[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> OK ,we are getting close now. To play the devils advocate:
> * Doesn't someone who contributes a brilliant trick for building 
> software have the "human" right of a software patent? It is his (her) 
> labour and creativity, anyhow ...
Currently that someones earns a time-limited patent, yes. After few 
years, patent theoretically expires. So what? I mean, if you don't 
address specific topics, your /play/ seems too vague ...
> * Don't we need pervasive surveillance in a world full of terrorist 
> threat + "ordinary" criminality such as street violence?
No, we don't. Simply because, as long as presumption of innocence 
prevails, *we aren't all terrorists nor criminals*. When you have enough 
evidences of concrete individuals probably being criminals, ask courts 
of justice for warrants; otherwise, no way.
> Isn't personal integrity a human right?
Privacy too, and no single human right may be interpreted as implying 
for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to 
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the human rights. 
(Remembering that you still /play/ that /game/) If you want to appeal to 
the human rights, appeal to all of them, not only to those of your interest.
> Elderly people are very happy if cameras are installed e.g. in public 
> transportation because it gives them a feeling of safety.
Apart from the fact that you haven't talked with elderly people to know 
whether they are happy or not, even if you were right, elderly people is 
just a fraction of the society as a whole. And democracy is not played 
by fractions, but by society as a whole.
> These arguments - I repeat - are by no means nonsensical. The 
> proponents of such ideas only make different trade-offs.
Did the /game/ finished? Ok, then: such trade-offs that can easily be 
countered, without giving up our goals not abandoning the /ideological 
arena/ nor the /language arena/.
> In sum, if you need a philosophy, human rights simply do not give the 
> answers. It is the trade-off that matters.
Disagree: take the human rights out of the equation, then -at least for 
PIRATA- no single trade-off can be possible.
> Restore the balance. Which needs counterweight on the political 
> balance. Which is the PP.
If we give up some (most?) of our most essential claims, we would lose 
too much weight, making us unable to be a counterweight.
> Last monday I heard a visionary lecture about the future of copyright, 
> by a renowned professor who is known to be critical on copyright 
> proliferation.
> The professor argued that a very different perspective is needed: it 
> is wrong to talk about exceptions: they are an integral part of the 
> regulation. *Some have argued that is better to talk about "user 
> rights"*.
What do I see? Reinier talks about ... user's rights, instead of 
/exceptions/ and /limitations/? :_)
> Having said all this, I am afraid it is very ambitious for the PP to 
> propose some sort of 21th century copyright blueprint.
No, how delusional I am :(
> Altering the utterly unbalanced political decision making process is a 
> realistic, short-term objective,
Fine, then -within all our goals- it may be a short-term goal. However,
> and, realistically, a major overhaul of copyright is unlikely anyway.
do you mean that our middle & long terms are unlikely anyway? Even in 
middle & long term? Are you asking us to give them up?

Read my /lips/: *no way.*
> Small steps should lead the way. For a political party, it is pretty 
> logical to limit (at least initially) the ambition to improving the 
> process.
False; it may be your logical, not ours (at least, not PIRATA's). If you 
ask for 10, you may achieve 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, etc; if you ask for 5, you 
have to be too lucky to achieve that 5, so you'll probably fail.
> Not: economists say A so you should adopt regulation B, but: have you 
> asked expert advice from economists (preferably more than one!), and 
> have you taken that advice into account?
When you talk about /economists/, you do it the way you do with 
/lawyers/ -remember all those lawyers that disagree with you-? Because I 
know some economists very keen with changes simmilar to those aimed by 
pirate parties -I disagree with them in some other economic issues but, 
hey, aren't they economists?-
> Incidentally, for a more balanced decision making no political reforms 
> are required: if only the PP is there, it can exert influence!
I think you don't know Spanish MPs.
> It is the "catalytic" approach I recommended earlier. Asking questions 
> will also trigger other politicans.
Not in Spain. Maybe in other countries with pirate parties, those pirate 
parties can be luckier than PIRATA.


                                                                                               
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                               
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                          
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman