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

[Reinier Bakels]

>
> I have the feeling that, when you talk about /prioritizing/, you mean 
> taking /non prioritary/ issues, introducing them into a shelf and then 
> lock the shelf until /better times/ arrive. One thing is being aware that 
> some goals are likely to be achieved in the middle & long term, and a 
> different thing is to give up them in the short term -if it takes much 
> time to achieve them, it will take even much more if we wait-; at least in 
> PIRATA aren't willing to give up on anything.

One should not loose imagination, but one should not get out of touch of 
reality either.

>> Having said that, it is worth considering the risks of mentioning 
>> idealistic options. "Idealistic" by definition means that they are 
>> unlikely to occur in the foreseable future.
> Again, those goals are not unfeasible in the short term because of their 
> nature, but because of our current status -i.e., because of the amount of 
> MEPs we can nail in the next EU Election-. They are not /idealistic/, just 
> not feasible in the short term; I deny your attempts to make them look 
> like utopical issues, it's a distortion of facts attempted by you.

Perhaps we have a basic misunderstanding.
You think of idealistic goals that become in sight when PP is succesful and 
get sufficient "critical mass".
I primaily think of a "catalytic" role of PP. Present politics makes some 
very *basic* mistakes. Due to lack of information, a lack of priority 
perhaps. If the PP could "spread the word", major successes could be 
achieved short term. Have you seen this one? 
http://www.ivir.nl/nieuws/open_letter_concerning_european_commissions_intellectual_property_package.html 
The European Commission simply ignores advice it has commissioned itself! 
Cynics argued that this is nothing special in politics: deals must be made, 
and because a balanced "intellectual property" presently (!!!!!!!!!) is not 
a political priority, it is easily sacrificed.

>> So there is actually little on the positive side of the balance. On the 
>> other hand, there is a substantial, short term risk of being disqualified 
>> as "extremist" and "unrealistic" if idealistic options are emphasized too 
>> much.
> You seem to me like you were always living and thinking according to what 
> the lobbies will say; I don't think it is advisable, because even if you 
> only aim for short term issues, they will dismiss you, they will slander 
> you, they will defamate you ... and they will do all those thing having 
> mass media on their side.

You ignore the difference between dishonest lobbyists who make suggestive 
statements (e.g. about poor retired artists, and on the health risks for 
patent infringement, and with the arguments that terrorism is financed by 
trade in counterfeit products), and honest lawyers (perhaps a little short 
of imagination) who are knowledgeable about e.g. the international political 
context.

> Thus, the only thing that worries us in PIRATA is to be honest, to be 
> sincere, to know what we want and to be aware of how much goals can be 
> made according to the amount of available MPs in each parliament.

Again, I would recommend the "catalytic" approach, achieving substantive 
leverage by influencing other parties. Copyright, and - even worse - patent 
law tends to be ignored by mainstream politics. This is even logical to some 
extent: even the hardest working politics only have 168 hours in a week, so 
they must exploit the scarce resource of time in an economic way. The 
Nobel-prize winning "pubic choice" theory of economics even was based on 
that.

As soon as one PP MP says: "wait a minute, this is not a routine thing, a 
mere formality" other politicians may get involved as well.

reinier