Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

510 of 694 comments (clear)

  1. You and yours can go your way. Me and mine my way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That is all.

  2. Planks? by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Planks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We're talking about politicians here... I'd want a stronger wood, since we want the politicians to walk the plank.

    2. Re:Planks? by Dutchmaan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I remember when politicians were built from mohangay and oak, now they're all just compressed particle board and fall apart after a year or two, but we never throw them out we just keep using them with all their broken drawers because we don't want to deal with the problem of disposing of it all!

    3. Re:Planks? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Politics is very meaningful. These are the people who rule over us and decide the future of our respective countries. Herp derp politics are boring/corrupt is the call of an idiot child; get involved, vote, make the issues that matter to you political.

    4. Re:Planks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By my reckoning that would put you at close to 100 years old.

    5. Re:Planks? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's what asking for more rigid toxic waste laws does to our system!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Planks? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Politics is, unfortunately, at least in a democracy, a game of majorities. Now take the average idiot. And now realize that 50% of the people (plus that idiot, that's already the majority) is even dumber than him.

      And these people decide who gets to rule.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Planks? by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Isn't that just precious. Someone who still buys the line of bullshit from eighth grade civics. How cute.

    8. Re:Planks? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yeah sure. but get this, Justice party. Platform TWO POINT OUH. with a technology manager. with visual style stolen out of some americana-modern kit. asking for hints about what the policies should be. I mean. is this a joke or what? if you got political ambitions - but no political vision - name yourself the populist party and get over it. it's a total slashvertisement. reading their site I just don't get what this "platform" is. it just makes it sounds like some phb's came up with a political party.

      that being said, most of their http://www.justicepartyusa.org/our_pledge agenda is common sense, but with an agenda like that I guess they had to go over the top with naming the party and patriotic colors.

      and if the technology manager bothers to read this: how come natural gas isn't a fossil fuel? you do understand that it doesn't refer to madmax pig dens style gas? and name yourself the portugalist-socialist-green party - the PSGP! much easier to explain to people what you're about that way.. I mean, with a name like justice party you would expect to be for gun ownership, tight pants and the death penalty - but you're for fairness, environment and slashing the military, even if you lack concrete examples about how you would aim for it.

      ps. fix the typos. I make them all the time on slashdot, but I'm not trying to kick up a political party. and don't stop after one election like most "nerd" "let's change the world" "parties" do - I mean, you're not the first guys to think of this. the problem is that they're usually started up by guys who lack charisma and then what's worse just stop after they don't get the vote volley they had hoped in their dreams to get. and if possible get some established politicians to jump ship into your party! that's the only way to do a new successful party without the mob or without owning 70% of the media!

      not going to vote for you guys - simply because I'm not from USA. but even if I were, and I support some goals, "collaborative movement-building" just makes me puke. just provide some exact guidelines which way to go in conflicting fairness situations - because you're going to offend someone in USA, you can't really "respect" the wishes of a homophobic who wants to kill all gays if you are for gay marriage(nothing wrong with that but you have to understand that it is disrespectful towards the dolts who are against it) - it just doesn't work that way. you can't at the same time be fair about some guys right to harvest his trees if you're for banning cutting down his forest because an exotic squirrel might live there. give hard guideline policies and not empty meaningless writing that doesn't mean shit even if you lace it with a promise of there being a collaboration to decide the fate of the forest later.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Planks? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Rule is very accurate. We may get to decide who rules, but when they rule, they can enact laws which if you don't feel like following will put you up against law enforcement and then the military if that doesn't work out. Yes, they rule. Which is all the more reason to be very careful when choosing those rulers.

      I find it interesting how my common sense and perfectly logical gp post was modded into oblivion incidentally, who would have thought that the idea of getting involved in politics would be such a touchy subject.

    10. Re:Planks? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I was joking. Half-joking, actually.

      Politics is a game of winning the fools over. Because only a fool would believe you if you tell something after you have done a completely different thing. That's basically what politics is about, though. It's not uncommon to hear someone promise something when a while ago he did the exact opposite. I cannot help but assume that a bright, intelligent person would simply refuse to believe it.

      So the intelligent portion of a population will support or oppose a politician by his actions. There's also little he could do to change that. But unless he's completely inept, supporters and opponents will even out somewhat. So what's left to decide who rules is, essentially, who can sway the fools' votes with nice speeches.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Planks? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Average, when used colloquially is taken to be the arithmetic mean

      No it isn't. It's more like the mode. When people say "the average family" they aren't talking about one with some fraction of a child.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Planks? by zephvark · · Score: 1

      I remember when politicians were built from mohangay

      I'm pretty sure a lot of the republicans are still built from mohangay, although I haven't been keeping up with these newfangled slang terms. Who was this Mohan, anyway? /goes off to google... err... we still say "google", right?

    13. Re:Planks? by speedplane · · Score: 1

      I wish I was mahogany.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    14. Re:Planks? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      So how do you handle it?

      You've got good snark ability and you're thoughtful enough to devise or steal a nifty sig.

      If you could spare a moment or two, can you offer some helpful suggestions or views about how any of us might could better deal with our little portion of the human condition, other than, perhaps, "I got mine and screw everybody else" or "you can't change the present situation because ~1600 people own everything so it's no use, don't beat your head against the wall, go with the flow"? What?

      Obviously some of us are not as smart or wise or clear-headed as you. Would it offend your sense of rightness to drop a crumb of enlightenment from your table?

    15. Re:Planks? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for a party that upheld the Constitution as the plain language document it is, rather than the carefully lawyerized, misinterpreted for convenience document it is made out, then we could replace the Repubmocrat tyranny with something that works. We had Ebony planks to begin with! Now it's just particle board and cheap plastic veneer.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    16. Re:Planks? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      LOL he remembers when his grandfather talked about politicians like that.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    17. Re:Planks? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      The first ingredient we need to fulfill your instructions is; politicians and partys who offer solutions outside the Repubmocrat framework, which hasn't worked well for the last century or so. The second ingredient is coffee, so everyone can wake up and have a whiff.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    18. Re:Planks? by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Drinking, bitterness, and jaded nihilism.

      It is best for man to be middle-wise,
      Not over cunning and clever:
      The learned man whose lore is deep
      Is seldom happy at heart

      --HÃvamÃl (Snorra Edda)

    19. Re:Planks? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Outstanding. Thank you.

      I'm still naive enough to get pissed off that it comes to that stance. I can see it coming, and would prefer to avoid it. So I'll likely muddle through the middle, slogging through a day, or somesuch.

      Cheers, mate.

    20. Re:Planks? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh

      But best of luck to you, nonetheless.

    21. Re:Planks? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, there is that.
            Although I am curious how some things turn out, bits of research, some projects, families of relatives and friends, at 65 I take the cowards' way by figuring I'll likely die (given health probs) before the slide to wherever hits. My largest current regret is that there's nothing I can do to help other than leave them a few books to read.
            I've read enough about various crunches and whatnot that I don't relish people I care about trying to survive any of them. "C'est la vie" seems.... jejune.

            cheers [burp]

  3. WTF? Is this your party or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Take what you believe and make that your party planks.

    1. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think you should entice the politicians into making the promises. What we need to do is allow the politicians to make a binding pledge and if they break any of their binding pledges, it's an automatic recall. No you may wonder, why would anyone do that, but it's a simple race to the bottom. The guys who won't win have nothing to lose from making binding pledges and the guys who might will start making binding pledges to make sure those who won't win, still won't win. It's entirely voluntarily and they have no one to blame but themselves when they're kicked from office for failing to keep a pledge. Once it's happened a few times, they'll get careful about what they promise and it'll become easier to see what they really plan to do by what the pledge to do, pledge not to do, or refuse to pledge.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    3. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has an informed opinion on everything. Also, a party that 100% represented my views would only have one member. Some amount of compromise is necessary whenever two or more people associate; to have a successful party able to implement the ~80% of things that everyone agrees upon, everyone will disagree with the party on something. Perhaps the party's technology manager wants to learn where the majority disagrees with his personal views, so that he can discover where he could compromise for the good of his party overall?

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    4. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by EriDay · · Score: 1

      That is the kind of thinking that ruined the Republican party and made Grover Norquist among the most powerful men in the country. Given your sig I can't see how you would go along with Grover and his tactics.

    5. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Why would they do that? They already copied their existing platform from the one the Green Party has been using for years!

      --
      I do not have a signature
    6. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      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.

      I agree, except that the X% variable should be a zero initialized constant -- For efficiency.

    7. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have our beliefs. The OP is reaching out to this community to learn more of what is important to members that are in sciences, engineering and information technology -- Thanks, Justice Party

    8. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by Holi · · Score: 1

      I think politicians should be free to react to the conditions and not have their hands tired by some stupid pledge. They already take a pledge that they should hold above all others during their service.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    9. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      planking is dangerous, although in the case of politicians doing it i would make an exception

    10. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      as long as idiot voters keep putting dipshits in office, it doesn't matter what the rules are

    11. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      haha i would love to see little blue grover as president

      he couldn't possibly be any worse than the monkey in the white house atm

    12. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      zero initialized constant

      now there's an oxymoron if ever i heard one

    13. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Everybody needs something to believe in, I believe I'll have another beer and spank my plank.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    14. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by tbannist · · Score: 2

      That's a good point. If they could be legally bound to uphold a public pledge, would that dilute Grover's power since there could now be a great number of different pledges? Currently, there's only one pledge that matters, "Don't raise taxes" or Americans for Tax Reform will give their money to your opponent in the next round of primaries. Could greater transparency and accountability be a bad thing?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    15. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that very few people those politicians uphold either the spirit or the letter of that pledge. Most people seem to believe that most politicians are faithless liars who will say anything to get elected and are never held accountable for breaking their election promises. For instance, in the last election here, we had a guy promise to lower taxes, increasing spending and balance the budget in his first year of office. Something that was clearly impossible to do and he only narrowly lost. Almost everyone believes he was lying about increasing spending (most believe he'd cut made deep cuts to some services), but people are split on whether he was lying about cutting taxes, balancing the budget or just plain stupid.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    16. Re:WTF? Is this your party or not? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      The advantage here would be that dipshits who make promises they can't keep would be yanked from office, eventually, enough people might get wise to fact that they shouldn't elect people who make promises they obviously can't keep. I might be overly optimistic, though.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  4. Proportional representation. by hendrikboom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.

    1. Re:Proportional representation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No software patents, nor method-of-doing-business patents.

      No political contributions allowed from corporations.

