[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Reinier Bakels]

> Reinier Bakels wrote:
> > It seems there is a total confusion about the purpose of a "Manifesto". 
> > Sorry about that.
> Maybe, though I don't know why, as I've several times brought to you the 
> link of the Manifesto purposes -the /what/ thing-.

I am prepared to apologise for my confusion, so there is no point in further 
arguing this point. The confusion was whether there was a need for an 
international PP identity beyond the sum of the national PP parties. And 
eventually I would not even oppose against that, if it had not proven to be 
such a tremendously complicated task, involving even people from different 
continents with potentially very different perspectives.

> First of all, as far as I know, you are not Piraten Partij representative, 
> Samir is.
No, Samir is not. For the simple reason that a Dutch Pirate Party 
(Piratenpartij) has not (yet) been founded. One can not repesent a 
non-existing entity ;) Samir and I cooperate as friends, but none of us is 
entitled to make decisions-on-behalf-of. Afaik Leon Burg took the initiative 
for a Dutch Piratenpartij, creating a (nice) website - which is currently no 
longer available, and Samir will create a new web site again.

Being volunteers, we have limited (and varying) amounts of time to spend - 
some people at some poit have time and get heavily involved, while at other 
times there are other priorities. I noted that the Dutch Piratenpartij 
in-statu-nascendi was next to dead, and presentl I have some time, so I 
decided to tak responsibility. The next time, I will think twice...

> > If eventually a majority of national pirate parties would adopt this 
> > style of Manifesto, we have a big problem: in my perspective then we 
> > have to choose between *either* those principles *or* a pragmatic 
> > political approach. The end effect could be a schism. I hope that you 
> > appreciate the compelling logic of this line of thought - I do not mean 
> > a threat.
> Of course you don't mean a threat; to mean a threat, you should be talking 
> on behalf of anyone, and however you're not a representative for any 
> pirate party, not even for Piraten Partij -as far as I know-.

Again, no one can speak on behalf of the (a) Piratenpartij. And conceivably 
I could register an association and even a political party with similar 
goals, using perhaps a different designation than "Piratenpartij".

> > Conceivably any international union of pirate parties may object the use 
> > of the designation "Pirate Party" for unauthorised political movements, 
> > not agreeing with the Manifesto. But then I'd like to remind you that 
> > the designation "Pirate Party" itself is controversial.
> Unless Sweden (Piratpartiet has 8.000 members for a 9-million inhabitants 
> country) and Finland (900 members for a 5 million inhabitants country) 
> (snip)
Of course, it could be helpful to benefit from each others resources. But 
there are other resources as well, and frankly, I have not found the PP 
cooperation so far very helpful, for instance in the levies consultation 
case.

>> By the way,
> > There are many activists who subscribe (more or less) to the PP cause, 
> > who frown upon the name.
> > In sum, it is primarily the political direction that matters, and the 
> > "PP" designation is a means to an end, not a condicio sine qua non.
> to know about the ==> PP <== cause, one should rather try here (snip)
> as we are PPI, not PP.
You repeat yourself (for the zillionth time) and you are wrong. I referred 
here to any national party, and most of them are all called "PP", in various 
languages.
My observation is that the designation referring to piracy is often 
perceived as negative and dangerous. It depends whom you talk to.
Perhaps it differs by natural "culture" as well. Finally, I did not make a 
black and white statement, I only referred to doubts.
>
> About the rest of Reinier's mail (about his political perspective and 
> etc), well: he has already explained his viewpoints in former mails, and I 
> have already explained what I think of those viewpoints, so I don't want 
> to enlarge this already large mail.

Yes, I am aware that we are running in circles. But effectively I only 
explained my understanding. If we can not get to a solution together, I will 
make my own proposal.

reinier