[pp.int.general] Greens saying Pirate Parties unnecessary

[Andrew Norton]

What gets me about the green party, is that they're a mess of
conflicting 'green' issues. I've seen green party supporters
advocating wind power, and others oppose it because it can kill birds.
issues like this kill me. The biggest one, is the whole car thing.
They want plug-in cars, and hybrids. changing my big car (a 91 chevy
lumina, with a 3.1V6) to a prius will NOT save the planet, it'll harm
it. I get maybe 27mpg from it, but the energy put in is only fuel now.
If I dispose of it, there's the waste from the crushed car and the
energy to do that, plus the energy to MAKE the new one (and lets not
forget those lovely nickel batteries, mined in Canada, refined in
China, made in Japan and  shipped back to the US. They have to be
replaced every few years. My car's almost 20 years old and hasn't had
any major repairs or replacement.

Plug-ins are even worse. It's shifting energy generation from
on-vehicle, to at large central sites, and adding a much greater
number of energy conversion steps (theres something like 12 voltage
changes between a typical power station, and the street-level power
lines, each one wasting power. Add more into the charging system, and
another out and to the wheels, and you've got massive loss, not green
at all (and we won't even go to the whole nuclear debate, it's always
NIMBY, and worries about the waste - reprocess!. Put research into it.
I did hear of one possible project to deal with nuclear waste,
basically involved a small particle accelerator, firing protons at
waste, either making it into a stable residue, or useful fuel, but
either way removing the problem of waste. Needless to say, funding was
killed 5 years ago.

This is my problem with greens; bad sense judgments based on
short-term goals at the expense of the long term. look how well that's
worked out with economics.

If they can't even get their core philosophy right, what chance with
the rest....