      Some means of punishing politicians that do a lot of legislation to benefit a corporation and then become a member of the board of directors as soon as their term is up, so they can rake in the cash from their prior legislation.

    2. Re:Proportional representation. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Proportional representation. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      There is little reason to believe that these countries are better governed, and plenty of evidence that they are not.

      Some links please. "Italy is a fucking mess" won't cut it.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:Proportional representation. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      This just gave me an idea:

      How about anyone who runs for political office, to receive a pension after the term is ended, must serve an equal amount of time volunteering on a review board? We'd need some incentive to keep them actually working and reviewing -- in the US, it could be as simple as reviewing all policy that they voted against during office.

      Sure, it has some holes, but it cleans up a couple of glaring holes that exist in the current system.

    5. Re:Proportional representation. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      No, it gives undue weight to local issues. A party list system for the national elections, and PR for local elections.

    6. Re:Proportional representation. by Ken_g6 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    7. Re:Proportional representation. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      How about a party name that doesn't implicitly say the others are 'anti Justice'?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    8. Re: Proportional representation. by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 2

      Proportional representation isn't a panacea. Sure it gives small parties a chance to win seats, but it that also means the "I love cheese" party and all sorts of other wack-a-doodle parties get their voice. As well, since you're more likely to have minority governments, these minor parties often have a disproportionate amount of power since they're needed to get anything done. Sounds great for the Pirate party and Green Party, but works just as well for the neo-nazi and right wing religious extremist pary of your choice. The worst problem with proportional representation however is that candidates are chosen off of prioritised lists prepared by the parties themselves, meaning it's all political insiders beholden to the party rather than those who elected them

    9. Re:Proportional representation. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      That's a 'rule' that is independent of the party wielding it. GOP is only a 'minority' party on paper. It's a duopoly by any rational definition. Anybody other than GOP/Tea and Dem is a minority party, but those two aren't by any stretch.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    10. Re:Proportional representation. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      linky 4th largest party yet they are referred to as 'King Makers' because they can sway the vote enough that you need them in your coalition to win almost all of the time.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    11. Re:Proportional representation. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This. A billion times this.

      First-past-the-post is a horrible system to represent a population. It essentially means cementing a two party system in eternity. Sadly, the very fact that this is cemented means that the only ones who could possibly change anything are also the ones that would have something to lose by changing it, so the chances of it happening are exactly zero.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Proportional representation. by AuMatar · · Score: 2

      GOP and dem are what other countries would consider coalitions. There's major factions within each and internal power struggles. The Tea Party is the far right faction of the GOP, and is roughly equivalent to a minority party in other countries. And they hold up quite a bit of legislation.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    13. Re:Proportional representation. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While i don't disagree with your description, they aren't 'coalitions' by the standard political definition. There are different factions within the party are but all still Dem or GOP. A coalition is made up of distinctly separate parties with distinctly separate goals.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    14. Re:Proportional representation. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      The term is gerrymandering.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    15. Re: Proportional representation. by amaurea · · Score: 1

      If a significant fraction of the population votes for the "I love cheese party", then why is it wrong for that party get their voice? And if 15% of the population votes for the "kill all the heathens" party, then that party will have 15% of the votes in congress. Why shouldn't they? With proportional representation, people can vote for parties they actually agree with, rather than needing to vote strategically for the lesser of two evils, neither of which they agree with. I've met Americans who say that they actually agree more with one of the small parties, but you can't vote for any of those because you would be throwing away your vote. Any others who don't even know what the smaller parties stand for. "The winner takes it all"-type election systems create a strong tendency towards a few, large parties. I think it will be impossible for the USA to break out of its two-party rut without switching to proportional representation.

      It may be true that you end up with much less focus on individual representatives, and more focus on the party as a unit, when you use proportional representaiton. That is certainly how it works where I come from (Norway). When voting, you vote for a sorted list of representatives, with the most weight going to those at the top of the list, and less to those at the bottom. These lists are provided by the parties, but they can be edited before you cast a vote - you can strike out representatives, change their order, or even include people from other parties. In practice almost nobody does this, though.

      I am not sure that this will actually change how the representatives behave, though. Do the politicians in the USA behave as if they are beholden to the people who voted for them? In countries with proportional representation it is much more feasible to vote for another party if the previous one did not fulfill one's expectations. So in a way, the party takes on the same role as the representative. In the USA, if you voted Democrat, you can't really punish the Democratic party as such if they behave too much like Republicans for your taste, for example, as the alternative would be to vote Republican. The only option is to punish your representative. So I understand why Americans think voting for individual representatives is so important. But in a many-party system (for which you need proportional representation or similar), voting for another party is actually practical, and just as effective.

    16. Re:Proportional representation. by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    17. Re:Proportional representation. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.

      Especially if "small factions" includes a majority of American citizens. There are numerous issues on which a large majority of Americans feel one way, but both our major parties go the other way. They know damn well you don't really have a choice. Without PR minor party votes are just meaningless protests.

    18. Re:Proportional representation. by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      One measure to verify the accuracy of your hypothesis that GOP/Dem are coalitions is the frequency with which internal "factions" break from party-line voting (creating new coalitions distinct from party-line boundaries). Voting statistics indicate a high level of party-line loyalty, with the GOP typically acting in near-100% unity and the Dems displaying only slightly more coalition-style factionalism when right-wing factions of the Dem party side with the GOP. The near complete absence of strong coalition formations that defy party lines (e.g. a 60/40 GOP/Dem coalition squaring off against a 40/60 GOP/Dem coalition on some issue, rather than 90/10 vs. 0/100 GOP/Dem) invalidates the hypothesis that internal factionalism functionally recreates coalition politics.

    19. Re:Proportional representation. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      What we really need is some kind of system that prevents jerry-mandering when redistricting.

      Very important, and surprisingly easy to handle (if TPTB will tolerate something radical like representative government). States that simply have non-partisan re-districting commissions (Iowa?) do pretty well, whereas in Texas gerrymandering has been taken to an unabashed extreme. IIRC Austin is divided amongst 4 congressional districts, each of which also goes out into the boonies. Hence the Austin area doesn't really have any representation. Nor is it just a problem for Austin. Since Texas is the second most populous state their system affects the whole country. But don't worry about us in NY state. Our local politicos seem to strike nice compromises. The NY 2nd and 3rd districts were re-drawn so that one belongs to a Republican congressman-for-life and the other belongs to a Democratic congressman-for-life. I could vote for Mickey Mouse for all that it matters.

    20. Re:Proportional representation. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      How about a party name that doesn't implicitly say the others are 'anti Justice'?

      Wait... you mean they aren't? Don't worry, I'm sure if the Justice party was in power, they'd be just as anti-justice as the rest of them. :-D

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    21. Re:Proportional representation. by robot5x · · Score: 1

      I think most people would agree that any democratic system should represent small factions and minorities - that's exactly what it should do, represent its electorate.

      PR is clearly better placed to do this than some other systems currently being used. Where 'small kooky factions' hold disproportionate power, it's more likely to be a problem with the way PR is implemented and regulated rather than with the system itself. It's not one-size-fits-all, and each jurisdiction should think carefully about how the thing is put together.

      I'd also like to point out the potential normative bias in your claim that these factions are 'kooky'. You may not sympathise with their beliefs, but does that mean they shouldn't be represented in parliament, or they should have less influence?

      Maybe it would just be better if the party who shares your personal views exactly has all the power??

      --
      Hej! Nasi tu byli!
    22. Re:Proportional representation. by sycodon · · Score: 2

      No political contributions allowed from corporations.

      If you want to go down that path and be fair, make it so no contributions can come from any legal entity, Corps, Unions, Associations, etc. Only individuals who pay taxes (local or national) AND all contributions are subject to audits...no collecting money from others and submitted by a single person. Only this will prevent coercion on an individual by a group. Oh...and Full Disclosure no matter how small the contribution.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    23. Re:Proportional representation. by stymy · · Score: 1

      So the goals of the different factions aren't different? They might share some beliefs, but not all of them, otherwise they wouldn't be separate factions.

    24. Re:Proportional representation. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      States that simply have non-partisan re-districting commissions (Iowa?) do pretty well, whereas in Texas gerrymandering has been taken to an unabashed extreme. IIRC Austin is divided amongst 4 congressional districts, each of which also goes out into the boonies. Hence the Austin area doesn't really have any representation. Nor is it just a problem for Austin. Since Texas is the second most populous state their system affects the whole country. But don't worry about us in NY state. Our local politicos seem to strike nice compromises. The NY 2nd and 3rd districts were re-drawn so that one belongs to a Republican congressman-for-life and the other belongs to a Democratic congressman-for-life. I could vote for Mickey Mouse for all that it matters.

      Do be aware that of your examples, the Voting Rights Act controls TX apportionment. It also controls several districts in NY (though not the first and second, as far as i can tell).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    25. Re: Proportional representation. by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      It's not the party that gets 15% of the vote that concern me. It's the one that gets 2%, gets 5 seats and then effects significant shifts in national policy as other major parties solicit its support. I'm not American, but I shudder to think of the kind of fringe parties that would wield a disproportionate amount of power in the US if this were ever enacted. While "winner take all" election systems do encourage larger parties, they also encourage more inclusive parties that have broad platforms that encompass the numerous issues needed to rule a country. Proportional representation encourages single issue, or regional parties that. The problem with the list approach, is that the most connected political insiders and hacks are the ones at the top of the list. If you don't vote the way the party leader instructs you, then come next election you'll find yourself way down the list. As a politician your main mechanism for ensuring re-election is to ensure you're near the top of your parties list. In Canada like most first past the post, parlimentary systems, it's possible for a party to win, while defeating the party's leader, or right hand man (this has happened several times). Ultimately since it is politicians that vote in their respective houses or parliments, I would rather have the ability to vote for a person, rather than the abstract concept of the party

    26. Re:Proportional representation. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      No political contributions allowed from corporations.

