[pp.int.general] The true core Pirates principles -Serious attempt to get a workable consensus-

[Jack Allnutt]

Hi Anouk,

Thanks for sharing :)

Comments inline

On 26 September 2012 21:06, Anouk Neeteson <jakobsheep at gmail.com> wrote:

> Another try, please mail me privately for questions directed straight at
> me. I hope that it will not create controversy, it is with the intention to
> unite the pirates globally. I added some new lines because of more feedback
> from elsewhere. I didn't include the universal human rights, they are too
> biased. (the sky is the limit, somehow, some-way, someday simultaneous
> singularity):
>
> *The right of protection of each individual human being* including :
> -  its privacy
> -  its physical body (including DNA)
>

What does the right to protect DNA mean?


> -  its impartiality
> -  juridical
> -  against unfair competition and corporatocracy
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
>

Even if this is a worthy goal, surely you protect society from
'corporatocracy' rather than the individual.


> -  the under-aged as a group with extra protection
>

I can see why this is here, but this sounds like "won't somebody think of
the children?!"


> *With the right of:*
> -  a reasonable transparent legislature and transparent public
> organisations http://www.transparency.org/
>

a "reasonable" transparent legislature?


> -  self-determination of its fate and body (including the unborn).
>

Self-determination of the unborn? How does that work, exactly?


> -  being impartially reviewed whether on sex, believe, race, etc.
>
-  freely using natural drugs or natural therapies, natural cures, or
> natural medicines (like homoeopathy and so on). *I don't name all drugs,
> because synthetic (and halve-synthetic) drugs are not natural and have to
> come under the medical licence scheme, Or to put it in another way, these
> chemicals need regulation, so no you can not have 100 gram of cocaine a
> day from your chemist :)*
>

This one is just insane. "Natural" drugs/therapies/cures/medicines aren't
inherently better than synthetic ones. The Pirate movement should not fall
for an appeal to nature.

Also, homoeopathy? Really? It's just water. It's not medicine. Water does
not have "memory" and diluting something does not increase its potency.
There is literally no evidence for the efficacy of homoeopathic "remedies"
beyond that of placebos. Speaking of which, where's the Pirate principle on
evidence-based policy?


> -  freedom of expression of opinion with a minimum of respect towards
> anybody
>

Well, is it freedom of expression, or legislating for respect in expression?


> -  direct voting on the legislature or to have it delegated (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy)
>

Not a core Pirate principle...


> -  to be informed of and access to personal data and the right to correct
> or comment
> -  form / join freely a cooperation (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism)
>

I would've thought that freedom of association would suffice. I doubt that
corporatism is a Pirate principle.


> -  growing up to become adult with a guarantee on protection, support,
> care and education.
> -  free access to medical, scientific and technological knowledge and
> education
> -  minimal healthcare
> -  minimal social assistance
>

"minimal"?


> -  contentious relationships with others in their own chosen way (*ex.when
> people decide to live in a commune or same sex relations etc. as long as it
> is with everyone's free will*)
> -  making the marginal error (*because nobody is perfect*)
>

What does this one mean?


>
> *With the obligation *(*nobody likes to hear them*)*:*
> -  of healthy water, and healthy grown nutrition
>
-  transparent information on ingredients of processed food and
> beverages and all other products.
>

These two are too specific to be principles


> -  to respect the law defined by the legislature (*I explain why this is
> important, as the pirate party we have a agreement to cooperate as a group,
> without agreement, like disrespecting the rules, there is no common pirate
> party, just like national law that one day will be replaced
> with an internal law once everybody is properly supported and educated)*
>

"Rule of law" would suffice, I think.


> -  to actively contribute to these principles (*without input nothing
> moves*)
>

I don't understand this one.


> -  to respect everybody as they expect to be respected by everybody (*no
> abuse, no violence, nettiquette*)
>

I would disagree, I should have the right to disrespect anybody if I so
wish (providing I don't violate his or her rights)


> -  to be held responsible for their own behaviour and acts (*you break
> something, you pay*)
>

Again, rule of law


> -  to become more loveable, peaceful and happy :)
>

What?


>
> *With the demand of:*
> *- * The information society needs complete new rulings (preserve
> openness, change copyright laws on digital data, internet as public
> space/good, reforming patent law and ipr etc.)
> -  freedom (as in: restrictions need rationale justification,
> no restricting of behaviour which doesn't harm anyone)
> -  accountability (additional legislature?)
> -  traceability (additional legislature?)
>

traceability? Not privacy?

Also, what do you mean by "additional legislature"?


> -  inclusive humanism (tolerance and rationality:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism)
> -  a healthy and sustainable global environment
> -  abolishment of war, only in self-defence and to protect international
> humanitarian aid missions
> -  abolishment of arms-trade over national borders. (*making money on
> arms-trade is against humanity but we can not deny that we need a peoples
> army to protect souveranity. So hence we need to produce arms to
> counterbalance the world against the savage nature and heritage in present
> times. But to produce arms to protect ourself and then SELL them abroad is
> NOT COMMON SENSE. The way out is stopping proliferation is by stopping
> export*)
>

So arms could not be sold to allies? NATO nations couldn't trade between
themselves or the member states of the EU couldn't, for example, specialise
in different areas of defence to provide each other with mutual support?

I'd say this is also too specific to be in a document of principles.


> -  more free public parties
>

what?


>
> *methods:*
> - occams razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
> - K.I.S.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.I.S.S.)
> - the pirate wheel:
> http://falkvinge.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/manual/PirateWheel-2011-11-13.pdf
>  (*or any better alternative*)
>  - Liquid Feedback: http://liquidfeedback.org/ (*or any better alternative
> *)
>
>
In principles?


>
> the good news, there are more rights then obligations. lol
>
>  And I hope that a lot of  mothers like it too, they are with voting very
>> aware of the future for their children !
>
>  *What did I forget or wrongly? Any controversy? Did I write too much?
>> please give feedback.*
>
>
>
>> Anouk    REM I hope my remarks are appreciated.
>
>
On the whole, this looks less like a statement of Pirate principles and
more like a personal manifesto, but there is definitely some overlap.

Regards,
Jack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120927/5c276809/attachment.html>