Unless that gets him thrown out of office, but then any vetoed proposal the party doesn't like will get him thrown out of office.

 

ALSO, you keep saying "constitutional" as if your constitution is perfectly objective. It's not. It can't be. Language is inherently subjective as the meaning of words changes not only over time but from person to person. My question to you is; who determines what is constitutional and what is not and how are they put into that position of power?

 

 

P.S. you don't have to reinvent the wheel here, America's had the longest standing democracy on the planet. There's been a peaceful transition of power for 250 years for a reason.

Edited May 11, 2017 by uncannierlink

[DLimit 167]

10 minutes ago, uncannierlink said:

So "The Party" controls the head of state? What are the requirements for being a member of the party?

 

Also, just because he isn't supposed to veto proposals that are constitutional, doesn't mean he can't. Unless that gets him thrown out of office, but then any vetoed proposal the party doesn't like will get him thrown out of office.

 

ALSO, you keep saying "constitutional" as if your constitution is perfectly objective. It's not. It can't be. Language is inherently subjective as the meaning of words changes not only over time but from person to person. My question to you is; who determines what is constitutional and what is not and how are they put into that position of power?

 

 

P.S. you don't have to reinvent the wheel here, America's had the longest standing democracy on the planet. There's been a peaceful transition of power for 250 years for a reason.

Not at all, the People determine the actions of the head of state as long as the acts are deemed to be Constitutional. The Constitutional guidelines shall be emphasized much more effectively during the campaign in order for individuals to understand the context of the Constitution. In the process, The Constitution shall be manifested by The People's Revolutionary Party based on ideals that are similar to Marxist-Leninism. 

Representatives are presented to the public as candidates during the election through democratic means.

[LuciousTimes 1,249]

Your view on marriage? Gay marriage?  Beastiality? ETC?

[Arcanion 52]

Will all citizens earn a equal amount for each job, or will you be payed more for the more intensive labor (Mentally&physically). For example a truck driver compared to a construction worker. Or will you drop that aspect of communism and allow people to still earn more then the person next to him/her. And if so how high will taxation be?

[Coffee 5]

You have my full support friend!

Hope it goes well for you 

[DLimit 167]

On 5/11/2017 at 9:46 PM, LuciousTimes said:

Your view on marriage? Gay marriage?  Beastiality? ETC?

Marriage shall remain identical to the current system, excluding the establishment of the idea of "ownership". Thus, the items that are shared between both individuals or partners within a "legal bond" does not consist of "private property" considering that "private property" shall be replaced with "personal items". It merely involves the elimination of the capitalist idea of "ownership".

Homosexuality, alongside forming homosexual relationships and legal bonds, shall be a legal and acceptable act that is supported by The People's Revolutionary Party considering that it is one's Right to Life and Liberty.

It shall be illegal for human beings to engage in sexual relations or a legal bond with an animal considering that the animal is incapable of voluntarily consenting to such agreements via a verbal or written contract. 

It shall be illegal for adults to engage in sexual relations or a legal bond with children considering that a child's mind is not well-developed to form to voluntary decision to engage in either sexual relations or a legal bond with an adult through a verbal or written contract. However, it shall be legal for a sixteen year-old to consent to sexual relations with another individual that is in-between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. 

[DLimit 167]

7 hours ago, Arcanion said:

Will all citizens earn a equal amount for each job, or will you be payed more for the more intensive labor (Mentally&physically). For example a truck driver compared to a construction worker. Or will you drop that aspect of communism and allow people to still earn more then the person next to him/her. And if so how high will taxation be?

In reality, it often depends on the circumstances.

The objective of the party involves ensuring that the citizens fulfill roles that they desire for non-materialistic purposes. Thus, an individual should function as a doctor for the sole purpose of functioning as a doctor rather than functioning as a doctor in order to accumulate an extensive amount of wealth. Thus, the party would expect individuals to be paid the identical wage in order to ensure that one's labour is "internalized" rather than "externalized".

http://aluceromontano.tripod.com/id11.html

However, as long as each and every human being is capable of attaining Universal food, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, and education, wages could be divided according to one's internalized labour. Thus, a doctor may earn more than a garbage man/woman as long as each and every human being attains Universal food, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, and education.

During periods of overproduction, taxation shall be decreased to a simple "income-tax" that involves increasing taxation to individuals with a higher income and decreasing taxation to individuals with a lower-income based on a "five-quintile" class structure.

1. Upper Class
2. Upper-Middle Class
3. Middle Class
4. Lower-Middle Class
5. Lower Class

Overproduction results in enacting an "INCOME-TAX" considering that each and every human being shall attain an EXCESS of Universal food, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, and education. For example, the production of 100,000 cans/bags of coffee shall provide each citizen with 100 cans/bags of coffee, indicating that a commodity is in EXCESS to the public.

However, during a time period of underproduction and underconsumption, the "Income-Tax" shall be abolished in exchange for a "100% Universal Tax" in order for the party to distribute resources a bit more effectively, according to the NEEDS of the people. 