      An organization that wishes to engage in political speech immediately should lose any favorable tax status. This is already the law for non-profits, and it should be the law for corporations as well. For a corporation, losing such tax status would mean the individual shareholders would then be directly responsible for risk and tax burden, as if it were a partnership.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    27. Re:Proportional representation. by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Indeed, and the weighting of the coalition is mostly based on the relative number of votes. For example here in Norway there's currently a coalition of 35,4% + 6,2% + 6,2% (in representatives actually a small majority due to a 4% cutoff for proportional representation), and undoubtedly the big party sets most of the policy while the smaller get a few core issues and some compromises where they're directly opposite. That balance may change though as people change their vote within the coalition, how can you do that when the ballot is Republican, Republican or Republican and Democrat, Democrat or Democrat? The only way the voter can signal a change is to not vote or switch side, which is too big a jump for most.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    28. Re:Proportional representation. by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the input hendrikboom. I do believe that is on the list of items. - Justice Party

    29. Re:Proportional representation. by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

      This is very interesting point ShanhaiBIll. Can there be a middle ground between what you mentioned and what we have here? -- Thanks, Justice Party

    30. Re:Proportional representation. by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

      Re-districting is much on our minds. For the major parties it seems that it is leading to less moderate wings of their parties and creating more politicians that are unable to work together. This post and its parent post are helpful. -- Thanks, Justice Party

    31. Re: Proportional representation. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It's not the party that gets 15% of the vote that concern me. It's the one that gets 2%, gets 5 seats and then effects significant shifts in national policy as other major parties solicit its support.

      Germany's Bundestag takes care of that by having a 5% threshold for representation by PR. I'm not sure I agree w/ that approach, but it would avoid the potential problem that concerns you.

      P.S. Why don't you like cheese?

    32. Re:Proportional representation. by Quila · · Score: 1

      Define "corporation." Unions are corporations. Non-profits tend to be corporations.

    33. Re:Proportional representation. by Quila · · Score: 2

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

    34. Re:Proportional representation. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Can there be a middle ground between what you mentioned and what we have here? -- Thanks, Justice Party

      I think a good reform that could actually happen is to move to open primaries. This has already happened in California, and it seems to be helping. The way open primaries work is that anyone can vote for any candidate, and the top two vote getters, regardless of party, go on to the general election. This has two benefits: 1. It enables people to vote for what they actually want, at least in the primary. 2. It weakens political parties and incentivises politicians to represent the interests of their constituents instead of their party, thus making compromise and good government more likely.

    35. Re:Proportional representation. by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 1

      Yes. This is an important point.

      Once you have negotiations between parties, the negotiations tend to be out in the open because the public have a clear idea of what a party stands for.

      If you keep these discussions behind closed doors, then you end up being overly influenced by lobby groups.

    36. Re: Proportional representation. by amaurea · · Score: 1

      It's not the party that gets 15% of the vote that concern me. It's the one that gets 2%, gets 5 seats and then effects significant shifts in national policy as other major parties solicit its support.

      But would the amount of influence they gain that way be more than the 2% influence they deserve? Would a party with 10 seats instead of 5 seats have less than twice the influence? I don't think this will be the case on average, but I don't have any numbers to back it up with.

      While "winner take all" election systems do encourage larger parties, they also encourage more inclusive parties that have broad platforms that encompass the numerous issues needed to rule a country. Proportional representation encourages single issue, or regional parties that.

      You're probably right about that. But I think there are two different ways in which a party can be inclusive. One is that they cover a broad range of subjects in their program. Another is that they contain people with a broad range of (possibly conflicting) opinions on those subjects. The former is necessary for any large party (though a single issue party would still be effective representatives of singe-issue voters), and is an advantage, as you say. But the latter is a disadvantage in my opinion.

      With many small parties, each party can have a well-defined opinion because it consists of people who share that opinion. Since there are many parties, and actually feasible to start new ones, politicians can join a party they agree with rather than needing to be shoehorned into a huge, diffuse entity where they certainly aren't going to agree with everything. Hence, reaching a consensus inside a party in a many-party-system is actually feasible, unlike in a two-party system.

      If you don't vote the way the party leader instructs you, then come next election you'll find yourself way down the list.

      Yes, I think this is a real issue for the politicians (though I'm not sure it is an important issue for the voters). But it will be a smaller issue the more homogeneous the parties are, and as I argued above, a many-party-system should lead to more homogeneous parties due to less shoehorning.

      Ultimately since it is politicians that vote in their respective houses or parliments, I would rather have the ability to vote for a person, rather than the abstract concept of the party

      I think you can have your cake and eat it too, here, if we are willing to give up the concept of "one representative, one vote". What if you could vote for the representative you chose, and each representative had a number of votes in congress equal to the number of votes he himself received? That would be a proportional system. So party lists are not needed to achieve proportionality.

    37. Re:Proportional representation. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Even more important than no gerrymandering is a method of punishing politicians who violate the Constitution. Simply voiding an unconstitutional law obviously does not deter them from promoting and passing unconstitutional legislation in the future. If they faced large fines and prison time (no chance for a pardon) for supporting a law found to be unconstitutional, politicians would be much less likely to ignore it and violate our rights.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    38. Re:Proportional representation. by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.

      Brilliant.
      Please sign https://facebook.com/CommunalAward
      https://facebook.com/IndependentNationFor300MillionIndiasUntouchable
       

    39. Re:Proportional representation. by Xest · · Score: 1

      You're somewhat right but it's still self-correcting overall because if a minority gets given too much say in a policy such that it ticks off the population then that party that formed the coalition will suffer a world of hurt next election and rapidly learn not to form coalitions that mean giving too much leeway to unpopular minorities. It's not unprecedented for the biggest minority in a PR based state to go ahead with a minority government and just focus on passing stuff that they can get consensus from the other parties on. This is healthy because unpopular measures are easily tossed out and the minority government is kept on constant edge and must watch where they tread. That's exactly how you want a government to have to work rather than be given a free reign to go nuts and fuck everything up.

      Fundamentally even with it's flaws it's better than most of the alternatives, particularly our first past the post in the UK where as little as 30% of the vote can get you an effective 100% of the power given that it can be enough to give you a parliamentary majority.

  5. Secularism by elloGov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Separation of Church/Religion & State, be it whatever religion

    1. Re:Secularism by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I've long believed in freedom of religious choice. But as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that freedom of thought is a vastly more important right, and one that can not flourish as long as people are infected with contagious memetic parasites that suppress their free will.

    2. Re:Secularism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Corrected that for you:

      THIS. Make sure people are free to worship as they please, but keep the religion in homes and churches and out of government and public schools .

    3. Re:Secularism by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 necessity, tramples on the beliefs of (for example0 Muslim theocrats or of athiests.

    4. Re:Secularism by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Secularism by Empiric · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Easy. Just refer to what "Separation of Church and State" actually means:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

      The rendering of it as "removal of religion from the State" is simply a made-up misrepresentation as unbacked in content and justification (by -any- reference to anything that exists as an objective underpinning) as the rest of the secular arbitrariness that someone will soon post to "correct" this view, as stated by Some Lawyer Wearing A Black Robe At The Time.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    6. Re:Secularism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interesting you mention free will. Belief in free will is fundamentally linked to religious belief. There is no room in science for free will, no matter what the compatibilists say.

    7. Re:Secularism by Empiric · · Score: 2

      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 validity, per -your- criteria.

      "Where the morals or ethics came from is irrelevent."

      I was a bit concerned I was making assumptions on this, but handily, you've provided this as definitive on the matter. This is the same as saying you have no referenceable basis whatsoever for "moral" or "ethics", and there is literally no substance to them at all beyond the desire for claiming credit for using the mere words, while having nothing behind the words that you are proposing one need adhere to. And without that as an actuality of the system, the ethical system is wholly dysfunctional on any scale. Seriously, do you think if you ever got to the point of specifying and systematizing your own set ethical norms, -regardless- of what they are, you'd get any response from other atheists other than... "Eh, nah. Don't feel like it."

      Boring workday, and karma to burn.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    8. Re:Secularism by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      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 a panacea.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    9. Re:Secularism by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Faith is a disease, one that has caused more death and suffering than any other throughout human history. The world would be vastly better off without it.

      But no. the solution is not to force them to agree with you. Conversion by force uses the same brain washing techniques that make religion so insidious.

      The only real cure is education, exposure to rationality, debunking myths and lies, and calling out the horrors inflicted by the disease.

    10. Re:Secularism by FreelanceWizard · · Score: 2, 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-religious purpose as well. An example of a law that would run afoul of the rule would be a dictate that attempts to convert people from one religion to another is punishable by death. It has no articulable secular purpose, and therefore wouldn't be permitted. (A more recent and U.S.-specific example of a law with no articulable secular purpose is the banning of civil unions with the same rights and benefits as marriages.)

      The reason why this rule works in the U.S., at any rate, is because a law that only has a religious purpose is either an establishment of religion (by granting extra rights to a religious group) or an impediment to its free exercise (by removing rights from those who follow a different religion or none at all, which is in itself a religion in this view).

      --
      The Freelance Wizard
    11. Re:Secularism by tbannist · · Score: 2

      If you don't inherently understand how forcing people to pray to your god is an infringement of their freedom of religion, you will never understand it.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    12. Re:Secularism by mevets · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

    13. Re:Secularism by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Right, that's the other extreme: "prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". You DO realize that Thomas Jefferson built a chapel in the White House, right?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    14. Re:Secularism by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Faith is a disease, one that has caused more death and suffering than any other throughout human history.

      Wrong. Atheism has it beat by miles and miles.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:Secularism by PRMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:Secularism by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      If you don't inherently understand how forcing people to pray to your god is an infringement of their freedom of religion, you will never understand it.

      Way to put words in someone's mouth. Straw man, have you heard of it?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    17. Re:Secularism by Empiric · · Score: 1

      That would be a legal establishment of a religion, which is in fact what my quote prohibits.

      Nobody is forcing you to pray to a god. That has nothing to do with addressing the distinction my post addresses in response to the grandparent. His question was regarding the -indirect presence or influence- of religion in the government, which is not a making of a law mandating a religion, and has no legitimate objection per the quote nor a rational interpretation of "Separation of Church and State".

      You are not legally mandated to pray. A Senator choosing to pray is not the same thing, is not an issue, and isn't going to be fuzzy-worded into equivalence.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    18. Re:Secularism by Empiric · · Score: 1

      You DO realize that Thomas Jefferson built a chapel in the White House, right?

      Was that an instance of Congress making a -law-, prohibiting a free exercise of a religion?

      This is a Yes/No question. ;)

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    19. Re:Secularism by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    20. Re:Secularism by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Atheism isn't a disease.
      And there have been very very few people killed in the name of atheism.

      Near or over a billion have been slaughtered in the name of religion and faith based ideology throughout human history.

    21. Re:Secularism by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I don't see why a platform needs to be overly complex. I love science and math and exploration and yadda yadda yadda, but ultimately, I want a platform that says "separation of state and EVERYTHING . . . except those things which can only be done by the collective power, funding, and organization of all the people/government".

      Supporting a political platform that is just about the government emphasizing the things I want makes me no better than the people out there who are already fucking up everything with that mentality.