Andrew


On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Tim Fretz <tim.fretz at usask.ca> wrote:
> Thought I might interject with a Canadian perspective.
>
> Before I go any further I would suggest that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with at the national level and perhaps at the EU level.  The arguments for Canada are not necessarily going to work in the rest of the world.  Each national party has it's own peculiarities due to their countries unique political and legal situation.
>
> 1) A pirate vote is not a lost Green vote.  The Pirate Party can attract all kinds of voters that the Green party and others can not.
>
> The last federal election in Canada had the worst voter turnout ever.  Only 58.8% of eligible voters in Canada voted, there has been a steady decline since the early 90s.  The under 30 crowd is notorious for not voting.  Part of the Pirate strategy is to get young people engaging in politics and voting.  So the argument that a Pirate vote would be a lost Green (or NDP) vote is fallacious.  A vote for the PPoC is likely to come from someone who previously didn't vote.
>
> Secondly, many within the PPoC formerlly voted for the Conservatives, some were even card carrying members of the Conservative party.  Our active members range from left to right (Green to Conservative) to those, like myself, that don't feel any of the existing parties represent them.  Any "stolen votes" seem to be as likely to come from any part of the political spectrum.  This debate should not be about the splitting the vote on the left but about how the Pirate Party can pull support from all kinds of voters.  If the Greens want to say the Pirates aren't needed then they need to show they can get 'C' or 'c' conservatives to back them not just those on the left, because the Pirates has already found support from across the political spectrum and from people who don't fit on the political spectrum.
>
> 2) The Pirate Party prioritizes IP reform and protecting privacy.
>
> These issues may be in other party platforms but they have failed to prioritize them.  All the people who I have spoken with that were eligable to vote in last Canadian election had no idea that the Green Party of Canada even had a policy on IP.  The only IP policy anyone knew about was the related directly to Bill-C61 (Canadian DMCA) which the Conservatives failed to pass in the last sitting.  Beyond the parties' positions on Bill-C61 not one voter could tell me what any of the political party IP or privacy policies were.  Failing to prioritize the Pirate Party's issues has made the other parties incompetent in getting a mandate from their voters and taking action on the issues.  The issues need to be prioritized to elevate discussion and create awareness.
>
> 3) Elected or not everytime the Pirate Party is mentioned the priority of IP legislation and privacy protection is raised.  By contrast getting the Greens mentioned elevates environmental issues.
>
> We could lobby the existing parties, but lobbying seems to have been ineffective in many countries where DMCA, data-retension and now three-strike laws are being legislated.  So now we are arming ourselves to hit the parties where it really hurts, the ballot box.  The Pirate Party is creating a simple choice for the politicians, talk the Pirates and the Pirate issues thus elevating them or ignore the Pirate Party and watch a new party take off.  When the Pirate Party is successful we will be able to elevate the priority of IP reform and privacy rights on our own.
>
> The Pirate Parties are needed because they force the issues of IP reform and privacy rights to be discussed.  The comments by Elizabeth May are proof.  Until the last couple months ago when she started being asked about the Pirate Party she had hardly said a word about IP policy or privacy rights, let alone manage to get her policy publicized, even to the ineternet.  The PPoC is needed to make her and every other political party talk about these issues.
>
> Remember these arguments need to be tailored to your political situation.
>
> -Tim
>
> On September 15, 2009 08:42:24 am jamie king wrote:
>> Actually  I can back Eric up. I happened to be at a wedding with a
>> prominent German Green two or three days ago, who definitely thought
>> the Pirate Party was irrelevant.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> J
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Eric Priezkalns
>> <eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk> wrote:
>> > Thanks Alex, for pointing out I understand zilch.  I hope you won't be
>> > speaking to voters, if this is how you deal with me.
>> >
>> > As I pointed out in my original email, there are Greens in Europe saying and
>> > doing similar things to the Canadians - saying that the Pirate Party is
>> > unnecessary and people should vote Green instead.  I'm not alone in noticing
>> > this.  You seem to prefer a make-believe that two separate political parties
>> > can exist without competing for the same voters.  I'm asking that the party
>> > deals with this instead of living in a fantasy or doing nothing whilst
>> > rivals take the initiative.
>> >
>> > You seem to confuse two different things - that parties need to compete for
>> > votes in elections but that their representatives need to work together
>> > after they are elected.  I'm talking about competing with the Greens for
>> > votes.  When you say "where pirates need allies, greens are usually the best
>> > bet", what are you talking about?  When you campaign to get Pirate Party
>> > votes, what will you tell people who say they will vote Green instead
>> > because they don't see a need to have a Pirate Party?  Will you tell them
>> > they are making the right decision?  Will you politely explain why a vote
>> > for the Pirate Party is better than voting Green?  Or will you just be rude
