PDA

View Full Version : Swedish Pirate (as in, comp) Party wins seats in Brussels!



MK27
06-09-2009, 08:49 AM
Hey look at this:

Pirate Party Wins and Enters The European Parliament | TorrentFreak (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament-090607/)

a little quote:


At least partially, The Pirate Party puts its increased popularity down to harsh copyright laws and the recent conviction of the people behind The Pirate Bay. After the Pirate Bay verdict, Pirate Party membership more than tripled and they now have over 48,000 registered members, more than the total number of votes they received in 2006.

With their presence in Brussels, the Pirate Party hopes to reduce the abuses of power and copyright at the hands of the entertainment industries, and make those activities illegal instead. On the other hand they hope to legalize file-sharing for personal use.

ಠ_ಠ
06-09-2009, 09:11 AM
I think I just creamed my pants

Elysia
06-09-2009, 09:38 AM
I just hope they do something good without breaking world order.
Another fine example on why we shouldn't vote on parties, but rather on what we wish to see accomplished, and then see the parties try to make it happen. Now THAT is democracy.

ಠ_ಠ
06-09-2009, 09:46 AM
I just hope they do something good without breaking world order.

why so picky?

Elysia
06-09-2009, 09:51 AM
They don't call themselves pirates for nothing...

whiteflags
06-09-2009, 04:56 PM
Another fine example on why we shouldn't vote on parties, but rather on what we wish to see accomplished, and then see the parties try to make it happen. Now THAT is democracy.
Don't you do that when you vote anyway? The whole point of the party system is the idea of a platform.

happyclown
06-09-2009, 10:13 PM
This could set a precedent.

The Retire 2 Years Earlier Party or 35 Hour Work Week Party would probably win 100% of votes. ;)

Elysia
06-10-2009, 08:37 AM
Don't you do that when you vote anyway? The whole point of the party system is the idea of a platform.

No, it isn't.
For example, the pirate party - they want to lessen copyright rules, yet who says they won't make it legal to upload copyrighted stuff so others can download - on purpose?
I don't agree with that.

Furthermore, why do I have to choose between a subset of things I would like to see?
Like part A does stuff A and party B does stuff B. Which one should I vote on? Why should I have to prioritize?
And what if some of their views differ from mine?

I don't like the system. Not one bit.
I don't want to find out what the parties want, say or does, and dislike.
I know what I want and dislike and I want to vote on THAT.

This is exactly why I don't vote on anything.

ಠ_ಠ
06-10-2009, 08:44 AM
And what if some of their views differ from mine?

The point would be to have parties so focused you either agree with them or you don't

Elysia
06-10-2009, 08:48 AM
And what if I partly agree with their views and partly not?

ಠ_ಠ
06-10-2009, 08:54 AM
Then they're not focused enough, and you should tell them that

MK27
06-10-2009, 08:55 AM
No, it isn't.
For example, the pirate party - they want to lessen copyright rules, yet who says they won't make it legal to upload copyrighted stuff so others can download - on purpose?

Wouldn't "making it legal" be to "lessen copyright rules"? There is no contradiction there...

Elysia
06-10-2009, 08:57 AM
Should they focus on a mere question? Or one mere view?
Let's face it - it just isn't feasible.
If they focus on just one question - that's too little! I won't get my views known.
If they focus on more than one question - then someone is going to disagree with their views and have to choose to vote on them or not, and by doing so, they are basically sending a message that everything that party wants is right, or is at least what YOU want.
This system is flawed; it simply cannot please enough people.

If you were allowed to simply vote on what YOU thought what important (and not vote on something you don't find important), you'll see that you can please a whole lot more people.


Wouldn't "making it legal" be to "lessen copyright rules"? There is no contradiction there...
I mean they could try to make it legal to make backups of your own media (DVDs, CDs, etc), but they should NOT make it legal to crack a game and upload it for the rest of the world to download.

laserlight
06-10-2009, 08:58 AM
I know what I want and dislike and I want to vote on THAT.
In other words, you want every proposed law to be put to a referendum?

Elysia
06-10-2009, 09:00 AM
In other words, you want every proposed law to be put to a referendum?

Well, that's quite dramatic. I don't we need to go that far...
But a voting system is far better - especially with today's technology. Use Internet or SMS or something like that and vote on a poll, for example. I see that as a better solution, though it might need to be refined a little.

ಠ_ಠ
06-10-2009, 09:03 AM
If they focus on just one question - that's too little! I won't get my views known.

as apposed to voting for people you disagree with because you have no better options?

MK27
06-10-2009, 09:03 AM
they should NOT make it legal to crack a game and upload it for the rest of the world to download.

Yes they should. It clearly says "Pirate Party" on the box. They even wave the Jolly Roger.

I hope they give some voice to the concerns of their Somali counter-parts, too.

ಠ_ಠ
06-10-2009, 09:10 AM
Well, that's quite dramatic. I don't we need to go that far...
But a voting system is far better - especially with today's technology. Use Internet or SMS or something like that and vote on a poll, for example. I see that as a better solution, though it might need to be refined a little.

Because online polls are so reliable

Elysia
06-10-2009, 09:13 AM
as apposed to voting for people you disagree with because you have no better options?
One questions defeats the purpose of the whole democracy.
There are so many questions, and I would still have to focus on only ONE question because I vote on ONE party.
That leads nowhere...


Yes they should. It clearly says "Pirate Party" on the box. They even wave the Jolly Roger.

I hope they give some voice to the concerns of their Somali counter-parts, too.
Yes, which is why I have my reservations about them...