[DLimit 167]

17 hours ago, Coffee said:

You have my full support friend!

Hope it goes well for you 

Thank you very much for supporting The People's Revolutionary Party. Does one possess any questions regarding the objectives of the organization?

[Coffee 5]

9 hours ago, DLimit said:

Thank you very much for supporting The People's Revolutionary Party. Does one possess any questions regarding the objectives of the organization?

Currently not, but I will ask you if there's anything I am curious about

[njayminsim1115 470]

@DLimit Can you even provide shelter for every single citizen? Also communism and democracy is not the same thing. You can't be both? I really do think this has potential but I'm not sure you could keep some of your promises

[DLimit 167]

2 hours ago, njayminsim1115 said:

@DLimit Can you even provide shelter for every single citizen? Also communism and democracy is not the same thing. You can't be both? I really do think this has potential but I'm not sure you could keep some of your promises

Communism and Democracy are 100% synonymous with one another considering that Communist serves the interests of the whole while a democracy serves the interests of a majority under Constitutional guidelines. In reality, Democracies are antonymous to capitalism based on the sole premise that a capitalistic system serves the interest of an INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVATE INTERESTS while a democracy serves the interests of a MAJORITY'S NATIONAL INTEREST. Usually, the INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVATE INTEREST involves wealthy bourgeois multi-millionaires and billionaires countering against the political proposals of working-class citizens considering that the MAJORITY of citizens within any given nation is within the lower three quintiles of the financial class-based system. Thus, politicians within advanced capitalist Neo-Liberal democracies often serve the interests of the top two dominant quintiles despite possessing a majority population of the top three lowest quintiles. In other terms, the Neo-Liberal advanced capitalist bourgeois-state serves the interests of the wealthy via capitalism while neglecting the democratic decisions of the public considering that elected officials do not fulfill their promises in public in order to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie/wealthy land owners. In conclusion, capitalism is NOT synonymous with democratic ideals while COMMUNISM is 100% synonymous with Direct-Democratic ideals.

[njayminsim1115 470]

4 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Communism and Democracy are 100% synonymous with one another considering that Communist serves the interests of the whole while a democracy serves the interests of a majority under Constitutional guidelines. In reality, Democracies are antonymous to capitalism based on the sole premise that a capitalistic system serves the interest of an INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVATE INTERESTS while a democracy serves the interests of a MAJORITY'S NATIONAL INTEREST. Usually, the INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVATE INTEREST involves wealthy bourgeois multi-millionaires and billionaires countering against the political proposals of working-class citizens considering that the MAJORITY of citizens within any given nation is within the lower three quintiles of the financial class-based system. Thus, politicians within advanced capitalist Neo-Liberal democracies often serve the interests of the top two dominant quintiles despite possessing a majority population of the top three lowest quintiles. In other terms, the Neo-Liberal advanced capitalist bourgeois-state serves the interests of the wealthy via capitalism while neglecting the democratic decisions of the public considering that elected officials do not fulfill their promises in public in order to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie/wealthy land owners. In conclusion, capitalism is NOT synonymous with democratic ideals while COMMUNISM is 100% synonymous with Direct-Democratic ideals.

Will you be able to supply each 300-1000 citizens with housing tho?

[DLimit 167]

4 minutes ago, njayminsim1115 said:

Will you be able to supply each 300-1000 citizens with housing tho?

The taxation system shall ensure that each and every human being shall be capable of affording a two bedroom apartment.

[njayminsim1115 470]

4 minutes ago, DLimit said:

The taxation system shall ensure that each and every human being shall be capable of affording a two bedroom apartment.

Then taxes will be very high?

[DLimit 167]

7 minutes ago, njayminsim1115 said:

Then taxes will be very high?

The FAQ informs the public regarding the difference between an "Income Taxation" period and a "Universal/Revolutionary Taxation" period.


Income tax: Income tax is enacted during stages of overproduction and over-consumption.

Income tax is divided into five quintiles:

1. Upper Class (Highest tax)
2. Upper-Middle Class (Second highest tax)
3. Middle Class (Median tax)
4. Lower-Middle Class (Minuscule tax)
5. Lower class (Minimal tax)

Universal/Revolutionary Tax: 100% taxation on each and every citizen in order to produce a sufficient and sustainable planned economy during a stage of Classism (major gap between the classes).

[DLimit 167]

Does any other citizen possess any questions regarding The People's Revolutionary Party?

[FatherOfTimes 27]

Are you going to be on an American or U.K. Server?

[DLimit 167]

On 5/18/2017 at 2:36 PM, FatherOfTimes said:

Are you going to be on an American or U.K. Server?

I shall be located within the "EST" or "Eastern" time-zone as a residence within Toronto, Canada (identical to New York).

[cole97 5]

yessss i heard people could run for office and i was really hoping some leftists would try it <3 

i'm like super new here and idk how any of this works, but does this mean you would only exist on the EST server? in which case, shouldn't we be like forming coalitions of commies running for office on each server?