>> > to them and hope that will have the right effect?
>> >
>> > Making the argument for separate Pirate Parties is vital for our success.
>> >  We cannot just make the argument for the policies, because rivals can jump
>> > on the bandwagon for popular pirate policies, whilst undermining the actual
>> > Pirate Parties.
>> >
>> > So please, cut the rudeness and focus on the question: who in the PPI is
>> > doing what to make the argument that we really need separate Pirate Parties.
>> >  I just wanted to hear what the PPI is doing and how it will coordinate with
>> > national campaign efforts (that is the purpose of the PPI, isn't it?)  If
>> > you're not doing it, then fine - be quiet and let somebody else say if they
>> > are doing something or if they plan to do something.
>> >
>> > E
>> >
>> >
>> > On 15 Sep 2009, at 14:44, Alex Foti wrote:
>> >
>> >> no, you don't understand zilch. greens are greens and pirates are
>> >> pirates, but eurogreens are not saying that pirates aren't necessary.
>> >> Of course nobody wants to lose votes to a new party, but using a
>> >> canadian green's statement to construct a european position is kinda
>> >> ridiculous. Pirate parties have been made necessary by the assault on
>> >> fundamental freedoms. Where pirates need allies, greens are usually
>> >> the best bet. ciao, lx
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Eric Priezkalns
>> >> <eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm bemused.  I thought that asking Pirates to make an argument for the
>> >>> need
>> >>> for separate Pirate Parties would be straightforward.  Instead we're
>> >>> getting
>> >>> arguments for why there is no need for separate Pirate Parties!
>> >>>
>> >>> This makes me wonder if the PPI won't be making any positive arguments
>> >>> for
>> >>> the need for separate Pirate Parties to compete in elections - a rather
>> >>> amazing conclusion and I hope I am proven wrong.  Note what I am asking
>> >>> is
>> >>> not to argue for the policies, but for the parties.  Why do the parties
>> >>> need
>> >>> to exist?  If the policies can be delivered without the parties, as the
>> >>> Greens suggest, that undermines the argument for forming the parties and
>> >>> fielding candidates that compete with the Greens and all other rivals.
>> >>>  The
>> >>> Green attack is straightforward - the pirate policies are good, but the
>> >>> Pirate Parties are unnecessary.  And this argument is not just being made
>> >>> in
>> >>> Canada, but in many countries.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the purpose of the PPI is to represent pirate policies, but not Pirate
>> >>> Parties, it has very little reason to exist.  Somebody needs to do the
>> >>> important work of handling and countering propaganda from rival parties,
>> >>> and
>> >>> that includes rival parties that say they agree with our policies but
>> >>> question our political strategy.  If not done by the PPI, this will still
>> >>> need to be done.  The difference is that it will be done only by the
>> >>> national parties who field the candidates and have to live in the real
>> >>> world
>> >>> where Pirates will compete with all rival parties, including the Greens.
>> >>>  I
>> >>> don't want to see Pirates fighting Pirates because a Green Party in one
>> >>> country points at a Swedish MEP and says - "look, he sits with the
>> >>> Greens,
>> >>> so he supports all the policies of the Greens".  It would be better that
>> >>> the
>> >>> argument for Pirate Parties be coordinated internationally to avoid
>> >>> causing
>> >>> difficulties between Pirate Parties in different countries.
>> >>>
>> >>> E
>> >>>
>> >>> On 15 Sep 2009, at 13:53, Alex Foti wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> your subject should've been more correctly titled "Canadian Greens
>> >>>> saying Pirate Parties unnecessary", because a cursory reading makes it
>> >>>> look like Cohn-Bendit or some other prominent greens said that. Also,
>> >>>> climate change is a pretty big issue and I don't really see how greens
>> >>>> would compromise pirate rights for climate justice. In general, I have
>> >>>> a hard time thinking of an eco-issue where there's a tradeoff between
>> >>>> environmental needs and rights of expression (maybe it's my lack of
>> >>>> imagination). Finally, it's telling that Benkler in The Wealth of
>> >>>> Networks brands as greens the group embracing a sharing philosophy of
>> >>>> p2p production, as distinct from the blues embracing strong public
>> >>>> domain coupled with copyright law, and the reds favoring market
>> >>>> copyrighted solutions always (in the US, democrats are blue and
>> >>>> republicans are red).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ciao and solidarity to german pirates beaten by police,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> lx
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Eric Priezkalns
>> >>>> <eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Jamie,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I don't understand your point.  The Canadians and other Green parties
>> >>>>> say
>> >>>>> there is no need for a Pirate Party because they have the relevant
>> >>>>> policies
>> >>>>> already.  You respond by saying this is not just propaganda - does that
>> >>>>> mean
>> >>>>> you don't think there is a need for a Pirate Party?  When other parties
>> >>>>> say
>> >>>>> they have green policies, do the Greens say "look, they have green
>> >>>>> policies
>> >>>>> - we don't need to exist"?  My question wasn't about whether people
>> >>>>> have
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> nice fuzzy feeling about the Greens deep down in their soul or whether
>> >>>>> we
>> >>>>> think the Greens are run by lovely people with their hearts in the
>> >>>>> right
>> >>>>> place when it comes to intellectual property.  It was about how they
