Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics

Ask Slashdot: What Planks Would You Want In a Platform of a Political Party? 694

Posted by Soulskill
from the mandatory-pi-day-celebration dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I am the Technology Manager of the Justice Party (sorry, no relationship to the Avengers). We are currently working on our Platform (version 2.0) and I would be interested to know what people in the science and technology field would like to see in a platform of a political party. For example, we are considering planks that relate to Open Government (data) access, science and maths promotion, space industries, promotion of open source, dealing with SOPA/ CISPA laws, improvement in user privacy and much more. Give us your comments so we can help build a more tech-savvy America."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: What Planks Would You Want In a Platform of a Political Party?

Comments Filter:
  • Planks? (Score:5, Funny)

    by DontBlameCanada (1325547) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:00PM (#43495613)
    Cedar is best, but pine is cheaper. Hint: save yourself from the darkest side and take up carpentry. Do something meaningful with your life, seriously.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Take what you believe and make that your party planks.

    • by Mitreya (579078)

      Take what you believe and make that your party planks.

      Also -- I would prefer a follow through for the given promises (instead of any position that will be discarded as soon as you come to power)

      Political candidates should sign a contract, where violating more than X% (30%?) of your promises results in an automatic and immediate eviction.

    • From a quick glance at the web site, they have no beliefs, at least not any organized beliefs they've actually thought through. They just have buzzwords that scored well in a survey. (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt assuming it's marketing-survey based, as opposed to them being utter morons who actually think their platform is in any way coherent.)

      According to their web site, their "Vision" is more or less American communism, the left-wing "we're all in it together, so yours is mine" theme:

      Social Justice: Every person's civil and human rights are protected; everyone has the opportunity to obtain an excellent education from early childhood through college or trade school; affordable and high-quality healthcare is available for everyone; government is not controlled by wealthy corporations and individuals, but is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      Economic Justice: All people are provided with opportunities for prosperity; poverty is eliminated; the “middle class” is thriving; and our economy is appropriately regulated so that all members of society are treated fairly.

      Environmental Justice: The earth's inhabitants are safe from catastrophic, human-caused climate disruption; nature is protected and preserved through sustainable practices; and our air, water, and food supplies are clean and healthy.

      But

  • by hendrikboom (1001110) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:02PM (#43495637)

    Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.

    • by Chirs (87576)

      I live in Canada, and with first-past-the-post my vote essentially means nothing at all due to where I live.

      Our national government has a "majority" with less than 40% of the popular vote.

      • New Zealand has an interesting system from what I hear. you cast 2 votes, one for your rep and another for a party. The party vote is tallied nationally and Parties are given representational seats based on that tally.

        So even if you'll never get your vote counted for your local 'locked in' Rep, your 'party' vote could still get smaller parties elected into the government and have at least some sway.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill (739463) *

      Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.

      Many countries have proportional representation. There is little reason to believe that these countries are better governed, and plenty of evidence that they are not. The biggest problem with proportional representation is often small kooky factions hold the balance of power, are are able to wield disproportionate influence. Look at Israel for a good example of this.

      • by ebno-10db (1459097) on Friday April 19, 2013 @03:38PM (#43497011)

        Look at Israel for a good example of this.

        Look at all the countries that don't have that problem. It seems like Israel is a bit of a special case. Also, a parliamentary system could easily have more trouble than a non-parliamentary system like ours, because in a parliamentary system you need to form a (often coalition) majority to form a government. In the US system minor parties could only swing things on a vote-by-vote basis.

        Anybody who knows Israeli politics better than me please feel free to correct, but AFAIK the reason Israel has such a big problem is that their two big parties, Labor and Likud, both have a large but not quite majority vote. Hence they have to scramble to get small parties to join a coalition so they can get a majority and form a government. This gives the small parties power out of all proportion to their representation, as they hold a trump card.

    • by Ken_g6 (775014)

      What we really need is some kind of system that prevents jerry-mandering when redistricting. Perhaps a limit of one district crossing each political border? (city, county, etc.) Perhaps require that crossing to be contiguous along the border? Of course then you can jerry-mander the city and county borders, but that should be harder.