    22. Re:Secularism by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 the reset switch *now*. Actually, even religion doesn't even agree or promote all of the above things which are pretty obvious to any human being.

    23. Re:Secularism by KDN · · Score: 2

      Deterministic? Have you see quantum physics? Yes galaxies and planets are deterministic, but until they prove string theory or m-brane theory I still say there is free choice. And even then I would say, "what is causing the strings to vibrate the way they do?"

    24. Re:Secularism by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      How does blasphemy against god hurt yourself or others? Isn't that classified as a sin? A deadly one, in fact?

      You sound like you've adopted some of that new-fangled hippie Jesus flavor of Christianity where you claim, "I'm not religious! I have a personal relationship with Jesus!"

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    25. Re:Secularism by Hatta · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Secularism by WillgasM · · Score: 1

      For many persons, our sense of morality and ethics is derived from religious beliefs.

      Not really. Their religion is ammo when it supports their point, and is ignored when it's contradictory. I don't see anyone pleading with congress to outlaw shellfish or cotton/poly blends.

    27. Re:Secularism by RussR42 · · Score: 1

      A Senator choosing to pray is not the same thing, is not an issue

      Oh yeah? For my rebuttal, I'm bringing out the big guns:
      xkcd!
      Seriously though, I know what you intended in context there, and this isn't exactly it. While it does concern me that we have elected leaders that believe crazy things, as long as they do the job and don't force them on me through the law, I can live with that. I don't ask about the personal beliefs of the guys that design cars as long as I can get one without that jesus fish thing on it.

    28. Re:Secularism by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the only reasonable coherent argument I've heard is that those that don't believe in any god by implication don't believe in any omniscient power that'll bring justice, whether it's heaven/hell, karma or whatnot. That essentially if you don't get caught you've gotten away with it. It's actually not such a bad argument but it's rather hard to believe in an adult version of Santa who knows if you've been naughty or nice. In fact it would strongly suggest a view where humans have no inherent ethics or morality at all, we just fear divine punishment.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    29. Re:Secularism by Empiric · · Score: 1

      All my tubes and wires
      And careful notes
      And antiquated notions

      Here's to Luminiferous Aether.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    30. Re:Secularism by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Did the funds come from an bill Congress passed?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    31. Re:Secularism by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Does freedom of thought include the right to not bother to? That's what religion is, by and large anyway.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    32. Re:Secularism by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Quantum mechanics are extremely deterministic. They follow extremely precise, mathematically predicted behaviors. The difference is that quantum mechanics follows mathematically predicted likelyhoods.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    33. Re:Secularism by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Its worse than simply choosing not to think. Religions are semi-independent memetic entities in the same way that viruses are semi-independent genetic entities. As a virus infects a host it takes over and corrupts your biological machinery for the purpose of transmitting itself and expanding through the population to which the host belongs. A religion behaves in exactly the same manner. It infests its victims with something that takes over and corrupts the hosts ability to think for purposes of transmitting itself and expanding through the population to which the host belong. And it often does so without regard to the interest or the well being of any individual host as long as it furthers its saturation of the population.

    34. Re:Secularism by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      What terrifies me is people that believe the ONLY source of morality is exactly that in the form of their religion. When some one makes claims like that, what they really just said is "I see no reason not to rip you apart with my bare hands right now except the external moral authority told me not too and/or/because I would be punished if I did".

      I'll apologize in advance for continuing this way off topic thread. I don't typically respond to AC's, but I'll make an exception. I am a Christian, and I make no secret of it. If you (not you specifically, but any person in general) believe the teachings of the Christian church, that means you believe that there is only one God, and faith in Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation. If you believe in Christ, you understand that there is no way that you on your own could ever "good enough" to obtain eternal life in Heaven (Romans 3:20-24), so you don't behave out of fear of punishment. Jesus Christ has already paid for the punishment that everyone deserves for their sins. You behave because of what Christ has commanded you to do: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:30-31). I'll be the first to admit that I, like many Christians, fall short of this standard on many occasions.

      And I'm really off topic but I think religious believers should get the help they need for their condition. That is, when you find out your full grown friend or coworker seriously believes in the Easter Bunny you wouldn't shoot him or take his kids, you'd try to help him. Remember, these people are a combination of a handful of nutty bars and opportunistic power hungry people up to no good but mainly victims of life long brainwashing and conditioning.

      I don't need any help, and don't need have any condition. I don't want to wield any control over anyone else, and there aren't any people in the church who are trying to wield power over me. It's not like as if Christians, or people of any other religion have a monopoly over love of power, we've seen that with terrible effect in many 20th/21st century secular states.

      I grew up in the church, but I wouldn't say that I really understood it, and wasn't really too committed to the little I did understand. Then I went to college and fell far away from my Christian faith. I was somewhere between atheist and agnostic during that time. I neither knew, nor cared if there was a God. I believed everything in the world could be answered naturalistically and science could answer all mankind's questions.

      After I got married, my wife wanted to go to church, so I started going with her. I am a skeptic by nature, and a lot of questions I wanted answered. I decided that if there really could be a God, then that must be the most important thing there could be to know, so I started doing lots of research. I searched for answers to the questions I had, both from skeptics and Christian apologetic/theological sources. Somehow, I usually found the skeptics' answers ringing hollow. The apologetic answers were structured in a more logically consistent manner, and made more sense to me. After much study, thought and prayer, I eventually came back to faith in God. I also know that this was not due to anything I did, but rather it was a gift of Grace through the Holy Spirit moving me toward faith. (Titus 3:3-8)

      I still don't have all the answers to all my questions, but I am mostly satisfied with the answers I have received. That doesn't mean that I stop asking the questions or searching for the answers, I do continue to seek them. At the same time, I also understand that there are some questions that I will never have the answers to, and that it is not possible for a finite being like myself to fully understand an infinite being like God.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    35. Re:Secularism by KDN · · Score: 1

      I rank free will as being able to determine individual particle outcomes. Quantum is taking a poll of many particles and saying that X percentage will do Y. Which of us is right, who knows? My guess is neither of us.

    36. Re:Secularism by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      I must disagree. The core essence of biblical sin is seperation from God. Harm to self/others is a symptom of acting apart from God's will.
      As I read it anyway....

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    37. Re:Secularism by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      By that logic even a heterosexual marriage that hasn't produced children after a suitable period of time should be dissolved and people who are incapable of having children because they are sterile for one reason or another should not be allowed to marry.

  6. Mandatory gun ownership by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

    2. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by compro01 · · Score: 2

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

      Add in mandatory semi-yearly safety and marksmanship training.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      *Every incentive assuming a free market. One problem is a lack of competition in the insurance market. But then, the negotiating that goes on with hospitals forces the formation of large interests.

    4. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Oh, and then there is the private funding of medical studies for new products, and the lack of full disclosure concerning all studies.
      I forget who made the arguement, but it basically goes "If I flip a coin 100 times and selectively show you 50 of the results, I can convince you that the coin has only heads." This is being done with many products. Tamiflu comes to mind... From wikipedia: "A subsequent Cochrane review, in 2012, maintains that significant parts of the clinical trials still remains unavailable for public scrutiny, and that the available evidence is not sufficient to conclude that oseltamivir decreases hospitalizations from influenza-like illnesses."

    5. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      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....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obamacare, which is nothing more than a requirement for you to buy your own insurance,

      Key word, requirement. I am required to do so whether I want to or not. I don't need medical insurance. I can pay for my once-a-decade visit out of my own pocket without having to shell out the thousands of dollars in the interim.

      Thus, if I am required to pay for something which I don't use, I am paying for my neighbor who has chosen to do something which is a known health threat.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by rknop · · Score: 2

      You don't have health insurance, eh? Do you also have legal documents signed that the system does not need to help you and pay for the care you'll need if an unexpected condition or accident arises? Or are you assuming that if something like that happens that no non-ultra-rich person could handle, the system will back you up?

      If you don' t have all the "let me suffer" documents signed, by not having health insurance you're a worse freeloader than any smoker.

    8. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.)

    9. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      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....

      http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2013/01/25/ppaca-could-price-smokers-out-of-health-insurance

      Change it? Yes. Make it better? Not at all.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      Didnt you hear?

      According to the Washington DC health czar, smoking is now considered a per-existing condition...

    12. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you're a worse freeloader than any smoker.

      Smokers pay a higher premium, so calling us 'freeloaders' is complete bullshit.

      On the contrary, fat motherfuckers are the largest (no pun intended, but noted and appreciated) burden on the healthcare system, and they are not required to pay a higher premium because they made the decision to be grotesquely obese slobs. You wanna talk freeloaders? Start with the worst offenders.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Representational democracy was partially meant to solve the problems surrounding the tyranny of the majority (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.

    14. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by thaylin · · Score: 1

      That does not change his point, you are not paying for your neighbors insurance unless they are on medicare or medicaid.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    15. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Neither can I:
      http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/12/1857781/obamacare-smokers/
      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345153/smoking-preexisting-condition-kevin-d-williamson
      http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-Smokers-Huge-Penalties/2013/01/26/id/487522

      Seems to me that Obamacare is changing that by adding penalties for smoking... and the states are reacting by hiding it under the "pre-existing condition" clause.

      Obamacare is a farce... not because of what it is, but because of the FUD machine that has gone in to play around it (on both sides).

      Maybe we need some anti-FUD laws -- you know, where unsubstantiated claims made by politicians can get them tossed out of office, similar to libel and slander (except this would be against society at large). I think this is something a lot of people could support as a plank in a platform... even though such a thing would NEVER make it through congress.

    16. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only do you pay higher premiums but over your shortened lifetimes you end up needing LESS healthcare, not more. But don't expect the rabid anti-smoking lobby to stop spreading lies.

      P.S. If you are a smoker, try vaping instead. Get yourself a good ego-c, not the crap they sell at walmart, some high strength liquid and be sure to exhale through your nose (you don't absorb it as much in your lungs.) If you still have cravings consider adding an antidepressant, since one of the reasons why tobacco is so addictive (whereas straight nicotine is only mildly addictive) are the MAOIs and other neurotrasmitter-affecting chemicals present.

    17. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Oops, wrong parent. Good thing there is no delete button ;)

    18. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Key word, requirement. I am required to do so whether I want to or not. I don't need medical insurance. I can pay for my once-a-decade visit out of my own pocket without having to shell out the thousands of dollars in the interim.

      If you sign away your right to be treated for free, ever -- fine. That would actually be fair

      But something tells me that you will expect service if you have to go to emergency room. Or when you get older and out-of-pocket visit will occur once-a-month not once-a-decade.

      You're just saying you don't need insurance NOW, so you don't want to pay for it until the day you need it?

    19. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Healthcare is not and never will be a 'free market'.

      A free market requires the ability to opt out of participating in the market. You can't do that with a broken leg.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    20. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      DC != federal government.

    21. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. If you're going to be forced to own a gun, then you should be thoroughly versed in how to correctly use it, store it and maintain it.

      Just like the supposed reason for forcing me to buy something I don't want or need: to make me more aware of the costs associated with a poor lifestyle and get me to change my ways.

      Oh wait, that last part doesn't happen because other people get to continue living as they want because someone else will get to pick up the tab.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    22. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Free market refers to having a large enough number of consumers and merchants that there is a meaningful competition between the latter for the former. The only assumption in the word "market" is that somebody is in it. It does not imply a dichotomy.

    23. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Also I should say that the market is the health insurance market, not the health care market itself. While there is a market there when it comes to insurers vs "in network" practitioners and covered goods/services, the health insurance market is the primary focus of the discussion.
      I agree that the end consumer has no (or little) choice as to their own health in the short term (and largely in the long term, despite popular belief that risk factors are causal and manageable).

    24. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      If your 'market' is based on a 'market' that doesn't let people 'opt out' then it's not a free market.

      And the healthcare market isn't free anyway since it's heavily regulated - and should be. If it wasn't we'd all have health insurance based in Delaware and service just as 'good' as your credit card companies. Not exactly a positive thing I don't believe...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    25. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by supervillainsf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    26. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On one side, you have single payer.

      On the other side, you have health insurance.

      A public health care system operates on the incentive that they will try and do the most good for their budget. This means that they will attempt to pay for as much health care as possible, within their fixed budget.

      The insurance system operates on the incentive that they want to make a profit. Therefore they will try and avoid paying for as much healthcare as possible. In addition, the vast bureaucracy they create to prop up their efforts to avoid payment has a vast cost.

      Why the FUCK would you want to enter into a system that by design, will try it's level best to leave you sick, maimed or dead?

    27. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      "Free" just implies that the market is unadulterated in the sense of perverse incentives to select non-rational products. Your presence or non-presence in the market is incidental.

    28. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      so you don't want to pay for it until the day you need it?

      Well duh! Why should I pay for something if I don't need it now? Should I buy a new set of tires for my car now even though I don't need them? After all, eventually I will need new tires

      How about a toupee? I might lose my hair so should I buy one now? How about if I have a kid, should I buy them glasses when they're five even though their eye sight is perfect because in 30-40 years they might need those glasses?

      The amount of money one spends on health insurance vastly outweighs the actual cost of doctors visits. If one were responsible, that money could be saved over their lifetime then used when needed. It's called personal responsibility, which is apparently an evil word in this country. Don't worry about what might happen to you, someone else is to blame or will pick up the tab for you.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    29. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your points, I am operating in the United States as it currently exists. I'll take rationally regulated market with reasonable competition over a few enshrined corporations accountable to no one but the shareholder :)

    30. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Also, for-profit companies providing insurance do have some benefits in terms of keeping unreasonable costs to a minimum. "Death panels" sounded like a great idea. People will spend $10M to live a month longer if they don't have to pay for it...

    31. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by tbannist · · Score: 1

      The new drug is always worth prescribing to the company that produces it and markets it.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    32. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. I shoot at a barn 10x and draw a target around the best grouping. Derryl Ben did the same thing with his 'precognition' study Feeling the Future.

    33. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      You know that preventative care saves money, right? It's vastly cheaper to treat high cholesterol at your doctor's office than a stroke in the ER.

    34. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by spasm · · Score: 1

      "but over your shortened lifetimes you end up needing LESS healthcare, not more"

      Wasn't that the line tobacco companies were trying to sell the Czech Republic a few years ago? Allow smoking because people die younger & your universal healthcare system will cost less?

      "If you are a smoker, try vaping instead. Get yourself a good ego-c"

      And isn't this the current line tobacco companies are promoting in the US?

      So, foreverdisillusioned, which tobacco lobbyist group do you work for anyway?

    35. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      My thanks for the link.

      Obviously, whatever it was I read earlier this week was full of it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    36. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 2

      Wasn't that the line tobacco companies were trying to sell the Czech Republic a few years ago? Allow smoking because people die younger & your universal healthcare system will cost less?

      it's true. Lamentable and certainly not a cost-saving measure I'm happy with, but it's true. Being lamentable doesn't alter the truth. Living to an old age is damn expensive these days.

      So, foreverdisillusioned, which tobacco lobbyist group do you work for anyway? I advised the poster to get an ego-c, which (since it seems to be only available online) is not to my knowledge produced by any tobacco company, unlike those pieces of crap you see at gas stations and walmart. There is very little data concerning the long term risks of nicotine alone, but what data we do have implies the risks are significantly lower than smoking. Even if they weren't, it's hella cheaper and you can usually do it in restaurants, etc. because the droplets do not persist in the air and there is no smell at all, so it's still something I recommend. While I'm at it I strongly recommend people refill their own cartridges using fluid from many of the fine, independently owned online shops out there. If I were I shill I'd be recommending those massively overpriced prefilled cartridges.

      It's worth mentioning unsolicited because most people I've met have either not heard of e-cigs, don't realize they (optionally) have nicotine in them, believe that nicotine is just as harmful and addictive as tobacco alone, and/or they've actually tried those pieces of crap they sell at gas stations and concluded they suck.

    37. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. A free market has a precise definition. That's one requirement of a free market. There are others. One is low barriers to entry- that people can easily become suppliers in the market. Without that, there's an imbalance in power between suppliers and consumers allowing slightly monopoplistic pricing. Another is perfect knowledge- that all sides have full knowledge of the product and the market. This is impossible unless you're a doctor in healthcare.

      Actually free markets in general are impossible, its like an ideal frictionless pully or massless string in physics. Some markets do a better job of modeling it that others, but healthcare is really far off.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    38. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you are getting your "precise definition". I invite you to read the first ten Google results for "free market" and point to any mention of a market/non-market dichotomy requirement.

      In fact, even a search for "free market opt out" provides no meaningful results.

      And finally, the discussion concerns health insurance, not health care. Since the insured individual is not actually paying for the service, and rarely has choice, there is no real market for health care in an individual sense.

      Health care markets are on a much grander scale and involve insurance providers and service providers. In/out-of network boundaries, covered services, etc, are all a market and are subject to significant negotiation.

    39. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Preemptively here, in case you accuse me of working for whatever company makes the ego-c, let me say that any of the 510 compatible devices are fine alternatives for someone who wants to sacrifice vapor production and battery life for a slim look. Or, if you have the money, get yourself a nice custom mod that looks like a pipe. Doesn't hugely matter what it is so long as it accepts a wide variety of carts and has a manual (not vacuum activated) battery, i.e. don't buy the gas station crap.

    40. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      My neighbors smoke all day and apparently all night.
      Cigarette butts are every where, it turns out Earth is their ashtray.
      Cigarette butts, wrappers, random crap from their lawn is blown all over the neighborhood.
      They have so much time to smoke and litter because they don't have to waste time working.
      I have to work, they are all much younger, why do I have to pay for their housing, vehicles, food, smokes, phones, and so on?
      I will never make enough to be able to retire in the comfort they already enjoy.
      Screw the smokers and screw politicians that buy voters by making them dependent.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    41. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that the majority consents to majority abuse by the minority? I suppose it is possible assuming a certain degree of emotional guilt.

      In any case, the majority enacted it, so I don't think you can call it "Tyranny of the Minority". :)

    42. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume he doesn't get preventative care? Very likely he does, just as I do. I pay for it as needed. I don't want or need anything beyond catastrophic coverage yet I'm now being forced to buy it.

    43. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Your presence or non-presence in the market is incidental.

      It's actually the reverse. If people can't opt out of a market, that market is not free at all. A free market requires the ability to say no. If everyone *has* to be involved in the market, the market is indeed skewed by 'perverse incentives' as you so tellingly put it.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    44. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      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).

      That may appear correct on the surface. But why do so many countries with improved longevity over the United States pay so much less for their health care? We pay roughly twice as much for our health care as the rest of the first world, and yet we're practically dead last in our longevity.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    45. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

      No point in asking vegetarians to do this; they already know where meat comes from.

    46. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by AmbushBug · · Score: 1

      I can play this game too! I don't want to pay for all the sports/exercise related injuries. Or people that eat too much sugar. Or people that drink alcohol.

      See where this is going?

    47. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Quila · · Score: 1

      Back in reality, a public healthcare system would be a government program. A government program operates on the incentive to make the program big and important. To do that, it will build as big and redundant a bureaucracy as possible.

    48. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Holi · · Score: 1

      We all know where meat comes from, except it seems you. If it's beef then it came from a cow. I dare you to go out and shoot a cow and see how well it turns out for you. We eat meat from domesticated animals, no one actually hunts for food because we don't have to. Hunting for food sucks, and is in nature only successful around half the time.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    49. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Vermont is trying to pass a law taxing anyone who doesn't own a gun. Their rationale is that people who do not own guns are more likely to call the police and thus use more taxpayer provided services, thus they should have to pay more as a result of using the services more.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    50. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      If you look at the statistics, we literally have one kid per million Americans ending up getting shot (whether murdered or on accident). While I agree with the notion of teaching firearms safety in schools, the myth that we have lots of kids being shot just isn't true.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    51. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Not true. Making it so that companies cannot deny someone with a pre-existing condition, saying that older (more costly) people cannot be charged more than three times what young (less costly) people, etc raises premiums for healthy people - so yes, you are paying for their insurance through your higher premiums. I'm OK with saying that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied, but they should have to pay more as a result of costing more (I'd even be OK with saying that they can't charge more than X% of your yearly income in order to prevent people with major illnesses from going bankrupt).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    52. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      All systems expand to the limit of all available energy. Your government health care system will never be enough, it always has to grow its spending and the increase in demand will grow with it to eat up all of the available resources.

      Insurance based system on the other hand is not even supposed to be a health care system. Insurance is there to cover you for cases that you cannot afford to pay for yourself out of pocket, that's the entire premise of insurance. Treating it as if it is a managed health care account is the wrong way to run insurance.

      You SHOULD have your managed health care account and you should manage it by yourself, not as a collective, it's up to you how you spread out your resources and how you pay for your routine health care needs. Insurance is there to cover you in cases of catastrophic failure.

      If you don't understand what I am talking about realise that you have car insurance not for the purposes of putting fuel into your tank, replacing tires or doing routine checks and oil changes, it's there first of all as a liability coverage to insure that you don't go bankrupt in case somebody sues you, because you are involved in some road accident. Fixing your car is a secondary added product benefit in case you decide to pay for it.

      What people should do is get the most coverage they can for catastrophic events and get it as cheaply as possible by signing up for the largest deductible they can get (and afford).

      Insurance should be insurance, normal health care should be bought out of pocket like all other products and services, that's the way to make sure that the prices don't skyrocket and people can actually afford health care (with an added benefit of reducing government spending, lowering taxes and being able to manage your own individual freedoms).

    53. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by bouer · · Score: 1

      And then the school won't need to buy frogs for dissection!

    54. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Your statements are the "narrative" and they are, as is often the case, completely false.

      "supposed" increase - Are you an employer" Do you know the actual cost of premiums? I am, and they have gone up since Obamacare started taking effect.

      The largest cost increases are coming because the government is terribly inefficient compared to private industry, and because Obamcare forces everyone into the same plan. It is as if you walked into the car dealership, and and the only car you can buy is a Cadillac.

      The government is "solving" these problems by lowering payments to providers. This is exactly what they are doing with Medicare, and this is exactly what they are going to do with Obamacare. They have no choice. So sure, theoretically everyone has coverage, but the reality is that fewer and fewer providers will see patients. Less providers, lower quality of care for everyone. This is exactly what they did in the UK, which is why people die waiting for operations. This is what we are in for. In every country where they have single payer, this is what the operators of the system have done. No exceptions. Have you visited these places?

      By doing this they are forcing people to die - yes, that is exactly what they are doing TODAY with Medicare. This isn't some theoretical ideological battle my friend. Obamacare isn't fully implemented and already the quality of coverage for many of us has gone down while the prices have gone up.

      Remember, the "narrative" said our premiums wouldn't go up. The "narrative"... is a LIE.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    55. Re:Mandatory gun ownership by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If you look at the statistics,

      Heh.

      If you look at the statistics, you realize that the vast majority of laws currently on the books are completely pointless, and have zero actual effect on lowering cime / saving lives / what-have-you. I think, by this point in time, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that statistical reality doesn't mesh with the mental state of the public at large; they don't care about actual numbers, it's all about the perception that the government is doing something, anything, to calm their fears.

      That's one of the main reasons I advocate firearms training for youths; the gun-grabbers and nosy-ninnies don't listen to reason, you have to play to their fears if you want them to bugger off.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  7. Vi yay, Emacs nay. by beowulfcluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. by coldsalmon · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. by octothorpe99 · · Score: 2

      Vi user myself, but I just noticed that "vi" is at the "core" of "evil" :)

    3. Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

      ^ Post of the Day

      +10 Internets to you, sir or madam. Just don't edit them with Emacs.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

      Now this is humor to satisfy the soul. We will look into this. ;) Feel free to suggest your official Linux distribution and official open source license as well. :) -- Thanks, Justice Party

    5. Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. by brainbuz · · Score: 1

      The mechanical typewriter manufacturing lobby will back the move to force vi on the population at large, as 98% of the population will be unable to type anything as soon as the mandate was extended to all wordprocessing (which would be inevitable). The American Psychiatric Association would support an Emacs mandate instead as long as their members didn't have to use it. A truly beneficial mandate would be to require all Text Editing and Wordprocessing software to implement a wordstar compatible control set instead. For those of us who can touch-type the WordStar interface remains the only choice, and JOE is the one true editor!

      --
      minds, get scrambled like eggs, abused and erased. Hard Hearted Alice is who you want to see.
  8. Mandatory cosmetic surgery by mooingyak · · Score: 1

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

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  9. Constancy by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want your policies to be constant. Plank Constants.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Constancy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Constancy by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Don't tell everyone the scheme. Sheesh!

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  10. Off the top of my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Off the top of my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      7) outlaw lobbyists

      And how do you propose to do that without either 1) running afoul of the 1st amendment's "freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" bit, or 2) passing an amendment to repeal parts of the 1st?

    2. Re:Off the top of my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with this idea is that you would have a significant portion of the population who chooses to get the free "wage" and do absolutely nothing, while the increased tax rate on those who do make the effort to work will be a disincentive to enter the workforce.

    3. Re:Off the top of my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Regarding 1): We've had term limits in the state of Michigan for several years. It seems to have led to short-term legislators who, since they don't know their way around the system, wind up being guided by lobbyists who know the ropes (but linger forever). Think Dilbert's "bungee boss" (for the legislator, not the lobbyist).

      Instead I'd like to see a limit on the number of *consecutive* terms you can serve in any one office (no more than two in a row, say). Maybe also a limit on the total number of years you can spend in elected office (20 sounds good - half of one's career, approximately).

      Regarding 2) and 7): Outlawing lobbyists would likely run afoul of free speech. Instead, ban PACs. Require that all political donations come from individuals (no corporations) with full disclosure of who gave how much, when, and to whom.

      Regarding 4): either tie the minimum wage to inflation, basing the calculation of same on what individuals/households actually spend their money on (i.e. include food & fuel) with a quarterly update, or get rid of it completely. But then I favor getting rid of *all* price supports.

    4. Re:Off the top of my head by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      1) strict term limits for congress
      ...
      7) outlaw lobbyists

      I notice you forgot to include a bullet:

      0) Don't go back on your promises once elected.

    5. Re:Off the top of my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so you want
      limits on political speech
      no choice in health care
      barriers to hiring the unskilled
      and wasteful spending

      Can't you just move to the Europe for that?

    6. Re:Off the top of my head by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's easy, and I've been saying it for almost a decade now: Outlaw Congress, or at least the physical manifestation of it. If you send all of the politicians home to their districts, the cost for a corporation to lobby goes up by at least a factor of hundreds because they have to send lobbyists all around the country, and the cost for an average citizen to lobby goes down by a factor of hundreds because they need only drive a few miles to talk to their elected representatives. The corporations cease to have an advantage over ordinary citizens at that point, and the question of making the act of lobbying itself illegal becomes moot.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Off the top of my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look at our current society. How many people are on welfare or disability that do not need to be? I grant that there are some people that need those things, but no where near what the numbers are at now.

    8. Re:Off the top of my head by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Regarding 1): We've had term limits in the state of Michigan for several years. It seems to have led to short-term legislators who, since they don't know their way around the system, wind up being guided by lobbyists who know the ropes (but linger forever). Think Dilbert's "bungee boss" (for the legislator, not the lobbyist).

      If you can move the reps home to their districts, the lobbying problem becomes less of an issue, and they wind up being guided by the people from their districts as intended. At that point, term limits won't cause much harm (but probably won't help much, either).

      Instead I'd like to see a limit on the number of *consecutive* terms you can serve in any one office (no more than two in a row, say). Maybe also a limit on the total number of years you can spend in elected office (20 sounds good - half of one's career, approximately).

      That sounds like a recipe for regulatory capture, IMO.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Off the top of my head by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      I think he meant professional paid lobbyists ... not lobbying in general.

    10. Re:Off the top of my head by PRMan · · Score: 1

      This is truly brilliant. Congress by Skype. Wish I had mod points today...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    11. Re:Off the top of my head by V-similitude · · Score: 1

      Great idea. Not one I'd heard before.

    12. Re:Off the top of my head by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      4) increased minimum wage that is subsequently tied to inflation

      Hmm, a quick check of Federal Minimum Wage laws and an Inflation Calculator shows that Federal Minimum wage has pretty much kept pace (at least) with inflation since the first minimum wage in 1938.

      Which is not to say that indexing Minimum Wage to inflation is a bad idea, mind you. Personally, I think it would be better than amending the law every couple-three of years (Minimum Wage has been changed 28 times since it was introduced in 1938).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:Off the top of my head by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      AND make it illegal for anyone related to an elected official to run for public office, or their children. Break the growth of dynasties, remove the power of families. I don't care if that seems harsh, such is the price of freedom.

      So, the "price of freedom" is to remove freedom?

      Note, by the by, that your idea would almost certainly run afoul of Article 1, Section 9 (and possibly 10) of the US Constitution.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:Off the top of my head by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      How about instead of an increased minimum wage, we abolish it and provide a minimum income for people. At that point employers lose the upper hand in forcing people to take low wages to survive and instead they have to compete with pay and benefits people think fit the job.

      Of course there are issues with funding that (higher taxes on the rich would work best) and it would work better on a sliding scale so people that do work get more money, it doesn't just get taken out of their minimum

    15. Re:Off the top of my head by westlake · · Score: 1

      1) strict term limits for congress

      This enormously increases the power of the lobbyist -- and the permanent state bureaucracy . Expertise but no term limits.

      2) corporate money is not free speech

      The EFF is a corporation. "In union there is strength."

      You can't exclude the for-profit corporation from the right to free speech and freedom of association without putting every other reasonably prosperous collective enterprise at risk of being silenced when they become inconvenient to one faction or another.

      Free speech only for the isolated and the poor means nothing in a population of 333 million.

      5) Large scale infrastructure projects...LARGE. High speed trains, universal fiber broadband

      It takes years --- often decades --- of unrelenting promotion and lobbying by for these things to happen.

      The Panama Canal. National Parks. The Interstate Highway System.

      It can't be done without strong and stable political leadership. Long term financial planning and support. The Bell System in its prime did think in terms of a building a national telecommunications infrastructure. The state sanctioned monopoly can do that.

      7) outlaw lobbyists

      The lobbyist represents interests important in a politician's home district. Those interests do not go away and they cannot be silenced.

    16. Re:Off the top of my head by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

      Excellent. This is the type of input we are really after. Having spent 15 years in Asia and taking high speed trains, I would also like to see them utilized in this country. Interesting enough, #6 is close to heart as I worked in the electric power industry in Asia as well. It is vastly different than in the US. Good suggestions. -- Thanks, Justice Party

    17. Re:Off the top of my head by wezelboy · · Score: 1

      Outlawing lobbyists does not infringe on the right to peaceably assemble any more than enforcing "free speech" zones at political conventions.

      As for petitioning the government for a redress of grievances... that's what courts are for.

    18. Re:Off the top of my head by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      7) outlaw lobbyists

      And how do you propose to do that without either 1) running afoul of the 1st amendment's "freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" bit, or 2) passing an amendment to repeal parts of the 1st?

      Not sure I am reading your right. But I don't believe "asking for handouts" that lobbyists to is tantamount to "free speech" for "redress of grievances", as you say. I could be wrong. Did not major in Poli Sci.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    19. Re:Off the top of my head by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Yes, why do you think police aren't allowed to go on strike and members of the military are expressly forbidden from membership in political groups in many places. These things are neccessary for the smooth operation of a truly free society. When the sons of presidents are becoming presidents, your society is fucked and about half a step away from monarchy.

    20. Re:Off the top of my head by Holi · · Score: 1

      The number you are looking for is a very small percent of our population who "are on welfare or disability that do not need to be". Yes there would be some but I hardly doubt it would be a significant portion that would enjoy living at the poverty line.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    21. Re:Off the top of my head by Holi · · Score: 1

      And you get that idea because we are so good at voting out bad politicians today?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    22. Re:Off the top of my head by Holi · · Score: 1

      So because it is made up of people it is a person. That logic makes no sense. In a corporation you are not listening to groups of people, you are listening to the owner of the corporation. and if you have trouble understanding that a corporation is not a group of people due to the fact that only the people at that top have any say then take this argument into account. Only citizens may have a say in how are country is run, we don't let non-citizens vote or donate to politicians. How many corporations are citizens?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    23. Re:Off the top of my head by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      When the sons of presidents are becoming presidents, your society is fucked and about half a step away from monarchy.

      Hmm, so we've been half a step from monarchy since 1824, eh?

      Interesting theory you have there. Well, good luck getting the Constitution amended so as to save yourself from the horror of another John Quincy Adams (elected President in 1824, the first son of a President to become President).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re:Off the top of my head by amanaplanacanalpanam · · Score: 1

      Except then the corps would just invent a way to turn locals into lobbyists, through incentives or what have you.

    25. Re:Off the top of my head by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      But it would be very, very expensive to do that. Even in the best case, the corporation would be able to bribe a few people. If what they want is sufficiently bad, though, there will be thousands pushing the other way.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    26. Re:Off the top of my head by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      This is one of those 'if someone needs to say it, there's no point in telling you' things. I mean what, you think GBII got elected on his own merits? Wake the fuck up.

    27. Re:Off the top of my head by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, he got elected because he was related to a guy who won ONE Presidential election, but couldn't manage his own reelection?

      Yah, lot of influence with the Party Bush the Elder had, after he lost his reelection bid to some clown from Arkansas, for God's sake (Or are you perhaps unaware that even the South tends to look at Arkansas the way the rest of the country looks at the South?)...

      Bush the Younger may have had to have a lot of help getting elected, but the fact he was HW's kid didn't have much to do with it at all...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    28. Re:Off the top of my head by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I disagree about the infrastructure projects. High-speed trains are of very limited use; instead, we need to be pouring R&D dollars into SkyTran, so we can replace personally-owned and driven automobiles with automatically-piloted cars which use a tiny fraction as much energy, make far less noise, and are far safer.

    29. Re:Off the top of my head by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Also, here's a #7 for you:
      7) Overhaul the election systems in this country and move to proportional or approval voting, or a system like Cordorcet or Borla, etc., so that we're not stuck with two shitty corrupt parties. This means adopting new systems not only at the local and state levels, but also a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the Plurality system at the national level, and also to eliminate the hopelessly obsolete Electoral College.

    30. Re:Off the top of my head by Renaissance+Slacker · · Score: 1

      Why have I never heard this brought up? You've ruined my morning as I mull over the implications. 1. The Congress building is a juicy target, the US government was almost decapitated on 9/11. Is it safer having all our Congresscritters spread out all over the USA? We'd probably be making individual Congresscritters a little less secure, but the body itself much more so. 2. We're assuming some uber-secure redundant teleconferencing capability here, and a lot of ultrasecure courier traffic of documents. 3. Maybe the rules of the Senate and House could be hard-wired into a videoconferencing interface where the Congresscritter had to select from buttons "Vote Yay", "Vote Nay," "Filibuster," "Accept Bribe From Petroleum Interests" etc. Might cut down on some of the rules abuse? 4. For Constitutional reasons, the Congress would still have to physically meet at least once during each session, I would think. Pass a law making air travel illegal for members of Congress. Bingo! National high-speed maglev train system.

  11. Something universally... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... constant.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  12. Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Trust me. We finally hired 1 developer after 6 months. The other candidates were ridiculously bad.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And we don't do H1B.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by KDN · · Score: 1

      You know, in this economy, with the job market so bad, I really find it hard to believe that its that hard to find workers who don't have a similar enough background that they cannot be trained to do the various tasks. Although I think that is part of the problem, excess specificity. They won't want a database admin, they want SQLSERVER 2007 enterprise edition. And they need Symantec AV version 12 admin. And they expect to pay minimum wage. So they code those parameters into the resume filter, feed through 50 thousand resume, no hits. Gee I wonder why.

    4. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately some of the people replying to you are saying, essentially, "There are tech people on the market, but they're either under-qualified or they expect too much money." I say 'unfortunately' because this sentiment misses the point.

      By their own argument, the problem isn't that there are no candidates, but that the candidates are expecting 'too much money'. While they might think their expectations are unrealistic, if you really can't find someone suitable for cheaper, then via supply/demand, that's the going rate. So essentially the salaries they're requesting are probably appropriate given that their skills are in high demand and there's a limited supply, but employers want so change the supply/demand balance by flooding the market with cheap foreign labor, thereby driving down programmers' wages.

      Now we can argue about whether or not that's a fair thing to do, but let's not pretend it's about a lack of skilled workers. It's about businesses wanting to cut labor costs.

    5. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Every time I see H1-B, I think pencils.

      Waaaaa! We can't get qualified workers we need more H1-B pencils! Waaaaaaaaaa!
      Freemon Dyson, Do you have any comments or opinions on H1-B pencils and the United States' current stance on immigration?
      Employers stampeding into the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to get their H-1B pencil petitions filed before the cap is reached...
      UC Davis Study Concludes H-1B Pencil Workers Neither Best Nor Brightest

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

      A fellow nutmegger? What you say makes much sense. Are there any articles that might help us make this argument? -- Thanks, Justice Party

    7. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Perl.

      Actual, deep understanding of network protocols and application behavior over a network.

      Python, for something other than a simple looping structure.

      I have interview 30 people for network security positions. 15 with >5yrs experience and 15 with >4yr degree. We have hired 0 from university. Even hiring the experienced people was difficult as most of the people that are really good at their job are also very employed.

    8. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      You don't actually have any business skills, do you?

      So what you are suggesting is that as business owner, I should spend thousands of dollars training people (during which time they generate no income) in the hopes that a few of them will stay with me long enough to recoup the cost of training -- When the reality is that many of them will take the training and leave, and many of them will turn out to be poor employees anyway.

      And I'm sure you are dead set against me passing those higher costs on to YOU, upon which time you'll declare me evil and greedy....

      The job market is selectively bad. If you are a 20 something it's terrible. If you're in your 40's or 50's and are an honest, hardworking person it's pretty good. If you're a minority, you're screwed. What I can't figure out is how the Democrats manage to screw their biggest constituencies year after year and yet these people remain loyal.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    9. Re:Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs by KDN · · Score: 1

      You don't actually have any business skills, do you?

      To be honest, no, my expertise is technical, computer and information security.

      So what you are suggesting is that as business owner, I should spend thousands of dollars training people (during which time they generate no income) in the hopes that a few of them will stay with me long enough to recoup the cost of training

      Thousands of dollars? Lets take the examples I gave. If you are an expert with Oracle, you can probably pick up MSSQL without too much trouble. If you are an expert with one version of Exchange, you can probably pick up another version without too much difficulty. As a perspective employee, t would be dishonest to say I had the experience. If there were a human with a technical background, they should know this. But if it is someone in HR using a pattern matching program, how are they supposed to know this?

      -- When the reality is that many of them will take the training and leave, and many of them will turn out to be poor employees anyway. And I'm sure you are dead set against me passing those higher costs on to YOU, upon which time you'll declare me evil and greedy....

      I hope your not lumping me into those Occupy people who believe the world owes them everything on a plate. Actually I *DO* pass the cost to myself. *I* paid for my CISSP certification. *I* paid for several high end technical training courses. And I still had problems getting call backs.

  13. Max by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Max Planck. Get him for your party. That would be one hell of a party.

    1. Re:Max by Hartree · · Score: 2

      "Max Planck. Get him for your party. That would be one hell of a party."

      Party Motto: Be discrete, not continuous!

  14. Third parties, generally, are not good by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Third parties, generally, are not good by Mashdar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Third parties, generally, are not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      As opposed to the more of the same we have now?

      I am a social liberal and government and fiscal conservative. NEITHER party represents my views.

      The Dems' economic policies are stuck in 1931 and the Reps have become the political arm of the Christian Taliban.

      And no, the Tea Party is over the top for me. I actually understand that Government DOES have a role in the economic health of an economy- see 19th Century USA for an example of unrestricted Capitalism in the Industrial Age. It was a cluster fuck.

      So a third party would be perfect for me because frankly, I don't vote for either Reps or Dems because they are out of date. They are run by old people who don't have a clue.

      I was thrilled at first with Obama because I was delusional in thinking he was a Game Changer - Hell, a Black President?! My fucking White Establishment peers weren't doing shit for me!!

      He was my Great Black Hope in shaking shit up!

      And then reality.

      And then 2012 and it was him and Romney.

      Fuck'in A!

      I WANT a third party that I can stand behind. The Libertarians are off in la-la land - BUT - I have to say, they DO sway the issue LOCALLY in what I THINK is the right direction.

      All we have in the US is a Chocolate and Vanilla political system.

      I want Strawberry - or at least Strawberry to have a voice.

    3. Re:Third parties, generally, are not good by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Third parties, generally, are not good by Let's+All+Be+Chinese · · Score: 1

      Note that multi-party systems can work fine elsewhere. So even though this'll get plenty of knee-jerk reactions for reasons that are inscrutable to me, I'd suggest direct representational voting, or some other way to stop gerrymandering being possible, or useful.

      The system was indubitably pretty neat back when, but hasn't scaled well. Take the ingredient principles and build something that fits the current (and future, for say 50..100 years--investigating your voting system every century for effectiveness and possible revision isn't bad) situation better. In general, some system that doesn't happen to have a two-party-only implicit system property.

      Do away with "we don't spam because we're politicians"-exemptions, like for robocalls. Find a way to stop lobbying being so lucrative; a focus back on the voter would be nice. Might as well try and dismantle the military^Wsecurity-industrial complex, but that'd be a good thing too.

    5. Re:Third parties, generally, are not good by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      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. Perhaps state houses and senates should have proxies. At least you have a fair chance of having dinner with your state representative now and then.

