My understanding is that when pirate parties actually got some amount of power (by getting into the legislature) in other countries, things got weird, by nature of them having to establish policy positions on lots of stuff other than IP law. Like suddenly you need a position on green energy and foreign interventions and public teacher salaries and zoning and all the other things a regular party is gonna have to vote on. And this conflicted with how they got popularity and power, which was by being largely single issue.Reply
> Do you have a position on abortion, gun control, or gay marriage? > Right now we are working on developing more comprehensive policies.
> Are you left-wing or right-wing? > We think “left-wing” and “right-wing” aren’t very useful ways of seeing the world
Although I generally agree, but man this gonna be wild...Reply
I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a more concrete position on things like gerrymandering and alternatives to FPtP voting schemes. Given the party's core value of government openness and greater citizen voice in government, it seems very odd to have only vagaries.Reply
Sorry, is this some kind of joke?
If not, yikes. The site seems broken or disorganized. Nothing on who supposedly runs the party.
One of there last posts is about the Patriot Act which isn't really a thing anymore.Reply
I hate the pirate party name. Also the name of the pirate bay. "Piracy" was a term greedy corporations used PR to apply to sharing. Like sharing tapes and filesharing. They will say they took the term and made it their own but imo its still a victory for the PR fuckers.Reply
I'm a fan of the party. For a good idea of what sort of ideas this spawns from, check out the founder's blog https://falkvinge.net/
Basically imagine libertarians with a strong drive to consider practical matters over ideology. Individual liberties, but drop the ideology and do what works for people, and what the people want as a whole.Reply
Not sure I agree with the abolition of patents. If it takes you a decade or more to invent something and then someone else can immediately copy and sell it, what incentive do you have to do all that work?
I do agree that patents/copyright need reform and a reduced patent period could be beneficial, but I think complete abolition would backfire.Reply
It is a good idea that people should get more active in politics but think about this statement from their web-site:
"What is your goal? Our primary goal is to get elected into office. We believe in political change from the inside."
The goal of these "pirates" is stated very clearly: To get power. Not to chance the society in a particular way or direction, but to get power to themselves (who else?). To get elected. Then what? Oh we'll think about that later but our current goal is to get elected.Reply
> We think “left-wing” and “right-wing” aren’t very useful ways of seeing the world, and that they make a lot of people falsely believe that they disagree with each other. We’re not driven by ideology, we just aim to do what works.
I don't think that great way of describing political positions, but they are at least _a_ way of describing political positions. If they are going to reject the terms, I'd prefer they at least answer the question in a better way instead of rejecting it.
I do not think left and right trick people into falsely believing that they disagree with each other. Instead I see them as an acknowledgement that political positions tend to cluster. Add in an election system that tends towards two party rule, and left and right wing sorta makes sense.
Everyone is driven by ideology. I think those that say they are above ideology don't really get why different ideologies are different. People's political positions are an expression of their core values. There have been a few books I've read that make the case for this. I think The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt does it best.
One thing he discusses in that book is an ideology can represent a mix of values or be an expression of a single value. One bit of research he showed had people doing a test where they were told to answer as a person from a different ideology. He found those who belonged to single-value ideologies did worse. In particular it could be seen that these participants assumed people of other ideologies believed in the same one value but where just worse at achieving it. I bring this up, because I think it is going on here. For left and right to falsely believe they disagree with each other, they would have to be trying to achieve the same goal. The same values.
I think the Party says this because they want this to be inclusive of people from other ideologies, and I think they earnestly want to achieve that. But I think that thinking about it this way will prevent them from being successful. With this mindset, I think they are most likely to end up with whichever ideology is biggest becoming absolutely dominate. Similar to what happened with Occupy Wall Street. I think they'd get better success on this goal if they learned why different ideologies are different, what the different values they are aiming for are, why the core Pirate Party positions align with those different sets of values, and for other issues try to pick positions that best serve multiple sets of values.Reply
> Platform: Putting People Before Corporations [..] Opening up Government [i.e. transparency]
Every party makes similar promises. Instead, lead with what makes you different - your focus on IP law and digital rights. Perhaps even emphasize your flexibility or neutrality on other issues, so that your voting base isn't decimated by your positions on wedge issues.Reply
What's their stance on web3? Cuz I'm against it.Reply
I did a little work on Pirate Party politics in the UK about 10 years ago. One (unfortunately unsuccessful) approach we tried was to get Pirates to write short manifestos about what Pirate Politics really were.
Here is one: https://web.archive.org/web/20140906172617/https://www.wired... (that one is mine)Reply
> Do you have a position on abortion, gun control, or gay marriage?
How about the radical position of letting each state decide for itself? They could even have the party in each state decide its own position, rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all policy centrally.
Of course it's nice to think that there is one "right" answer to all those questions, and that the world would be better if we could just use the law to force other people to go along with what we want, but I think recent history has shown that just makes politics more dysfunctional and leaves everyone unhappy.Reply
I don't think it's a bad idea to say "We are neither left nor right", since "left" and "right" are not very clearly defined concepts, and most people have chosen their side on that dimension already .