      • The term is gerrymandering.
      • by Quila (201335)

        You'll be called racist because that would eliminate the gerrymandering done according to the law in order to ensure minority-majority districts.

    • How about a party name that doesn't implicitly say the others are 'anti Justice'?
  • Secularism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elloGov (1217998) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:03PM (#43495643)
    Separation of Church/Religion & State, be it whatever religion
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

      Serious question: For many persons, our sense of morality and ethics is derived from religious beliefs. And our ethical/moral beliefs then inform our ideals about civic issues such as the proper scope/role of government, and which laws should exist.

      That is, it's not obvious to me that there's a common "core" set of beliefs that we can all agree upon, independently of our religious world views.

      If that's correct, then how could such a separation truly exist? Even the very structure of government, by logical

      • by Nerdfest (867930)

        Many of our morals and ethics are now in direct conflict with the vast majority ro religions. Where the morals or ethics came from is irrelevent. Many religions have some good ideas at their core, it's just that they eventually tend to be used by people to wield power over others.

        • by Empiric (675968)

          Eh? I don't think most of the "religious" are so concerned about you using the words "morals" and "ethics" and saying they are "in direct conflict", but rather than you have no rationale for yours at all. Thus, it's probably a case of subjective nonsense being misrepresented as even being in the same philosophical class as a systematic ethical structure. It just muddies the waters to include it in the discussion when, for any given ethical question, yours and -the exact opposite- have equal subjective va

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by PRMan (959735)

            If you really study the Bible, sin is pretty much defined as "stuff that hurts yourself or others". The contrary is the Golden Rule, which is, in essence, "Love others". That seems like a pretty good moral basis.

            The problem is that people love doing things that ultimately hurt themselves or others. And they don't want to be told otherwise...

        • Where the morals or ethics came from is irrelevent.

          It's only irrelevant if they don't come from anywhere. If there is a source of objective morality, it is of the utmost relevance.

          Many religions have some good ideas at their core, it's just that they eventually tend to be used by people to wield power over others.

          Just like everything else. No matter what system you have in place, somebody is going to feel oppressed. Political correctness, affirmative action, wealth redistribution all help some people while harming others. I've seen atheists recommend taking children away from Christians who bring their children to church because it is child abuse. A completely secular society would not be

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It can with a simple rule: a law is, prima facie, a violation of the separation of church and state when the only articulable purpose of the law is religious in nature. For a law to not run afoul of this, it has to have some purpose to society that isn't derived from religious principles. That doesn't mean that it can't have a purpose derived from such principles, only that that can't be the only purpose. For instance, most religions prohibit the killing of other people, but preventing murder has non-religi

        • by Hatta (162192)

          The problem with this is that they can just make up a purpose, or have no purpose at all. There are lots and lots of laws with no articulable purpose, secular or religious.

      • Re:Secularism (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mevets (322601) on Friday April 19, 2013 @03:59PM (#43497407)

        Serious answer: you have it backwards.
        Our religious beliefs are derived from our intrinsic sense of morality and ethics.
        That and a healthy side dish of hatred, prejudice and self aggrandizement.
        Although Genesis proclaims ... So God created man in his own image, ...
        I rather prefer: ... So Man create God in his own image...

      • Re:Secularism (Score:5, Informative)

        by bugs2squash (1132591) on Friday April 19, 2013 @04:21PM (#43497725)

        Your sense of morality may have come from your religion, but your religion got it from a human, probably the parents of whoever made it up who got it from their parents and so on as humans developed it over time. I disagree with you and I think you will find that the vast majority of values you hold are shared with families and people of all faiths or the lack thereof, and that there is plenty we can agree upon to base a legal system without involving a deity.

        If you're waiting for 100% agreement on anything you'll be waiting a long time, but I think you underestimate the proportion of people worldwide that would agree on whether murder, stealing, fraud, deception etc. should be subject to legal penalty, the broad circumstances under which the penalties should apply and the relative seriousness of crimes.

        I just don't see how you can go through life with so little faith in the humanity of your fellow man.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Seumas (6865)

        I find it terrifying that you think people don't have an obvious set of core beliefs they can all agree upon and that their ethics and morals come from religion.

