Open Source Party Platform - Discussion, Suggestions, etc.

[Michael Finko]

Ok, finally had time to go through the suggested platform and below
are my initial thoughts written in (anywhere: 'SUGGESTION - ', Wiki
format could be more efficient?) -


Here, then, is the Open Source Party Platform...

1: Let's Have A Democracy

It's a wacky, wacky idea that may have started in early Greece and was
cautiously revived during the American Revolution in 1776 when voting
rights were granted to property owning white males living in most
states of that Union. Since then, the hint of democracy has grown and
spread, but the actual practice has been far from complete. Recently,
many citizens of the US have questioned whether democracy is still in
practice here at all. It's an excellent question. The Open Source
Party suggests two steps to ensure actual democracy.

A: One person/one vote: Every US citizen over 18 has a Social Security
number. Many activities on the internet are protected from fraud by
strong data encryption. Surely, computer geniuses thinking together in
an Open Source process can come up with a way that every person over
18 can use his or her number to effectively and efficiently vote once
and only once. Citizens can vote from their homes or they can vote
from public polling stations using social security numbers tied to
data encryption. If this solution isn't possible, let's brainstorm
others. Shouldn't actually having a democracy be a priority for the
world's oldest "democracy"?


SUGGESTION -

YES - PLEASE, let's brainstorm other options. Here's one very simple
one: if O.S. (what we are proposing) is 100% transparent, why go the
route of MOST resistance when voting (i.e. using S.S.# vs. Full Legal
Name)? Really, it's TOTALLY funny, supposedly IT professionals (here)
proposing using encryption for 'super security' when ANY IT person
knows that's a pipe-dream (i.e. single point of failure)! It will
NEVER happen (Trust No One). Take, for example, the Pentagon - one
would think they would have pretty decent encryption/security but yet
they REGULARLY make the news for getting hacked into. Ok, that's a
minor issue. The MUCH more important part is the fact that anytime
you put up such HUGE barriers it just makes it a MUCH more attractive/
challenging/concentrated target/MAGNET!!! PROPOSAL: since so many
people are putting their FULL life histories on Facebook (and
everywhere, and in chronological order even!!!) let's take that LEAP
of FAITH and vote 100% OPENLY and DIRECTLY on the internet. Then
there is no need for encryption of ANY level (cost savings),
absolutely NOTHING to steal or manipulate (when it IS hacked into,
simply reboot with reserve copy). Secrecy is always in the interests
of the 'few' (i.e. status quo) while openness is in the CLEAR
interests of the many (citizens). SO many more benefits to open
voting than drawbacks.


B: Demolish the duopoly: There are dozens of rules and regulations
designed by the two political parties that have had a virtual monopoly
on power for many decades that prevent other political parties and
independents from competing on a fair playing field. We should
eliminate all those barriers that give unfair advantage to the ruling
parties.


SUGGESTION -

Sorry, not effective. Go back to Direct Democracy voting. But,
really, who wants to be voting 40 times a day (myth, really, though,
as it'll be more like a few times a year, possibly once a month)? I
don't, I have a life, other important issues. So, let's include the
power to transfer your one vote to someone else - ANYONE - but with
the power to recall that vote at ANY SECOND. So, in essence creating
NEW representatives that have to CONSTANTLY prove they are doing what
they are saying, rather then LIE you you once every 4 or 5 years,
steal your vote, ZERO accountability for campaign promises then turn
around and serve the interests of big business.


NOTE: There are a number of other ideas that we are not now advocating
— including direct majority voting on presidential elections; run-off
votes when candidates fail to win 50%; various scenarios to control or
change campaign finance and media access in the electoral process; and
even direct voting on legislation — that will provoke controversy and
discourse within the Open Source Party. Some of these ideas may be
added to the platform following a radically open and democratic
process that will be suggested at the end of this statement.

2: Let's Have Civil Liberties and a Bill of Rights

Here we have yet another notion that only cranks subscribe to — that
civil liberties can survive crime, mind-active substance use, and even
terrorism.

For starters, we seek the return of civil liberties, rights, and
basic, sane conduct by the Executive branch of government that has
been lost in the post 9-11 environment. This includes the reform or
repeal of the (mostly) unnecessary Patriot Act; the return of Habeas
Corpus; the end of essentially infinite surveillance rights for the
federal government; limits to privilege and secrecy in the executive
branch; the end of — or the imposition of judicial limits onto —
presidential signing statements. (What have I forgotten? You tell me.)

We support strong free speech that includes an end to implicit
censorship through government intimidation, and an end to the so-
called "War on Drugs," which has resulted in frequent violations
against limits on search and seizure and an abhorrently high
percentage of US citizens imprisoned.

NOTE: There is plenty of room here for dynamic, open debate among Open
Source Party members, including whether to reform or repeal The
Patriot Act and what kind of surveillance is necessary and appropriate
for the defense of the nation. Also, ending the "drug war" could
involve anything from reform of draconian policies and medicalization
of illegal drugs, to an outright end to prohibition. Again, we will
follow a radically open and democratic process that may add to the
party platform.

