Should We Have Any Policy or Positions Outside Our Core Policy?
Danyl Strype
Public
Seen by 24
There has been a passionate debate on the email group (mainly between Strypey and Mathmo) about whether the NZPP should stick to its knitting and be "single-issue" party on digital civil liberties, allow the membership to debate and decide positions and policies on others issues:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/ppnz/F2HjUC6UNRA[26-50-false]
David Peterson's objection was stated in the thread on Drug Law Reform in the Policy subgroup:
>> Do you think PPNZ should also have a position on Global Warming and Abortion? Plus all the other thousands of very very important but controversial issues?
>> No, of course not because it is waaay outside the core scope of PPNZ, it would dilute us down from our core focus, brand us as something else than what we are at our core thus weakening our core proposition for the voters, promote infighting, drive many people away, and all in all make it much harder to work towards the core goals of PPNZ (which I assume is why we all joined up in the first place!! Not because we want to see reform with GlobalWarming/Abortion/marijuana/whatever).
Strypey replies:
>> I've written extensively on this, but the TL;DR is that those who wish to stick to a narrow range of policy concerns can join a lobby group like TechLiberty, InternetNZ, Creative Freedom Foundation, Open Source Society etc, and push those policies into all political parties. I believe a political party should have a position on anything it's members care about, decided democratically by the membership.
It would be good to get some opinions from other Pirates about this, especially considering that we do have the Policy Group as a space for members to discuss and seek consensus on positions and policies.
There seems to be general agreement on enshrining a statement of principles in the Constitution, which would then guide policy development. The Pirate Wheel lays out the core values and principles of the international Pirate movement:
http://falkvinge.net/files/2012/manual/PirateWheel-2012-11-10.pdf
Danyl Strype Mon 10 Feb 2014 1:18AM
I like the analysis by @hubatmcjuhes. I formulated Pirate principles slightly differently in my discussion document:
- full participation in decision-making
- respect for privacy
- freedom of information
- human rights
When evaluating a policy, we ask two questions:
1) does it violate any of these core values?
2) does it uphold or strengthen any of the core values?
If the first answer is "no", it can at least be considered. If the second answer is "yes", it can probably be adopted.
I would like to see some kind of statement of principles enshrined in the party's Constitution, whether it's along the lines of what @hubatmcjuhes and I have written, or something different. This will ensure that Party takes appropriate positions and formulates appropriate policy around our "core" or founding concerns (copyright, patents, privacy etc).
Hubat McJuhes Mon 10 Feb 2014 8:24AM
If we could agree firstly on the concept of core principles (rather than core policies), and then secondly on a set of such principles, I would very much want to see those in the Constitution, like @strypey suggests.
I also like the idea to test all policies for advancing or violating those principles. But I think that the algorithm should be the other way around. First we should work out the benefits of a policy and then also weight in any possible 'costs' in terms of violations.
This is because - as @tommyfergusson has pointed out - perfectly genuine core pirate policies can collide with other equally valued principles at time. We must be able to elaborate a concept even if it is clear from the outset that in the end a cost will be inevitable.
Andrew McPherson Tue 11 Feb 2014 12:13PM
I'd suggest that we go with the core principles that form the pirate wheel http://falkvinge.net/files/2012/manual/PirateWheel-2012-11-10.pdf
Tommy Fergusson · Fri 7 Feb 2014 9:14PM
Well, there is a line between free expression and privacy to be navigated. Whether that line 'violates' either of free expression or privacy will be a matter of opinion and no doubt different people will think it violates each. Defining (our collective view of) that line and those rights in ways that don't contradict each other is still imo key to the core pirate principles.
Though in general, I do like the principles/policies distinction you just described.