        If people can't share the common ideals of murder, rape, theft, genocide all being bad and self-determination, autonomy, freedom (of thought, speech, any other pursuits that don't directly harm other non-consenting adults), and helping our fellow man pursue those things on their own accord, then we should just drop some nukes on ourselves and hit th

  • If you're going to require me to pay for my neighbor's health insurance despite them smoking a pack a week, then require that every person own a gun to protect their neighbor as well.

    • by Mashdar (876825) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:19PM (#43495843)
      Don't know where you live, but AFAIK all states allow insurers to charge for insuring smokers. You are not paying for their habit. The insurance company has every incentive to offer healthy people the best rates they can.
      Your high premiums have more to do with soaring costs on the care delivery end, which have more to do with ever more expensive techniques being invented and used with no cost-benefit analysis. Hell, they don't even do benefit-benefit analysis (drugs are not compared to eachother to determine if the new one is even worth prescribing).
      • Don't know where you live, but AFAIK all states allow insurers to charge for insuring smokers.

        Hmm, seems to me that Obamacare is going to change that. Alas, can't remember where I read that recently....

        • by Mashdar (876825) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:32PM (#43496037)
          Who ever claimed that is wrong. Descriminatory pricing for some things are being removed, but not politically unpopular "choices" like smoking.
          Most of the supposed increase in premiums from Obamacare are from disallowing declining to insure those with preexisting conditions or writing those conditions out a plan. But many of the people who cannot afford care and are uninsured are just showing up at hospitals once the illness gets bad enough, so you are already paying for them, and the law would actually attempt to stop them from freeloading.
          The way the law is supposed to prevent this from causing premium increases is by forcing people to buy insurance preemptively rather than waiting until they are already sick. The preexisting condition part of the bill turns into a total disaster if the mandate goes away. (There are some alternatives, but TBH they don't solve the problem of people walking into hospitals uninsured. You either have to decide to let people die, or find some way to force people to pay for the services they are recieving.)
          • by Mashdar (876825) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:48PM (#43496313)
            Representational democracy was partially meant to solve the problems surrounding the tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org] (coined by John Adams) by electing rational minds to temper swings in public sentiment.
            It seems to me that popular votes are inconsistent and disruptive to the proper functioning of government. Just look at state ballot initiatives. Florida's state constitution, for instance, was recently modified to cover treatment of farm animals and slot machines. Imagine a US Amendment declaring killing kittens illegal. Such votes threaten to remove the tiered system of laws which is so useful for determining which laws are invalid.
            Of course, representational democracy depends upon people electing reasonable people. Perhaps much larger houses are needed to push elections to a more local level. Part of the problem is that people don't know how much of an ass their representatives are.
    • by compro01 (777531)

      then require that every person own a gun to protect their neighbor as well.

      Add in mandatory semi-yearly safety and marksmanship training.

      • then require that every person own a gun to protect their neighbor as well.

        Add in mandatory semi-yearly safety and marksmanship training.

        Also, make it part of the mandatory school curriculum. I think a major reason we have so many kids these days accidentally shooting each other is a result of the fact that the only exposure many children get to firearms is playing/watching their parents play FPS games.

        • by supervillainsf (820395) on Friday April 19, 2013 @03:17PM (#43496717)
          I think there's something to this, but I think it should be an annual hunting trip. The kids will actually have to kill something, clean it and eat it. Might even have the side benefit of helping people understand that meat doesn't originate in the grocery store.
  • by beowulfcluster (603942) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:04PM (#43495655)
    I'd like to see vi become the official editor of the United States of America, and at the same time I would like to see Emacs declared an illegal tool only people of an evil doer persuasion would use and banned and hunted down. Start the War on Emacs and you'll have my vote. Thank you.
    • by coldsalmon (946941) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:28PM (#43495985)

      I totally disagree. If we ban Emacs, it will just go underground, making the problem even worse than it is now. We need Emacs users to stay out in the open, where we can monitor them. Emacs should be legalized and taxed so the government can actually control it. And before you libertarian nutjobs go off about big government, the whole reason that government exists is to control things like Emacs, which the free market has obviously failed to do. I'd rather have people getting their Emacs at Wal-Mart after a background check than on Silk Road with Bitcoins. Sadly, our politicians are too stupid to know the difference between Emacs and Bitcoin, so we'll be stuck with our broken system for the foreseeable future, and this discussion is irrelevant.