>> >>>>> are
>> >>>>> using propaganda to hurt the Pirate Parties and asking how the Pirate
>> >>>>> Parties intend to respond.  Either the response is collective at
>> >>>>> international level, or it will have to be done at national level,
>> >>>>> because
>> >>>>> somebody has to respond.  Green candidates are going to compete with
>> >>>>> Pirate
>> >>>>> candidates for the same votes.  If Green Parties say there is no need
>> >>>>> for
>> >>>>> Pirate Parties and point to the European Parliament as evidence, the
>> >>>>> correct
>> >>>>> answer from a Pirate Party spokesperson or candidate cannot be to
>> >>>>> simply
>> >>>>> comment on what a good job the Greens would do if they were elected
>> >>>>> instead
>> >>>>> of the Pirate Party's candidate.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> E
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 15 Sep 2009, at 13:07, jamie king wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I wouldn't say it's just propaganda. The uk Greens showed 'STEAL THIS
>> >>>>>> FILM II' at their conference last year -- so I guess even before
>> >>>>>> Pirate Party looked more viable, they were thinking about these
>> >>>>>> issues. Just saying.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> j
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Eric Priezkalns
>> >>>>>> <eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This is a snip from an interview with the leader of the Greens in
>> >>>>>>> Canada,
>> >>>>>>> Elizabeth May.  The full interview is
>> >>>>>>> here: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/28206
>> >>>>>>> "p2pnet: What do you think of Pirate Parties and the fact it looks as
>> >>>>>>> though
>> >>>>>>> Canada and soon join other countries in having one of its own?
>> >>>>>>> May: Did you notice that the Pirate Party in the EU Parliament has
>> >>>>>>> joined
>> >>>>>>> the Green Caucus?  We don’t need a pirate party in Canada. The greens
>> >>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>> championing those issues. We shouldn’t further fracture the efforts
>> >>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>> Canadians who want to restore real democracy, including in
>> >>>>>>> undemocratic
>> >>>>>>> copyright rules."
>> >>>>>>> Elizabeth May has previously said similar things in an attempt to
>> >>>>>>> undermine
>> >>>>>>> the Pirate Party of Canada.  We've got 'Green Pirates' trying to win
>> >>>>>>> new
>> >>>>>>> votes for the Green party in mainland Europe.  In the UK, similar
>> >>>>>>> things
>> >>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>> starting to happen, with the Green Party attempting to undermine
>> >>>>>>> Pirate
>> >>>>>>> Party support because they see it as a threat.
>> >>>>>>> Who is taking the lead to counter Green Party propaganda, publicly
>> >>>>>>> saying
>> >>>>>>> there is a need for a separate Pirate Party movement?  If it is not
>> >>>>>>> coordinated internationally, than national parties will have no
>> >>>>>>> choice
>> >>>>>>> but
>> >>>>>>> to fight back individually to stop votes, members and support being
>> >>>>>>> lost
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>> the Green Party.
>> >>>>>>> Best regards,
>> >>>>>>> Eric
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Eric Priezkalns
>> >>>>>>> Treasurer
>> >>>>>>> Pirate Party UK
>> >>>>>>> +44 7958 467273
>> >>>>>>> treasurer at pirateparty.org.uk
>> >>>>>>> http://pirateparty.org.uk
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> >>>>>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> >>>>>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>> >>>>>> location BERLIN
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> CURRENTLY WORKING ON: VODO.NET, DARKFIBRE.IN, FRINGY.NET
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> twitter: #dark_fibre #vodo #fringy
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________________
>> >>>>>> phone                   (for voice calls please consider any time
>> >>>>>> difference)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Local landline: + 49 30 657 99496
>> >>>>>> UK: + 44 20 8133 7673
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________________
>> >>>>>> chat
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> jabber -- jamie_k at bootlab.org / skype -- jamie_jk / msn -- jjr_king
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> gtalk -- jk.jamie at gmail.com / iChat/AIM -- iamth30th3r
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> YIM! -- jamie_j_king / ICQ -- 335452203
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________________
>> >>>>>> asynchronous
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> twitter [personal] - @jamie_jk                 occasional blog  --
>> >>>>>> jamie.com
>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>> >>>>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> >>>>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> >>>>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________
>> >>>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> >>>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> >>>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> ____________________________________________________
>> >>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> >>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> >>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________
>> >>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> >>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> >>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >>>
>> >> ____________________________________________________
>> >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> >> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________
>> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>