<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Lets see what we can really use of all that has been said.<br><br>"We can very well play the game of politics just one level higher <br>than the all the other parties - and make them redundant in the <br>proces. After all politics is a form of information processing, and <br>as far as manpower is concerned, I think we have a winning edge <br>between the lot of us. All we need to do now is to find ways to make <br>that advantage concrete. The rest is irrelevant - power, in the end, <br>is a matter of activity - and we will spread that out over as many <br>nodes as want to be involved, cause we will find ways to make that <br>manpower count. Oh yes, I have plans. <br> <br>Your ideology & principles are in the way, playing last century's <br>political game & will not leave us with any sort of advantage as a <br>political party, nor will they change anything in the long run. <br>Ideologies and principles come and go, what remains is the balance <br>of power. We must use this opportunity to maximize the number of <br>nodes involved in the flow of power - particulary around the area's <br>where previously there were only a handfull, as around <br>representatives in representative demcoracies. By doing their job <br>for them. Better. Some 50, 60 thousand voters versus one <br>representative - I think we can succeed brilliantly here."<br><br>I tend to agree. We may have one problem with the information <br>processing though. Having a winning edge between the lot of us, <br>depends on how we function as said lot. If it means that all ideas <br>are input and after processing the best ideas are retained no matter <br>where they came from, I agree and we should succeed brilliantly as <br>said. But if it means that instead of the best ideas and no matter <br>where they came from we are only going to consider ideas coming from <br>people among us that we trust and that instead of selecting for the <br>best ideas geared towards the achievement of the best possible world <br>for all we keep only those the biggest majority of us can agree with <br>thinking about having the most fun or the least hardship at present, <br>each of us using his personal and somewhat selfish criteria geared <br>towards immediate satisfactions... then we are in trouble.<br><br>Ideologies, and what we have made them be, are a big problem we need <br>to understand. Ideologies are collections of ideas that work <br>together to make life as comfortable as possible for the group <br>developing them and putting them into practice. I believe they can <br>be classified according to two criteria. A philosophical one is <br>about whether the solutions proposed are equitably intended to be <br>accessed by everyone or if the benefits are only intended for some <br>privileged part of humanity. A practical one is whether what is <br>intended can be worked towards from within the circumstances we <br>endure at the moment.<br><br>And talking about the circumstances we endure, there is one very <br>rational question that has not really anything to do with ideology <br>but nevertheless taints everything we do... the way each and <br>everyone of us, while not having obtained the answers to the simple <br>questions of who am I, where am I, and what am I doing here, needs <br>to buy time to investigate further and can only do so surviving, <br>raising the point of deploying a suitable strategy to achieve this. <br>Here we find out there are basically two kind of strategies, <br>individual ones that ultimately lead to vertical corporate and <br>political structures, and collective ones that lead to inclusive <br>horizontal structures. With one caveat, that while at first when <br>humanity had to think about it both alternatives had plenty of room <br>to be developed... and nobody was able to imagine there would be <br>future trouble, and nowadays we are well aware of the fact that we <br>ran into trouble and are living with the consequences we must try to <br>mitigate first and totally correct as soon as possible.<br><br>The rationality of our educated elites has come to a point that they <br>use game theory to model a way out of the mess we have manoeuvred <br>ourselves into. We still have not obtained the answers to our three <br>fundamental questions, so we still need to survive to buy time, and <br>the exquisite learned logic of these elites has lead them into a <br>logical trap... on purely theoretical grounds and going all the way <br>down the anticipative path of game theory... there is for any given <br>individual or group that competes on a non-collaborative basis only <br>one relative safety platform as far as assuring survival is <br>concerned: having the control of at least half of ALL of Earth's <br>resources. Why? Because that is the moment that you can finally take <br>a break from the accumulation frenzy... once you control that much, <br>no other individual or group, what the heck, not even a coalition of <br>everybody else, can ever grab more resources than you and thus wage <br>a war on you that you might loose, forfeiting survival.<br><br>The result for today's situation, is that we have a mix of people <br>with ideological considerations, and people with rational <br>considerations... which, game theorywise... is presenting very <br>challenging equation.