  • I'm tired of looking at ugly people (yes that includes me)

  • Constancy (Score:5, Funny)

    by TechyImmigrant (175943) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:06PM (#43495685) Journal

    I want your policies to be constant. Plank Constants.

    • This would make your policies so small that nobody would be quite certain what they were and every time you did manage to pin one down you'll get a random result based on the observer...sounds just like a political party.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:07PM (#43495701)

    1) strict term limits for congress
    2) corporate money is not free speech...no place for it in politics
    3) Single payer health care
    4) increased minimum wage that is subsequently tied to inflation
    5) Large scale infrastructure projects...LARGE. High speed trains, universal fiber broadband
    6) a commitment to overhaul the national power grid or begin the the process of implementing a decentralized solution to replacing the grid
    7) outlaw lobbyists

  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:08PM (#43495707)
    ... constant [wikipedia.org].
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:08PM (#43495709)

    Years ago, local industry where I lived had a problem getting qualified workers with the right skills. Folks said, "Like what skills?"

    Industry said, "CNC Machinists."

    So, the local tech schools, colleges, industry and governments got together and created CNC programs and solved the problem. Now industry has has a steady flow of qualified workers, people who may not have the talents or inclination to be a white collar cube worker have a career path to a middle class life, government has an ever increasing tax base and the local community is thriving. (CT, Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky Aircraft, etc... to name some names.)

    Contrast with the tech industry:

    "Waaa! We can't get qualified workers with the right skills!! Waaaaaaa"

    The rest of us, "Like what?"

    Tech industry,"Waaaaa! We can't get qualified workers we need more H1-Bs! Waaaaaaaaaa!"

    I think they won't mention the skills or qualifications they need because we will all see that the Emperor Has No Clothes. We would see that in fact, every college and university in the US is producing folks with the right qualifications and that the tech industry is full of shit and made up the "lack of skills and qualifications" as an excuse for H1-Bs - to state the obvious.

  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:09PM (#43495725) Homepage

    The election system, as it currently exists, squeeze out third parties. Worse, however, is that if a third party does get a toehold, the main result is has on an election is to takes vote away from the major party that it's most similar to-- the "spoiler" effect. This is why in many cases third-party challengers are secretly funded by entities that oppose the platforms that the third party supports: the "divide and conquer" strategy.

    So, overall, my desire for your party is that your platform should adopt all the planks that I hate. Probably your party will be irrelevant, in which case it doesn't matter what your platform is. If your party does get large enough to make a difference, that difference will manifest by your taking votes away from your politically closest competitors, so I want you to be as evil as possible.

    Thus: I suggest you adopt a platform of explicit fascism.

    • by Mashdar (876825) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:13PM (#43495769)
      Or possibly a plank for election reform: (N-1)-round single elimination elections. Voters order their preference of candidates. Their vote rolls to their next choice upon elimination of their current choice.
    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      Worse, however, is that if a third party does get a toehold, the main result is has on an election is to takes vote away from the major party that it's most similar to-- the "spoiler" effect.

      The effect of third parties, typically, is that the threat of the third party candidate forces the major party candidate they're most resembling to adopt policies of the third party. For instance, the Democrats started acting rather socialist in the 1930's and 1940's because the Socialist Party candidacies were pulling enough votes that the Democrats had to be worrying about losing to the Republicans even if they were closer to the majority opinion.

  • At the Federal level the only humane plank is Sortocracy [sortocracy.org]: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

    Everything else is in the noise.

  • You are looking to /. readers for platform ideas.. What will you do when you find that our ideas are not popular and cause you to have absolutely no influence as a political party? Will you change your platform to be more popular? You may as well stop now and call yourself Rep. Dem. Right or Left... A real political party should have real convictions.. people will flock to the truth and real beliefs.. not wishy-washy-go-with-the-wind bullet points.
  • Who are you? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:15PM (#43495793) Journal

    I know I am a little too far down, but here goes.

