Talk:Standards of Conduct

Looking at our of Principles, it is hard to see how it orders Libertarians to act differently than anyone else. It would appear that the only rule for individuals is item 3. "In order that these rights be respected, it is essential that no individual or group initiate the use of force or fraud against any other." Everything else is about the conduct and responsibilities of government(s). As Libertarians, we should never claim that government has any other responsibilities than those outlined in our SoP; national defense, police, and courts. Accepting subsidies or welfare (or a paycheque) from government does not involve initiation of force. Collecting the taxes does involve the initiation of force (or the threat). Given it is impossible to charge tax collectors with robbery or theft or extortion, then it is not possible to consider recipients of government largess as being in possession of stolen property. The fact that this would be the reverse in a Libertarian Society is somewhat academic and philosophical. In a Libertarian society, would we even need political parties? --Jim McIntosh 21:57, 5 February 2013 (EST)

The Party already has a way of dealing with these situations. It's the Ethics Committee. Any member can refer any other member or situation to the Ethics Committee if they feel that the person has acted contrary to the Statement of Principles or has otherwise harmed the Party. This policy is pointless, and feels to me more like an attempt to force everybody in to becoming perfect political robots. --MattBelanger (I can never remember how to add a timestamp. 8:00AM, Feb 6)

I agree with both Jim and Matt. This Standards of Conduct policy was prompted by an incident where one of our executive is the possible recipient of a largely government sponsored grant for his company. The grant money has been collected and was made available through a competitive process to entrepreneurs that live within a defined region that is under the jurisdiction of that government sponsor. Our executive member was qualified and applied for the money. The issue: Is that member ignoring the Statement of Principles in fact or in spirit?

Though (some of) the grant money was collected through coercive taxation the collection would have happened whether or not our executive member was involved. In fact this member or his family may have been forced to contribute to the prize. The fact that he applied to enter a contest to win that prize, does not mean he condones the method of collection. So it is with any funds distributed by government to applicants, whether it be CPP, EI, OAS etc. Jim's logic above adequately explains how this sort of funding should be treated.

As Matt suggests, there is a mechanism to deal with real breaches of the SoP or real conflicts of interest. To add more Conduct constraints onto members, candidates, and executive may act to dissuade people from becoming active in the Party in the future. --Allen Small 15:59, 6 February 2013 (EST)

One more point I would like to add. Blaming anyone including our executive members for trying to procure money that is offered by government puts blame in the wrong place. The blame rightly should be placed on government for offering the money in the first place.--Allen Small 18:28, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Under a libertarian code of conduct almost anything goes except the initiation of force or fraud that causes harm and creates victims. Just this week offering offending language is now a punishable crime in Australia. If one individuals gets irritated at another and calls the other an idiot; Should the irritated individuals go to jail for offending the one called an "idiot". Initiating a Standards Code of Conduct actually initiates harm upon the liberties of individuals. If a Code of Conduct initiates censorship; Doesn't it harm our Freedom of Expression. If a Code of Conduct initiates the forbidding of individuals from earning economic benefits from a market participant (government); Doesn't it harm our Freedom of Enterprise? Just to create an exercise; Try reviewing this stipulated Code of Conduct and try identifying what harm is unseen? http://www.acecanada.ca/_bin/aboutUs/conduct.cfm --Neal 21:59, 6 February 2013 (EST)

I think we should solve this, not with a policy, but rather our culture. I propose, at the next general election of the executive, each past member of the exec who is standing for re-election, get 5 minutes where they have a chance, but not an obligation, to talk about their own accomplishments, failures, and conflicts of interest. No situation will ever be black and white. In my case, I own 35% of the company, in line for $50K. If anybody on the exec owns stock in RIM, Yamana Gold, Manulife, GM, CIBC, TD, Rogers, etc....then, they likely have benefited from similar job-creating stimulus grants from the public purse. --Jeffrey McLarty 12:41, 9 February 2013 (EST)

That's something I felt our exec election process lacked - transparency. In my mind, we still have people on the exec who aren't ideal for the roles they are in, given their own core-competencies, but for some reason they stay in their positions, because our members are none the wiser. Good intensions and tenure don't make a strong board. Good decision making make a strong board. --Jeffrey McLarty 12:44, 9 February 2013 (EST)