Because online polls are so reliable
And that is why it might need some refining. But the theoretical idea is good.

laserlight
06-10-2009, 09:23 AM
And that is why it might need some refining. But the theoretical idea is good.
I do not understand what is the "theoretical idea" here. You say that holding a referendum for each proposed law is too drastic, but right after that you propose the very same thing that you called drastic.

The essence of a referendum is that all those who are enfranchised to vote, vote (whether by using paper ballot slips, or by some online polling mechanism). This is in contrast to only elected representatives voting on an issue.

MK27
06-10-2009, 09:25 AM
Yes, which is why I have my reservations about them...


Reservations? I would think you should just be opposed to them, plain and simple.

Can I take a shot in the dark here: you are a "thinking" person who maybe considers herself "leftish", but on this issue*, you are forced to take a right-wing, conservative position. And that makes you uncomfortable, so you resent the system...

*are there others?

Elysia
06-10-2009, 10:55 AM
I do not understand what is the "theoretical idea" here. You say that holding a referendum for each proposed law is too drastic, but right after that you propose the very same thing that you called drastic.

The essence of a referendum is that all those who are enfranchised to vote, vote (whether by using paper ballot slips, or by some online polling mechanism). This is in contrast to only elected representatives voting on an issue.
I am looking for something in-between.
Holding a... referendum... for everything will be too drastic in the huge amount of time, money and effort that must be spent on it. Everyone must get there to vote. It must take time to arrange it. Etc.
But something in that direction. To give us control over exactly what we would like to see and what not, because that's what democracy is about - that we have a right to voice out opinion and shape our country.


Reservations? I would think you should just be opposed to them, plain and simple.

Can I take a shot in the dark here: you are a "thinking" person who maybe considers herself "leftish", but on this issue*, you are forced to take a right-wing, conservative position. And that makes you uncomfortable, so you resent the system...

*are there others?
Actually, they're not the only ones I don't vote on.
I don't vote on our own politicians, let alone EU.
I really don't vote on anything except referendums.
I resent the entire system, not just this, because again because of some simple issues:
- Many parties may have different things I might like, but as I can only vote on one, I have to choose among all those things I want. I don't like that.
- Parties usually don't keep what they promise. So why should I vote on them then? It would be better if I could set the goals I wanted to see and the parties all worked together to make them happen. I don't like the current system.
- I don't want to dig into what the parties say or discuss or promise or like or dislike. Much less so all parties involved. Simply not a hobby of mine. I don't like it.

So don't think this is the only thing that makes me hesitate :)

MK27
06-10-2009, 11:15 AM
- Many parties may have different things I might like, but as I can only vote on one, I have to choose among all those things I want. I don't like that.

I used to think the US two party system was stupid contrasted to places in Europe where there is a more "Baskin Robbins"* situation. Now, I think that is probably just frustration over the fact that Republicans get elected at all. The truth is, the general public in the US is more right-wing than a "western average", so they elect Republicans.

The problem is, liberal leftists are by nature (or logic) more individualistic than conservative rightists because they believe in individual freedoms, and not a strong arm enforcing conformity. So "as a group" they are 1) less homogeneous and prone to factionalism, 2) more prone to feeling free to empathize with the opposition, creating a blurry smear in the political spectrum. That last one is especially influenced by the reality of "self-interest", where-by a generally liberal computer programmer will empathize with draconian capitalists when it involves their perceived "share of the pie"**. Landowners are the worst in this regard. The real estate/investment crisis in the US which has caused a global recession is a result of this wishy-washy pick and choose approach.

You have too many options, Elysia, and it makes you schizoid :p

* a US ice cream franchise which boasts "21 flavours"
** also, perhaps, because of a misguided use of dialectical principles

Elysia
06-10-2009, 11:23 AM
Let's not get so muddled into politics please :S
Even though I can twist and warp words with skill, too much politics is still beyond me :p
I'm still not so knowledgeable about how the system works.

whiteflags
06-10-2009, 12:08 PM
* a US ice cream franchise which boasts "21 flavours"

31. This is important.

Elysia, I just want to give you something to chew on. Yes, the idea of the party system is the platform and I have no objections to a new party focused on one issue. The size of the party should represent the support of the people. I think you are panicking just because others have the option to vote for the party and you don't want it to get popular. Which is fine, but try to be realistic.

This is more of a political statement. It's not like they won Senate majority. And furthermore, the Congress in the United States has staggered elections, to prevent a situation where one party has all the seats. So even for people who are not left or right all the way, (which is, I hope, many people) they are still represented by the Congress population. I am sure that other representative democracies have incorporated this. The trouble currently here in the States is that third parties can't win seats in the Congress. I think the EU should be glad it's not so entrenched in two parties.

I like it when parties are well represented in the Congress because it fosters much debate on issues and neither party is strong enough to push their agenda outright. Right now the Congress is very Democratic, so much so that the Senate republicans don't have enough people to filibuster a bill.* I think this has worked to our detriment.

Still, I don't think the pirate party will be able to push their agenda, and if they pass a law, expect it to be a moderate one. The parliament is not about to pass anything outrageous on this issue. So calm down.

*Unless Lieberman crossed the aisle again. It always seems that the opposite party can filibuster, at least, when he changes parties.

Elysia
06-11-2009, 03:27 AM
Nah, I'm not worried. The system is very safe in many regards (as I can very well read from your reply), but I don't think it's very democratic in how it allows people to voice their opinions.
That is what disappoints me and stays my hand, so to speak.
Especially the "they promise this and that," but what do they accomplish?

stevesmithx
06-11-2009, 10:01 AM
Wow. This takes the whole system of democracy to another level. :D