    1. Identity Fail.
    "An anonymous reader writes "I am the Technology Manager of the Justice Party..."
    Really?! For me you sunk your chances right there. Politics is about promoting yourself and hoping no bad $hit from your past sticks too badly. (Because there IS some, it's only a question of relativity!)

    So "Anonymous Reader", for a party I've never heard of? Nope. Go away. I won't even begin to (oh wait, I am) open the can of worms on authenticity security for ... wait for it ... the *Technology Manager*... of a party?! Sales guys, I get. Tech Manager? Oh dear gawd.

    2. Too F#$%$% Sick of "Hidden One Way Flow" data-slurps in politics. You want all our notes, but you won't stand to even log a Slashdot Username to respond to replies? And this for a *political party*? Screw that. I'll dignify you by saying you're not a complete fabrication by site Mgt. Let's assume you are real. Why So Sneaky?

    Bye Bye.

  • by Marrow (195242) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:20PM (#43495857)

    If enough people come forward and sign a petition claiming abuse of authority, this should force a officer of greater rank from an unrelated jurisdiction to come in and investigate. If a judge holds people in contempt for half their lives, there must be repercussions. If a DA withholds exculpatory evidence, there must be repercussions. If a police officer abuses his power, then the people he works with every day should not be the ones who give him a pass.
    Let alternate jurisdictions oversee each other. That way they can leave without fear of reprisals. Otherwise the truth is being stolen from the people.
    And at some point there must be criminal liability for abuse of power.

  • by Fubari (196373) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:23PM (#43495895)
    education (ok to leave some children behind).
    health (self care, health care, genetics, stem cells...)
    energy (simply burning fossil fuels is stupid)
    space (for starters, industry & mining would be better done off planet)
    values: throw in a large dose of personal responsibility.

    These are the things that matter, policy that improves them is a win.
    Everything else is noise.
  • by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:24PM (#43495909) Homepage

    Note to moderators: If you feel the urge to moderate this, please do not hit the 'Funny' button. As ridiculous as it sounds, I am being completely serious:

    I would like to see a Brony political party.

    The planks of such a party would be the same as those that keep Equestria running well: The Elements of Harmony. Each of the elements are concepts that we need very badly in American politics right now:

    Honesty -- Transparency and accountability should be a cornerstone of any government.
    Kindness -- The purpose of government should be to help the poor and disadvantaged. The rich do not need help.
    Loyalty -- Politicians should be loyal to their constituents and to America, not to corporate lobbies or foreign investors.
    Generosity -- Liberal use of government power is good when such intervention is requested. Be generous and quick to help those who ask for it, but do not interfere with industries or states unless absolutely necessary.
    Laughter -- A political candidate and party should be able to laugh at themselves. Not a consideration for governing, but it would help immensely with the dreadful campaign season.

    I would *love* to see the Elements of Harmony adopted by a political party. I feel they are well thought-out principles for a just and harmonious society, and out current political system has gotten very far from any harmonious ideal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by femtobyte (710429)

      The key problem with the Equestria model: the leadership required to "enforce Harmony" is a racial elite (winged unicorns, with a tall white leader) who swoop in with superior power (magical artifacts that defeat dark-colored scary evil with blasts of rainbow energy). Basically, the "Equestria model" is what we already have, at least in the minds of the power elite "defenders of liberty" who employ powers of superior force to structure the world according to their high-minded ideals. You think you can find

  • Mixed Message: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hartree (191324) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:24PM (#43495921)

    The article is submitted by "anonymous reader" claiming to be the technology manager for the Justice Party, yet links to a web site that identifies the National Technology Manager by name.

    Just one of those little daily oddities I notice.

  • by Defenestrar (1773808) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:27PM (#43495969)

    Number One Priority (and of most benefit to small parties like yours): Replace first past the post voting for selecting our representatives (because we are a representative republic) with something more effective in terms of game theory. I think instant run-off would work best for the American people given our history and what we are most likely to understand and adopt readily.

    What's the impact on tech policy?