3: Let's End the Imperial Foreign Policy

Or, if you prefer, let's stop playing the world's policeman. However
you phrase it, we should no longer invade or attack sovereign nation
states, either directly or indirectly, that haven't attacked us by
force of arms. The emphasis of American foreign policy needs to change
from "defending our interests" to "defending our sovereignty."

NOTE: Here we can have a dynamic discussion about many possible
aspects of defending the US, including, the size of the military
budget and the interests of what President Eisenhower called a
military-industrial complex; what to do about weapons systems and
weapons testing (including nuclear); whether we should provide weapons
to other nations and under what circumstances; whether to allow
mercenary groups to operate out of the US; whether and when to
participate and help in peace negotiations among other nations as a
humanitarian act; whether and when to participate with other nations
in interventions in extreme cases of genocide; whether or when to
intervene in extreme cases if and when another nation launches
repeated interventions of its own and seems clearly bent on regional
or global conquest in the tradition of Genghis Khan, Napolean and
Hitler; how to cope with the development of nuclear weapons by other
nations (and by our own); whether or not to have military alliances
and what our degree of commitment to them should be; and whether and
when to cooperate with the UN.

4: A New "Energy Task Force"

A tremendous number of energy pioneers have been thinking and working
for decades on energy solutions that don't involve oil, natural gas or
coal. These organizations include Rocky Mountain Institute, Pliny
Fisk’s Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems, and the folks at
WorldChanging, ad infinitum. Let's bring people like these together to
map out how best to bring us as completely into the age of clean
energy as possible within 10-20 years — whether through the state, the
market, decentralized voluntarism, or all three.



SUGGESTION -

Greed and Laziness - the two issues that can push ANY ONE OF US TO
CORRUPTION. We ALL have a price on our forehead (fact), just for some
it's ridiculously low. Rather than pick specific groups, find the
'bottleneck' or single point of failure: SECRECY, or, discussions
behind closed doors. Solution: ALL discussion, meetings, etc., need
to be done (or transcribed) 100% openly on the internet, i.e. recorded
for all of history (we got the disk space!). So, while I am not an
expert on energy, there are many out there that will quickly point out
the counterpoints and weak links that are the contributors to personal
agendas and corruption. Will it be perfect? Absolutely not. Will
there be corruption? Absolutely, but it will be found much earlier and
the 'bug' will be fixed MUCH faster. This is the Open Source way.

NOTE: Obviously, there's nearly infinite room here for debate and
discussion about these solutions, but we imagine a passionate
discourse about whether the transition can happen primarily through
encouragement of the market or whether it should emphasize government
solutions. We also look forward to an interesting debate among Open
Source Party members over whether to develop and deploy more nuclear
power.

5: Let's Explore The Possibility of an Open Source Monetary System

Monetary policies and systems change all the time and it is always
necessary to remind ourselves that "money" is a symbol (presumably) of
wealth, and not an actual material value. We should encourage and
empower a public discourse around how money should be issued,
understood, defined and valued. Ultimately, we may want to think in
terms of an "Open Source" monetary system and we may want to encourage
"alternative" forms of currency.



SUGGESTION -

We 'may' want to encourage alternative forms of currency?!?! Of
course we do, this reduces a monopoly!! While it can be argued that
on the one side 'someone' (i.e. Fed) who adds or reduces to the money
supply definitely can help in times of panic, unfortunately, history
has proven they will never be independent for long. Once again, the
Fed is too sweet of a 'target' to resist, it's been hi-jacked.
Business schools all teach diversification, i.e. don't keep all your
eggs on one basket, so, yes, the U.S. should allow any form of
currency. Realistically, it will boil down to a few (as I just don't
see a lot of people using the Ukrainian Hryvnia for many
transactions!) but this will allow the MARKET to decide (no one is
EVER smarter than the market - HTC recognized this and offered BOTH
Android and Windows, Nokia didn't and only offered Microsoft, crash
and burn!!!). Just as in nature, if there are imbalances, the market
will naturally correct these imbalances. While I am far from an
expert, again, let's look for the Single Point of Failure and address
it.


NOTE: Again, there is nearly infinite room for new ideas and debate
here, including questioning the essential premise — thus the "let's
explore" aspect of this part of the platform. Open Source currency may
be achievable through networks of trust, through virtual money (like
Linden Dollars) or simply by removing the state from the equation and
then publicly encouraging a multiplicity of exchange signals. We are
most of all intrigued by ideas that might lead toward a post-scarcity
monetary system.

6: Let's End Corporate Personhood and Other Rules that Unfairly
Advantage Corporations

Corporations today have the rights but not the responsibilities of
persons, and our laws are riddled with other advantages that tilt the
balance of economic and political power in favor of these giants. This
platform suggests a simple libertarian approach toward disempowering
what some have called the corporatocracy by removing their state
advantages.