A better question for the FAQ would be: Are you pro-democracy, or pro-autocracy?
How do you plan to promote your choice of democracy, or autocracy, in practice?Reply
> Currently pharmaceutical companies spend only 15% of their revenue on new drug research. The remaining 85% is spent on activities such as marketing and profit taking.
I'd like to see a budget breakdown of what these companies spend on research, manufacturing, marketing, etc.
At a glance, from looking at CBO pages, it looks like average R&D spend is actually more like in the 18-20% range, and that this isn't unusual for industries, which makes sense since they have other costs beyond R&D.Reply
"We’re not driven by ideology, we just aim to do what works." So you are pragmatists?Reply
The USA is notorious - especially in recent decades - for discouraging parties other than the two large corporate-influenced ones (the Republican and Democratic parties): You have barriers to listing on the ballot; the state financing primaries of the two large parties; limited public funding, vs. lax regulation and effectively little limitation on commercial/corporate funding, for election campaigns; strong affiliation of the main media outlets with one or the other large parties; and not last and certainly not least: Many elections in the US are "first-past-the-post", with no proportional representation, which also tends to favor the largest parties.
For this reason, the strategy of pirate parties in other world states - gaining a few parliamentary seats on a limited-focus platform (or centrism/third-way'ism + "pirate" principles) - is essentially invalid in the US.
It is my opinion that this is "copycat politics"; and while I certainly support legalized file sharing, better privacy rights, limitation of intellectual property etc. - I believe this initiative would be better served either by forming a "third party coalition" with other movements/parties (e.g. Greens, Libertarians, People's Party if they actually start running people), or, and it pains me to say this, form caucuses within the one or both of the large parties. And I say this with the utmost respect for your efforts.
PS - "No safe harbor for the enemies of liberty" <- bad choice of slogan, it reminds people of how the US drone-bombs people to death all over the world.Reply
Our name might seem silly at first, but you should remember everyone has been labelled a pirate at some point in the last few decades. Movie studios and recording companies place their propaganda in front of us at every chance they get, they waste your time with warnings on DVDs you’ve legitimately purchased or movies you watch at the cinema. They’ve told us over and over that home taping on to cassettes would kill the radio, that recording a TV show on to the VCR would bring an end to free-to-air TV, or sharing an MP3 music song with a friend will cause the end of musicians’ careers. The list goes on but here’s the important point: at every turn, at every change in technology, the rights-holders always say the same thing: ‘no, we don’t want you doing that’. These rights-holders donate to our major political parties, they’ve lobbied for and changed our laws to protect their profits and their outdated distribution monopolies. They’ve had their hand in writing trade agreements and international law, all in a failing attempt to control how you access your culture online. This is how the Pirate movement began; as a reaction to the corrupt corporate, political, and rent-seeking encroachment on a free and open internet, and our democracy.Reply
This is gonna sound super random but one thing you can add to the political positions is prison reform(for profit, quotas, in jail cus can't post bail for non violent crimes) and fair sentencing.
It's related cus pirates are subject to unfair penalties and if jail, our jails are pure evilReply
With all of the deadly important issues in the US and the world today these folks have locked their compass on "the legalization of sharing movies, music and other art online"? Is this not satire? Perhaps these "pirates" should watch some illegally downloaded copies of "Don't Look Up." And their wisdom should be so plain to see that we trust them to come up with good decisions later for small details like the world outside of file sharing? "Aye, matey! I'll have me platforme on global warmin' just after I finishe a-pirate-watchin' this last season of 'ye Witcher!' and several other crucial arts, perhaps a-playin' some cracked games in which I'll learn about what's called the economies."
I'm not trying to deny that intellectual property issues can be important, even extremely so. It's argued that Germany's rise was related to a lack of copyright, and we can think of patents on medicine and many other areas where copyright is crucial, even foundational. But please...Reply
What about compulsory licensing for music being expanded to cover tv and movies?Reply
The choose your state dropdown is lazy-populated, so the last half (everything after New Hampshire) fails to load under my default browsing configuration.
A list of 50 states and some US territories should just be statically included.Reply
Why would copyright last for 14 years, but then patents wouldn't exist? It makes perfect sense for inventors to have a short monopoly on their creations. Patent law should certainly be reformed so that patents need to be more specific, limited in scope, and so on.Reply
Great, I am not down at all with our current two party system where both parties are controlled by Wall Street and other elites’ interests. Elites make lots of money killing people, the military industrial complex is the mother of all super lobbyists.
After being a life long liberal Democrat who has donated a lot to people like Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard, last year I decided I that for my personal reasons I had to be in a political party that was clearly anti-war unless our country was directly attacked. I decided that the Green Party was too small so I ended up joining the Libertarian Party, some things I like and some I don’t, but clearly anti-war.Reply