    At the most fundamental level, tech policy should be data driven, and there is no more fundamental data than that provided by the voters. If we implement a voting system which will optimize the decisions made by members of the republic - instead of discounting a majority of the input - we have the framework to begin implementing data-driven policy in every other aspect. Otherwise - first past the post mathematically favors two opposing policies neither of which the majority of voters truly approve (rather we pick the lesser-of-evils). With a superior voting system, the constituents can indirectly favor their own tech policy (and you might get a good statistician to do some nice post-hock voting analysis to separate out the variables and tell you exactly what the people want for tech).

    If you're asking for some direct policy advice - I'll post that elsewhere

  • by KDN (3283) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:32PM (#43496045)
    Government people have the right to look at your data. But, after one year, the person whose privacy was violated needs to be informed of who looked at your data, from what government agency, and why. Lawsuits are permitted for abuse.
  • Use LOGIC (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Muad'Dave (255648) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:34PM (#43496071) Homepage

    All laws must consist of the following:

    1) A clear purpose
    2) What means are to be employed to achieve that purpose
    3) A list of criteria can be independently evaluated to see if it was a success
    4) A timeline for evaluating those criteria and repealing the law if it was not successful

    I realize this won't work in all cases, but it should help in most.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WillgasM (1646719) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:47PM (#43496291) Homepage
    Is this really how political parties get started? Shouldn't the platform come before the party? If you don't already know what needs to be done differently, then why are creating a new party? This makes it sound like you found a large, under-served demographic and decided to cash in on their passion. At best, this sounds really backwards; at worst, it sounds downright dubious. How about you tell us what your party stands for, and we'll tell you if we agree and where you could stand to change. At the very least, you should lurk more. I'm all for a viable third party, especially one that embraces the tech community, but surely you understand why this looks deceitful. It's like asking a girl in a chat room how old she is and she asks how old you want her to be.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:47PM (#43496307)

    It's all well and good to say you are for science and education.

    But what does support for any of those things mean in terms of how you plan to help them?

    Are you going to use government to prop up science through specific winner companies, or to promote private research with X-Prize like rewards that spur private research?

    Are you going to support space by building government controlled space vehicles or attempt to reduce regulation around private space exploration to allow more risk for a greater range of discovery?

    Basically, you as a party have to decide before anything else what role government has in our lives, as overseer or gardener.

  • Fix it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frobnicator (565869) on Friday April 19, 2013 @02:50PM (#43496337) Journal

    Restore the vote by eliminating gerrymandering.

    Restore the courts by eliminating plea bargains by prosecutors. (Defendants can still plead guilty and ask for mercy from the court, not from the prosecutors.)

    Restore accountability in government by reducing government immunity from lawsuits. Those who enforce the law should not be immune from it. Police officers who lie under oath [nytimes.com] should be jailed. Destruction of evidence, including failure to collect exculpatory evidence, and the failure of prosecutors to reveal potentially exculpatory evidence as required by the Constitution [secondclassjustice.com], should also not be prevented by governmental immunity and should result in prison time for any detectives and prosecutors involved.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Friday April 19, 2013 @03:10PM (#43496631) Journal

    Basic income guarantee [wikipedia.org].
    Electoral reform (preference voting)
    Abolition of copyright.
    Abolition of all victimless crimes (drug use, prostitution, all sumptuary laws)
    Abolition of all national security exceptions to the Constitution (exceptions to the Constitution themselves endanger national scecurity)
    Abolition of immunities. (prosecutorial, judicial, qualified)
    Creation of a special prosecutor to prosecute abuses of power.

    And lastly pass a law that explicitly states that every citizen has a right to a government that obeys the law. Every citizen should have standing to sue the government if it breaks any laws. Far too many egregious violations of the constitution are unstoppable because no one can prove they have standing.

  • by stenvar (2789879) on Friday April 19, 2013 @03:32PM (#43496901)

    Your party platform contains scary restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of commerce. Your platform is full of hidden subsidies to banks, "homeowners", medical insurance, and other powerful political interest groups. Before you add more nonsense to your platform, why don't you fix that first?