Note: There is tremendous room for discussion and debate about other
measures to rein in corporations, including — no doubt — discourse
about whether to simply take away corporate advantages or to regulate
them, democratize them, utilize the corporate approval process to
punish corruption and/or anti-social activities, ad infinitum.

7: Let My Web People Go!

Digital stuff exists in a land without scarcity. It is natural and
spontaneous that when people reside there, they tend to share and to
re-purpose content without guilt. On the other hand, "content
creators" need to pay bills just as much as programmers and other
virtual laborers do. We need to support the natural evolving ecology
of copying and sharing on the web. At the same time, we need to find a
way to sufficiently reward creative content.

Note: This requires lots of real creative thinking and there is lots
of room for discussion and debate around the nuances of netiquette and
law.

Completely agree, the whole sector is evolving at warp speed that,
really, only people with strong experience and a solid grasp can
propose sustainable solutions for ALL sides (and that is only for a
short while).


Democratic Processes Within an Open Source Party

We suggest that decisions to take on "official" activities and to make
additions or subtractions to and from the Open Source Party platform
would take place along the lines of "near consensus." We would suggest
a 75% yes vote among registered members would be requuired to adopt
any action or platform point. We also suggest that the democratic
process would include serious campaigning and some degree of hilarity.

We suggest that erecting a pay wall would be instrumental not only in
helping to finance a dynamic organization but necessary to keep out
all but the most motivated griefers, and help us to verify the
legitimacy of voters, who would vote only once. Naturally, we would
hope that enthusiasts who can would contribute substantially more.



SUGGESTION -

1) Why they INFLEXIBILTY?!?! 75% for EVERYTHING! Let's keep in mind
the entire spectrum from 0 to 100. Let's take into account the weight
of the issue at hand and how many people it affects - the more, the
higher the % barrier, less can be lower. Then we have the level of the
issue: local, town, city, county, state or national? Many levels of
consensus can be introduced.

But really this is a general 'Flexibility' issue. In todays age of
massive choices (many times overwhelming), let's have voting
parameters in line with growth of society. When it involves financial
matters let's use COST-EFFECTIVE FLEXIBILITY. If multiple solutions
can be offered cost-effectively, WHY NOT? Why impose one solution on
everyone. The GREATEST strength of the U.S. is it's DIVERSITY, but
it's completely locked away today because it's a double edged sword:
diversity has 100% polarized us. The only way to unlock the massive
benefits of Diversity is with MASSIVE FLEXIBILITY.

2) Once again, if we vote 100% Openly on the internet under full legal
names (registered in advance on a .gov site running O.S. software)
verifying the legitimacy would be very easy. In fact, I think there
would be millions of apps created very quickly to verify, double
verify and a million times verify the accuracy of the voting results.
Let's harness the positive benefits of technology while mitigating the
drawbacks (single point of failure: secrecy).



Final Thoughts

We imagine that this in-group, Open Source, participatory democratic
process could be a way in which people who have been more or less on
the fringe of American politics can encourage one another to think
clearly in terms of actually making policy. It's very easy to stand
outside the system and protest or call for some absolutist ideological
solution ("Anarchy, dudes!"), but it's more interesting and valuable
to try to realistically envision the consequences of policy. We also
want to emphasize again the ample potential to keep this playful — to
create dynamic virtual worlds (in Second Life, or wherever), games,
fanciful as well as serious candidacies, videos and podcasts, songs,
etc. Such media can now be created by a large proportion of the
general internet public, so why not do it?


SUGGESTION -

...and, my final thoughts - let's key in on a few general words:
1) POLARIZATION / FLEXIBILITY
2) SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE / TRUST NO ONE
3) 100% TRANSPARENCY (not 'highly' transparent, or 'maximum', or
whatever)
4) GOVERNMENT: DECENTRALIZING / MINIMALIST (i.e. minimalist kernal,
than all add-ons/plugins/apps)
5) GREED & LAZINESS
6) FULL ACCOUNTABILITY
7) GENUINE SUSTAINABILITY
8) TRUE BALANCE
9) DEADLINES / RESULTS

br,
Michael

[Matt Lemmon]

Hi Michael,

I've been away from the group for a while, but I stopped by to visit and see things are going, and I read your post. Thanks for sharing all of these interesting and insightful thoughts about your vision for Open Source Politics. Two Thumbs Up for "Demolishing the Duopoly".

I'm getting all excited because 2014 will be a huge election year in the United States. Things are not looking so good for the Democrats. We'll see what happens come November. I will be watching House races in the state of Colorado with particular interest.

Best wishes, and thanks again for sharing your party platform ideas.

 - Matt Lemmon

[Max #]

Hi Michael,

Great ideas. I have one too, we need to consolidate resources,talents, people imho... Perhaps we need to create a social network for Open Source Party? I'm not saying that we need to build one from scratch, we could you some open source engine, for example.

Best regards,

Max