[pp.int.general] Why Members left

[aloa5]

Max Moritz Sievers schrieb:
> aloa5 wrote:
>> A voter will have priorities and other questions. Asking you - what
>> about nuclear power, what about social things, labour, whatever.
>>
>> *Example:+
>> "What will you decide in case of any nuclear power decision in parliament"
>>
>> *Options:* (and this *before* having any seat in parliaments and any
>> need for decide yes or no)
>> A) "we will every time say *no*" (green stance; after the last BPT
>> Pirate Party Germany stance)
>> B) "we will every time say *yes*" (? stance)
>> C) "I can not tell you what we will do - *maybe yes or no*" (your stance)
>>
>>
>> So - I go with you Kaj as far as you say that with options A) and B)
>> (before elections/seats) you will have parts of voters and members wich
>> will say no to the party. But: why? Because they take care of that point
>> and *the priority in our core issues is not enough for him/her*.
> 
> Where do you know?


Extremistical voters (communists, economic libertarians, 
green-socialists, nazis, anarchists - whatever) will not (never) support 
a party wich say yes/no to their main point. If the PP will say "we 
don´t want communism" then a communist will not vote pp but a communist 
party.

AND someone wich has the "extremistic" point of view of the PP´s will 
say "yes" to the PP... and it does not matter what they say about 
communism. Even.... this is (as a logical conclusion) the point of view 
of the C)-Fraction here in the PP (not really my... and that´s the 
point! Difficult to understand but true.).


>> And this ist the point you did not thought over (enough). This persons
>> will *also* not be very happy about a "maybe". Because *no* answer can
>> be a "really yes" or a "really no" to nuclear power or to anarchism or
>> to communism.
> 
> Of course it can.

Then it is easy for you to explain this logical in your terms. :)


>> The voters does not know.
> 
> They do not know what?

If they wake up a morning and have a look at a newspaper - suprisingly 
finding an article in it explaining them that they votet for anarchists 
or communists or nazis.

A single point as "minimum wages of 8Euro per hour for all workers" you 
may find at socialists, communists, nazis, green, or other "normal" 
parties programs (maybe all without libertarians - even as 
neoliberalism/Müller Armack includes minimum wages also... but the time 
has no memory). It´s nearly "neutral" spoken in "politically parties".

It becomes only then a "direction" if you can place it into in a greater 
context, a vision. But at that time a party or even a member of 
parliament has to decide about issues wich are *not* "neutral" you get 
it anyway.


>> And because of this I give you the answer D) for wich I fighted (without
>> success) in the PPD:
>> D) "Dear voter - we think that a world without nuclear power and with
>> "clean" energy is a better world. In the future are concepts as desertec
>> (solar energy) or perhaps nuclear fusion the better way. They are not
>> only mor clean but will also be cheap. We will have a look to ensure
>> that we force such clean technologies and help easily (and cheap)
>> spreading knowledge (copyrights) over the world for example over
>> patent-rules."
> 
> This is answer A explained. We (PPDE) do that.

No - this ist not answer A). Answer A) is a clear "no" on a single 
issue. Answer D) is an explanation of a vision, open for every "yes" and 
"no" on the way to reach this vision. It is a: "we will try for tomorrow 
- maybe we have to decide today for a nuclear plant... but we will work 
hard for not to have to and find a way". This is "not extremistic" but a 
realistic WAY - into a *clear* future. It´s makes a definition of the 
future and does *not* absolutely define the way. Extremists prefere to 
define the (extremistic) way *without compromises* and a perhaps also 
extremistic future like "no nuclear plants at any time - doesn´t matter 
what we have to do or to immolate today or tomorrow for reaching this goal".


>> And you could be sure - this would not exclude but *inbclude* A) and B).
>> Only radicals of A) (greens) and B) (don´t know - libertarians?) would
>> be "excluded"... but they were never included (would anyway not vote for
>> the PP´s).
> 
> The supporters of answer B are not libertarians, they are idiots.

Your opinion on that doesn´t matter more than the opinion of any idiot. 
Nuclear power is here just an example for every possible issue.


>> The Germans failed to choose this way D). Without this, without even
>> *understand the need of* forming a vision of a better future for the
>> voters, you will never get a chance to form anything - no seats, no
>> success, no influence on the long run.
> 
> Meine Rede seit 33.

If this would be true you would not like to form an aim like anarchism.

Regards
ALOA