[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> Firstly, on changing TRIPS: perhaps I did not make clear enough that 
> there are short term, realistic options fosterering PP ideas that 
> don't need a TRIPS change.
You made it clear. Simply, I find not acceptable -and I think I'm not 
the only one- to give up on demanding certain issues just because of 
being aware they won't be feasible in the short term -our duty will be 
to demand those issues, our commitment with reality would make necessary 
to assume that without enough parliamentary seats it won't be feasible 
in the short term, and also will be recommendable to bring that reality 
to the people (in order to convince them, together with our hard 
working, that to get more success we will need more parliamentary seats)-.

Demand those issues, make clear for everyone that they are not achieved 
because of the other parliamentary groups, and make steps through a 
certain path heading to the goals we aim to achieve.
> Politics is always the art of finding workable compromises (unless you 
> have an absolute majority ...).
Of course they have to be truly workable -i.e., not all kinds of 
compromise are workable nor acceptable, only concrete ones and depending 
on their contents and consequences-. I mean, if you propose to amputate 
my four limbs and I don't want to, is there margin for an agreement 
between us? *Agreement depends on the requested topics*.
> The contents of the "three step tests" (at least in the field of 
> copyright) are the subject of debate among scholars right now.
I already gave you one viewpoint: laws can be interpreted to a certain 
extent, not to any extent -i.e., cannot be interpreted in a opposite way 
from what they really state-. While of course we can try where those 
limits are, I think it's obvious that those limits exists, that the 
interpretation margin is too narrow and that, thus, the need for 
changing the law is real.
> That brings me to my second comment: in the German Greens movement, 
> the "fundi's" were not fundamentalists in the negative sense
No, /of course/, you were calling some folks in PPI *fundamentalist*, 
though /not in the negative sense/ ... because you asked if there were a 
simmilar /realo/'s vs /fundi/'s divide in PPI, didn't you?
> but people who were prepared to defend the core values of this 
> political movement in an "undiluted" form: without making compromises. 
> The realo's were controversial for the fundi's, because they (the 
> realo's) were prepared to make compromises, because then it would be 
> more likely to actually change something.
False dichotomy: where you say there is no will to make agreements, I 
instead state *there is no will to make _all_ agreements _you have in 
mind_*; nor all those which I have in mind, nor all those which Rick has 
in mind ... remember, we are a group of peers, are you going to call 
fundamentalist anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint in all issues? 
Because then I would think you don't see us as peers, I would think that 
you believe we have to fully agree with you in everything.
> Our debate about TRIPS is a fine example. Please note that this 
> agreement is an annex to the World Trade Agreement - which has its own 
> dynamics (ever heard about things like the Uruguay and the Doha 
> round?), or actually more the lack of it: it is pretty static.
Of course it's pretty static: I assume that even if we ask for change we 
may not achieve it; thus, if WTO always count with people who, like you, 
are so shy to even demand changes, how would it change?

                                                                                           
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                            
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                  
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman