[pp.int.general] GA: Membership Requests
ktetch at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 19:56:41 CEST 2016
On 7/22/2016 1:42 PM, carlo von lynX wrote:
> Thank you both for your insights.
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:04:36PM -0400, Jay Emerson wrote:
>> Here you go Carlos, I attached it to this email.
> I am quite amazed by the artistic value of this constitutional
> manifesto that you send us in place of legal statutes. The
> formatting makes it a not so easy read. The repetition of Article
> 7 indicates that the document hasn't met the eyes of a lawyer yet.
> Also the general absence of legalese, which makes it artistic, but
> not very clear for the purposes of jurisdiction or construction of
> a political party.
> Title 2 with the party structure starts on page 8. Again as with
> the other candidates there is no dedicated implementation of inner
> justice. The "Legal" power is described as being an expert that
> interacts with legislational bodies, not with issues of infighting.
> The statutes suggest two key roles, and administrative and an
> operations officer. The distinction is just in these words, so it
> isn't really very clear who decides on which issues.
> The statutes mention the existence of "members," but now how
> they enter or leave the party.
> It mentions the existence of "wiki, forums and chat channels",
> but without giving them a structural clear role or who is
> allowed to do their administration with the implied powers of
> moderation and control.
> It is specified that "veto consensus vote" is applied in election of
> people into the various roles, but not who is entitled to vote.
> The specified voting method is vulnerable to a simple denial attack:
> anyone can impose their candidate by vetoing all other candidates.
> Given two attackers of this kind, the party is deadlocked.
> Worse even, the voting system is declared to be anonymous, thus
> making it impossible to trace who the attackers are.
> The design of the party suffers from the classic problems of
> trusting people to be good rather than ensuring they will. This
> is essentially contrary to the philosophy of democracy which
> distrusts all people in whichever role and limits the range of
> damage they can make. So IMHO the voting method is incompatible
> with the declaration of being in full support of separation of
> powers. The document essentially tries to walk two different
> and incompatible philosophical paths at the same time, democracy
> and the belief in the goodness of men, which is why I consider it
> more artistic than legal.
> Article 3 mentions the existence of "meetings" although members
> have not yet been defined. Members may be ejected from meetings,
> but it isn't specified by who nor who they can appeal to. The
> Administrator is then granted the privilege to expel members.
> Litigation outside of meetings (in the forum for example) is
> not considered.
> Article 5 declares that a democratic process must be used, but
> it doesn't say how the democratic process works. That is the
> intention of statutes! Just saying people have to be nice has
> never worked in human history to ensure they will be nice.
> That totals ten major flaws in your legal architecture.
> Jay, this document is beautiful, but it shows that you have no
> clue on how to make a political party.
Great salesman, lousy at politics. Sound like any other New Yorker
currently in the news? He's going to Make the Pirate Party Great Again I
tell you, it'll be the best, the bestest of the best, see his document,
you can't argue with a document as beautiful as that...
> By proclaiming democracy
> without actually defining it, your document does not IMHO describe
> neither a functional nor an actually democratic organization.
> Maybe you should team up with people that know that part of the
> Also, if you believe so much in democracy, why did you take the
> initiative on the quite interesting VISA issue before holding a
> meeting to ensure anybody else would agree with you?
That's because everyone else was working on and towards this
Jay went AWOL while this was being discussed, and it wasn't until a week
later, when we started getting press inquiries that we found out about
it. When he decided to read his mail, he went ballistic about this, and
that he didn't approve etc. and why didn't anyone tell him. To which we
pointed out we did, for over a week, just as with everyone else.
Check out his comments, including his last one which boasts of how he
has "a good resume of shit starting I think"
Says it all....
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the pp.international.general