[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto: PIRATA internal ballot, results

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> It is definitely better than the "Manifesto" proposals that presently 
> circulate,
Correction: you are the one who find it better. Me not, specially 
because while the Swedish text perfectly fits for Piratpartiet needs, 
however the Manifesto is not Swedish-driven or Spanish-driven, but 
internationally driven; anyone else I guess they have own opinions as well.
> The traditional liberals have become a plain conservative party, and 
> they actually *oppose* liberalism!
> We have a second progressive "green" liberal party (D66) which has a 
> very appealing leader - but they are blamed for a lack of philosophy = 
> for opportunism. Actually they were founded in 1966 with the idea to 
> reform the political process, but that objective turned out to be so 
> unpopular that in order to save the party, they put those plans on 
> ice! Now they grow dramatically in the polls. Opponents say: by gving 
> up their principles and philosophy!
> Socialists apparently have a philosophy - but in the 21th century it 
> is not really clear what socialism should be, now that systematic 
> poverty no longer exists in the western world, and (some) socialist 
> principles are generally accepted (at least in Europe, perhaps not yet 
> in the US and elsewhere).
I'm sure that most (even all) traditional parties follow the /marxist/ 
(from Groucho Marx) principle, "/those are my principles, and if you 
don't like them... well, I have others/".

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/499.html

So what? In PIRATA we are not interested on it, we are interested on 
having well-known principles, to allow people who vote us to rely on 
them and on our political platforms, and to remain loyal to the 
commitment reached through the ballots with our voters.
> The call for a philosophy also has somehow a "recursive" nature: the 
> reference to human rights leads to a new "why" question. And human 
> rights do not answer how to make inevitable choices that must be made 
> in case of conflicting principles. Like privacy vs. safety.
Where you find a conflict, we in PIRATA do not: there is a conceived 
state of emergency to be applied in very rare situations; however, EU is 
willing to apply emergency-like measures in an ordinary, daily basis. 
Privacy must prevail in a general basis, i.e., must prevail when there 
aren't evidences that lead courts of justice to issue warrants -to allow 
home searches, wiretapping, publications seizure, etc-.

Directives like data retention, or national laws like FRA, want to spoil 
everybody's privacy without court warrant and no matter whether the 
surveyed people is guilty of anything or not. It leaves things pretty 
clear, in PIRATA's opinion.
> Like the "property" rights of authors vs. freedom of culture. (Don't 
> reply that often people are factually misled - it is our task to tell 
> the facts, e.g. that mass surveillance does not further safety nor 
> helps to fight criminality - or perhaps only at a very high price).
Don't worry, I won't reply that: I will just reply that we don't 
consider intellectual works as property (nor as /property/).
> Perhaps the PP
.... again that stuff ...
> is the *only* party with a philosophy, if only implicit so far?
Does the fact that we have a philosophy bother you?
> Sorry for the simplification, but from my perspective the PPI have two 
> (related) central issues:
> 1. restore the balance in the field of "intellectual property": 
> presently almost exclusively gearded to the interests of (potential) 
> rights owners, in favour of the general public, cultural diversity and 
> in novation.
> 2. restore the balance re privacy, which should not be sacrificed for 
> safety and law enforcement.
If you want to know which are the PPI central issues, better check which 
are each pirate party central issues

http://int.piratenpartei.de/Pirate_Manifesto_parties_at_a_glance

instead of guessing.
> PP's don't want "everything", they want the balance to be restored!
Pirate parties don't want everything -we have core issues and 
theoretically focus only on them-, however the rest of your statement is 
a /non sequitur/ (no matter you use a (!) or not). Because ... have you 
asked pirate parties, specifically their members, to talk on behalf of 
them to state what pirate parties want?

I have to clarify that if PIRATA members were willing to obey a leader, 
we would have joined any traditional party and, then, we would have 
tried to influence that traditional party on PPI core issues -only to 
follow the leader, no matter whether that leader follow our demands or 
not-; as it's not the case -we even created a formal, registered party 
to prove it-, I think nobody can expect us to change our mood.

Pirate parties want what they want, i.e., what members of each pirate 
party want. And I wholeheartedly believe that it can only be found, in 
an inner democracy scenario, by their members self-determining their 
joint will; never by the opinion of a single member of a single party.


                                                                                               
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                               
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                        
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman