Tue 10 Feb 2015 9:05AM

‽irate ‽arty - The Piracy Party

HM Hubat McJuhes Public Seen by 155

This chapter should probably better be called: '‽irate ‽arty - The Copy Party'; but I have established a pattern of alliterations of P and C would obviously break that. Never mind.

The Pirate Party is not to be mistaken as a single issue party. We are not and cannot be limited to a single issue or a particular area of expertise. Our positions are principle based and our decisions should preferably be based on scientific proof. Principles and scientific rationales apply everywhere and must be exercised in all things to be valid at all.

Nonetheless do we see particular areas in the local, national and world wide political discourse that are either not recognized as that serious as they are (at least to us) or are lacking understanding of the matter to a horrifying degree or are even occupied by bearers or particular interests who's endeavour endangers our way of life. These can be seen as our core political interests where we feel that our explicit input is required.

We may very well want to focus our sparse resources on these matters to formulate our stances. But we cannot abstain from taking positions in any other matter as well. For practical reasons it is obvious that we cannot develop the same degree of expertise that other, conventional parties have developed over time in conventional matters. Does that sound contradicting to the above? As a Pirate: I don't think so‽

Why would we not accept that other parties can do some good work as well? Why would we not take from other parties what convinces us and propose it ourselves? As long as we only accept the most convincing positions that fulfill our requirements in principles and rationale, what the hack should hinder us to copy and paste that splendid work? Do we have to fear to be threatened with copyright laws? I don't think so. Every party is always working on the basis to try to convince others. Why would they threaten anyone if they actually do?

Other parties cannot do that, because they need to disagree so that they have more 'positions' they can throw in when they need to deal with compromises of the kind 'If you accept our bulls*t ABC (even though you know it is BS), then we will support your BS XYZ'. We cannot participate in those kind of deals as this contradicts our principles.

But we can instead exercise the good example of the benefits of sharing when we simply agree with convincing arguments and partner with politicians and parties where they are right and fight the very same politicians and parties where they fail. In doing so, we can convince the people. And this is where the power is :-)


Ben Vidulich Tue 24 Feb 2015 8:50AM

It would be interesting to re-visit our core policies and see how well it represents our current membership. Then again once we have grown.

At both points it would be interesting to compare our core policies to the equivalent policies in other pirate parties. I would expect differences since different countries have different existing laws and therefore the pirate party policies will be to varying amounts.

But I guess it would be interesting to measure/compare policies as internal and external influences change.

And obviously our policies ought to be representative of the party membership, so we should be continually improving on our policies to ensure we maintain a strong representation of the memberships' views.


Hubat McJuhes Thu 26 Feb 2015 7:57AM

The Wellington Chapter has recently agreed in filing a submission stating support for the submission of 'FIT Wellington'. In addition to the full support of their paper we have added two genuine piraty aspects, we could agree upon in a very short time frame. I think this was a good example of the above mentioned technique. We should proceed like this and provide more and more genuine piraty positions alongside with our assessments of other parties positions to the degree that we can actually build up such.


Andrew Reitemeyer Sun 1 Mar 2015 1:52AM

Giving a policy a sunset clause of say one to three years would ensure that they are revisited regularly to make sure they are still in line with the membership's views.