<br><br>Without the rational dilemma, I'd say that that a pure anarchist <br>ideology would be the best solution for humanity, closely followed <br>by a pure liberal ideology. Both are non aggressive strategies. The <br>conservative ideologies, but also the actual liberal ideology that <br>evolved into neo-liberalism, became aggressive because of their <br>rational approach to the accumulative value of absolute property <br>rights.<br><br>Then, with the Industrial Revolution, we had an incident that gave <br>birth to two very aggressive artificial ideologies created to wage <br>war... conservative bourgeois forces instrumentalized Marx ideas to <br>massify and launch against an obstaculizing landlord such as the <br>Tzar of Russia the combined strength of all dispossessed, with a <br>tremendous viral success that backfired as it could not be contained <br>nor extinguished, and ultimately had to be fought world-wide with an <br>as virally unrelenting fascist strategy.<br><br>Building up to the situation we live today.<br><br>This is the situation we have to analyse, as to be able to end <br>playing last centuries political and economical game, and finally <br>start playing the twenty first century humanist game. <br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:32:10 +0200<br>> From: thijs.markus@piratenpartij.nl<br>> To: pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] The true core Pirates principles, -Serious attempt to get a workable consensus - TLDR version<br>> <br>> First: exactly, that means we are open to all influences, but by<br>> assimilating them without regard we create an internal balance between<br>> competing ideologies and have them filter one another out - the whole can<br>> then use that internal ideological component to evaluate it's proposals<br>> from a socialist or nazi perspective, and thus create proposals that are to<br>> the liking of everyone else. We win. <br>> <br>> We win because we have had all the debates, angles, counterproposals and<br>> arguements internally already, and whatever is left over is what everyone<br>> could agree on, and then so can the rest of the political parties. We<br>> cannot harvest this if we start to get ideological, there would be blind<br>> spots, the other parties would come with good points we've overlooked<br>> collectively cause they stem from a branch of ideology not presently<br>> condoned. <br>> <br>> We can very well play the game of politics just one level higher than the<br>> all the other parties - and make them redundant in the proces. After all<br>> politics is a form of information processing, and as far as manpower is<br>> concerned, I think we have a winning edge between the lot of us. All we<br>> need to do now is to find ways to make that advantage concrete. The rest is<br>> irrelevant - power, in the end, is a matter of activity - and we will<br>> spread that out over as many nodes as want to be involved, cause we will<br>> find ways to make that manpower count. Oh yes, I have plans. <br>> <br>> Your ideology & principles are in the way, playing last century's<br>> political game & will not leave us with any sort of advantage as a<br>> political party, nor will they change anything in the long run. Ideologies<br>> and principles come and go, what remains is the balance of power. We must<br>> use this opportunity to maximize the number of nodes involved in the flow<br>> of power - particulary around the area's where previously there were only a<br>> handfull, as around representatives in representative demcoracies. By doing<br>> their job for them. Better. Some 50, 60 thousand voters versus one<br>> representative - I think we can succeed brilliantly here. <br>> <br>> Second - might not be a bad idea actually, considering they're doing all<br>> the hard work around here, we might as well pay them for it. Socialism,<br>> like communism, does not seem to be rather a futile excercize without it<br>> spanning the globe.<br>> <br>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:49:47 +0200, Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy@gmail.com><br>> wrote:<br>> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:30 PM, <thijs.markus@piratenpartij.nl> wrote:<br>> >> Let's keep it more simple than a long list:<br>> >><br>> >> Our core principle is: to make the decision that is most beneficial to<br>> >> most people over the longest term. The rest is circumstantial.<br>> > <br>> > I am afraid this would not be very helpful, because of two things.<br>> > <br>> > First - on some level this is something that everybody agrees about -<br>> > and thus it does not work for defining what Pirate Party is - for<br>> > differentiating it from any other party. And that is important,<br>> > because we need some group identity. Imagine that at some point<br>> > pirates become popular and that for example a socialist party changes<br>> > its name to Pirate Party - they agree with your utilitarian principle<br>> > - so I guess we should allow that, then a a nazist party, decides that<br>> > their program is also the most beneficial to most people (they just<br>> > define people in a different way), and you know.<br>> > <br>> > Second - as a political principle it has the problem that the logical<br>> > consequence of it would be taxing the hell out of all developed<br>> > nations and transfer all that money to Africa, Latin America and Asia.<br>> > You would need a lot of rhetorical gymnastic to not come out as<br>> > hypocrite if you would not do that.<br>> ____________________________________________________<br>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br></div> </div></body>
</html>