  • by PhamNguyen (2695929) on Friday April 19, 2013 @03:33PM (#43496921)

    I would like you to base your policies around some coherent principles so that I can know if you are worth investigating further. When you make a post like you have just made, it sounds like you are just trying to taylor your policies to getting votes from a particular constituency. Your post does not deserve to be on Slashdot. If you had stated some core principals and how they apply to the use of technology in society, that would have been something worth reading, although it would still not be your place to advertise it here.

    If you are serious about politics I would suggest you act with more decency, and stop polluting news sites with articles that are not news, but rather promoting your own agenda.

  • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Friday April 19, 2013 @04:22PM (#43497759)

    Financial reform. If what the banks did in 2008 wasn't illegal, it should have been. Glass-Steagal needs to come back. The tax burden on corporations (and people) needs to increase the larger they become. Money is unelected political power. It subverts democracy and encourages oligarchy. Offshore money parking needs to be illegal as well. If you want your money in the Isle of Mann, feel free to move there.

    The USA's military is 7 times larger than the next largest military. We spend 18 percent of the budget on military expenditures. I'm all for reducing "entitlements" starting with the Army, Navy and Marines.

    More money should go to research in AI and energy generation. The first problem is unrecognized by the mainstream press (What a shock), but the first country that develops useful, scalable, human-like AI rules the world. Seriously. The next big problem is energy. Like it or not, significant postive net energy from oil is going away. We need a replacement.

    Controversial as this is, I'd give anyone with a medical, engineering or other technical degree earned in the USA a green card and two tax free years. We need the world's smart people here, not in India.

    End rant.

  • If you are a Justice Party then you should be about true justice.

    So let's do this:
    1. Strict government adherence to the set Law, the Constitution.
    2. No deviation from the Law for the government, for the politicians.
    3. All laws must apply in exactly the same manner to all individuals.
    4. No discrimination against individuals based on any personal circumstances, you can't have justice if you don't apply the law in exactly the same way to all people.
    5. No retroactive laws under any circumstances.
    6. In order to pass any legislation, it must FIRST pass against ALL the tests of the existing Law, unit test your legislation against all Laws so to speak.
    7. Never allow your sentiments to override your Laws.
    8. Have a Law based party, anybody that violates the Law must be immediately removed from his or her position of power.
    9. Strict separation of power between branches, so do not allow the Executive branch actually come up with the Law as it happens right now on daily basis, where some bureaucrat that is given authority to run something also decides on the details of the actual Law that is supposed to govern his actions.
    10. All your actions must pass the muster of all the Laws right in front of the eyes of the public, I am talking about complete transparency on every decision.

    So those are your commandments if you are talking about real justice.

    But let me take a wild guess, you are not talking about real justice, you are talking about discrimination and outcomes that you want to base on your preferences. When you say "Justice" what you really mean is discrimination against individuals based on their personal circumstances for the purpose of achieving your goals, whatever they are (so called 'just society', which is simply another socialist party).

    I don't believe my list of 10 suggestions will make it into your platform.

  • by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Friday April 19, 2013 @04:45PM (#43498041) Homepage
    1. Nationalize all banks.
    2. Nationalize utility systems (i.e., power, water, telecom).
    3. Nationalize rail transport systems.
    4. Nationalize health care organizations and pharmaceutical corporations.
    5. Make health insurance single-payer and controlled by the government.
    6. Regulate benefits so that benefits are transportable from job-to-job and do not reset on job change.
    7. Fix immigration so that it no longer is a mechanism for reduction of wages.
    8. Cut military expenditures to no more than 300% of largest potential adversary.
    9. Legalize all currently illegal drugs and treat their use as a health problem, rather than a legal problem.
    10. Take the terms of copyright back to 14 years with a single optional 14 year extension.
    11. No granting of patents on software.
    12. No legal prosecution of non-profit infringement of copyright or trademark (civil suits would still be OK, but would need to be brought against an actual individual, rather than an IP address).
    13. Corporate entities shall have no rights by nature (i.e, remove corporate personhood).
    14. Make all campaigns publicly funded and limit the amounts spent.
    15. Supreme court justices may serve at most twenty years.
    16. A proportional voting system at all levels.
    17. Enforce anti-trust laws.

There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid

Working...