    6. Re:Third parties, generally, are not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I propose the following anti-gerrymandering (state constitutional) amendment:

      All members of the state senate and house of representatives will be given the option to submit no more than two proposals for the new districts after a redistricting is deemed necessary (after a national census yields results). The redistricting will not be put to a vote, but the winner decided by the following criteria:
      1) No district will have less than 98% of the population of the most populous district.
      2) All districts must be contiguous.
      3) Of all proposals that meet the first two criteria, the new district will be chosen as the proposal that minimizes total district perimeter, with existing district boundaries weighted at 50% that of new boundaries.

      This means that a single 3rd party member of either house could decide the future of the districts by submitting a simple district chart, thus preventing ridiculous gerrymandering.

    7. Re:Third parties, generally, are not good by KDN · · Score: 1

      Third parties have a good function. They often choose to focus on issues that both the main parties want to avoid talking about.

    8. Re:Third parties, generally, are not good by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      Precisely. One has to think long term and be willing to accept a few years of spoiling effects in order to induce the larger political parties to change their policies to what one prefers.

  15. R-E-S-P-E-C-T by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    A little respect (sock it to me, sock it to me,
    sock it to me, sock it to me)

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. FTFY: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    "You and yours must go away. Me and mine can stay."

    Fixed that for you so it reflects what many feel emotionally.

    1. Re:FTFY: by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is basically a slashvertisement for their political party, and they want to get more people involved, and "rally for the cause".

      We're deeply entrenched into the two party system, and you're only kidding yourself if you think it will change any time soon. I think AC is simply pointing that out.

      Thinking exactly that as I curiously clicked to go to their site, I noticed a sentence in there that is pushing for a direction I already don't care for, and what AC said came to mind. Without reading more into it, I am fairly certain at this point that this "party" they are forming is all about social justice. Social justice is based upon the idea that any time you succeed in favor of somebody else, that is a wrong that must be righted. What follows is a rant on social justice, and you might like my anecdote which favors the little guy:

      Succeeding in favor of somebody else can range from being hired for a high paying job so the other guy needs to find somewhere else to work, or winning a race where you got the cash prize and the second place guy got nothing.

      I like the idea that we are all equal by default and we should all have a fair chance, but the reality is that we aren't all equal. Last week I was on a team in a competition where we had to wire colored cables to a patch panel and some switches in a short amount of time, and the team that came in first won $1,000, whereas the other teams came out with nothing. I have keratoconus so it takes me a second to properly identify small numbers (though I can do it, eventually) and one of my other teammates is colorblind. All three of us wear glasses. These problems set us back, but we were offered no handicap favors.

      We won, making us one out of 15 or so teams who competed. Statistically, we were probably the only team with debilitating eyesight issues, but we probably won because we did something smarter (I don't really know as I never met any of the competition.) Social justice says that what we did was inherently unfair because we became rich(er) at the expense of somebody else. Because we did something better, we have committed an injustice.

      Social justice is bullshit. There, I said it. Like AC said, I'll go my way on this one. Though like you said, I also hope they go away. To me a society where everybody is exactly the same would be a dystopia. Maybe I'm biased because I have talents that people are willing to pay for (outside of that contest, too) but I still don't like the idea of it.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re: FTFY: by davesag · · Score: 1

      I believe in equality of opportunity rather than an artificial equality of outcomes.

      I believe in human obligations not human rights.

      Something given has no value.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
  17. The Three Laws by davecotter · · Score: 1

    Let me suggest the three laws, modified for human consumption: 1) thou shalt not override the free-will of another, or thru inaction, allow a third party to override the free will of another 2) thou shalt help those less fortunate than yourself, to the best of your ability and in a sustainable way, unless it conflicts with the 1st law 3) thou shalt have fun and do whatever you want, unless it conflicts with the first or second law It would be fun to discuss the ramifications of this. for examples of what shakes out: no wars, no "illegal" drugs, no banksters, no monsanto, no monopolies or or oligopolies, marriage equality, no slavery/trafficking, no secret backroom deals, etc etc. i fully expect some to vociferously disagree with this, and i think that's part of the fun. but i think we could go a long way toward a more civilized society by seriously considering these ideals.

    1. Re:The Three Laws by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Except you own list of what it would eliminate isn't in accordance with your 3 laws.

      *No monsato- you're overriding the free will of those who don't care about gmo

      *No monopolies/oligopolies- not only would your 3 laws not enforce this, it would encourage their formation, because rule 3 would allow giant conpanies to merge . Otherwise you'd be overriding the will of their founders.

      *No secret backroom deals- see above

      Its decent as a vague philosophy goes, but laughably naive for a real world policy.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:The Three Laws by davecotter · · Score: 1

      there is a resolvable conflict here:

      you can't override the free will of another, BUT, you are forced to override the free will of those who override the free will of others.

      monsanto overrides the free will of everybody by attempting to patent seeds, take heirloom seeds out of the public's hands, and extort farmers everywhere. we would be forced to disband monsanto for doing such.

      monopolies override the free will of the people, so they are simply not allowed by law 1, not to mention law 2 which would explicitly say you can't lord it over others for profit. law 3 is always trumped by law 1 and 2

      no secrets? that violates my free will right there. can't do it by law 1.

    3. Re:The Three Laws by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      How do monopolies override free will? They became monopolies because everyone gave them money/bought their product. They're the personification of free will.

      How do secrets override your free will? I can't keep my sex life a secret? My political opinions? My vote? My bank account number?

      Sorry, the real world has nuance. You can't solve all problems with a few simple and far reaching rules- you'll either fail to solve problems or actively cause them. There's very few areas of perfect black and white, and lots of areas where protecting one person's rights means violating another's. Life is messy.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:The Three Laws by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      1)(a) thou shalt not override the free-will of another, or (b) thru inaction, allow a third party to override the free will of another

      My free will is to punch you in the face. According to your own rule 1(a), no one else is supposed to interfere with me exercising that free will. But getting punched in the face is interfering with your free will, so by rule 1(b), then bystanders are required to prevent me from punching you. Which means that nobody can follow your first rule. Does not compute.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:The Three Laws by davecotter · · Score: 1

      there is a resolvable conflict here:

      you're not allowed to override the free will of another, but you're required to override the free will of a third party who is overriding the free will of another.

      yes, that's the hairy part. those who for selfish reasons override the free will of another give up their right to free will, enabling "the rest of us" to step in and prevent their harming others. yes, we're then overriding the free will of the harmer, but as a harmer you've given up the protection of YOUR free will.

      monsanto: they want to patent all seeds? remove heirloom seeds from the public's use? sue you for not using their stuff? they're willfully doing evil, which violates the free will of "the people" to grow their own food. under law 1, they'd have to be disbanded

      monopolies: laws 1 and 2 both come into play because they by their nature violate the free will of "the people" who want choice and not a dictatorship, and also if they have all that power for the sole purpose of making more money and gaining more power, they're also required to "help those less fortunate". laws 1 and 2 totally trump law 3

      secret deals? that is a bald-faced violation of my free will, as i require transparency and honesty. i think i am not alone in that.

      the intention is to put up a straw man for discussion, not invite a cursory dismissal without any thought.

    6. Re:The Three Laws by davecotter · · Score: 1

      you're not allowed to override the free will of another, but you're required to override the free will of a third party who is overriding the free will of another.

      yes, that's the hairy part. those who for selfish reasons override the free will of another give up their right to free will, enabling "the rest of us" to step in and prevent their harming others. yes, we're then overriding the free will of the harmer, but as a harmer you've given up the protection of YOUR free will.

    7. Re:The Three Laws by davecotter · · Score: 1

      it's meant to just stimulate discussion, not meant as set-in-stone rules upon which to found a new society. i think if we would all just stop hurting each other we'd be a long way toward a better society, and codifying some rational form of "don't violate anyone's free will" moves in that direction. eg: a rule like "don't be a dick" means just about the same thing to most rational, clear-thinking, honest, nice people, but if you ARE being a dick, you can totally argue a million ways in which it's not very clear.

    8. Re:The Three Laws by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Its not like this is an original idea. Written versions of the golden rule, which is pretty much what you're suggesting, date back over 2000 years. The reason it isn't a law is that its too vague to be useful and too full of holes to actually work for more than 30 seconds.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    9. Re:The Three Laws by Holi · · Score: 1

      So how many people chose to buy from Standard Oil? Or even knew they were buying from. Monopolies are rarely created buy consumer choice. That is suce a complete bullshit argument. Monopolies are created by the buying of some competitors and the destruction of others.

      In other words, who chooses to buy windows? they just want a pc but they have no choice but to purchase from Microsoft.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  18. Only one plank at the Federal level: Sortocracy by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    At the Federal level the only humane plank is Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

    Everything else is in the noise.

  19. polical convictions by flogger · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:polical convictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, because changing your mind if you are wrong about something is only thing idiots do? No instead we should all be indignant and hold on to wrong beliefs and ideas because to do otherwise is t be "wishy-washy".

    2. Re:polical convictions by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Do all questions need to have a purpose? I bet you complain about the lack of options on the polls too.

    3. Re:polical convictions by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

      We are improving our platform. We have our convictions. What we are attempting to do here is learn from people who are immersed in technology and science. Unlike many parties, we want to listen and learn my friend. The OP is about gaining insights into areas of science, engineering, education, and so forth. -- Thanks, Justice Party

    4. Re:polical convictions by Holi · · Score: 1

      No they don't they stupidly stick to their guns regardless of the current situation. It doesn't matter if they are seriously harming the country as long as they stay true to their ideals.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  20. Farms Farms Farms by Mashdar · · Score: 1

    Free market view for farm policy: Remove policies which favor large farms. Make corn cost what corn costs. (Stop artificially pushing certain crops. Let the market decide who grows what. This also yields major health benefits by removing unsound incentives for corn syrup and factory raised animal products.) Tarrifs on crops subsidized by foreign governments. Possibly insurance against short-term (1-2 year) price fluctuations in crop prices.

    1. Re:Farms Farms Farms by Mashdar · · Score: 2

      Farm subsidies distort food prices. The tariffs would prevent a change in the overall import/export ratio due to unfair competition.

      It is important to have a functional agricultural sector, I agree. But the system in this country essentially causes certain crops to sell at artificial prices by way of your tax dollars. If corn subsidies did not exist, farmers could not sell their corn at a loss, and corn prices would increase to corn's true cost. This disrupts the perverse calories/dollar for meat and corn syrup which currently distort our consumption.

      A free market is a more efficient market, given enough producers and consumers. Any money spent on farm subsidies could instead be spent on food subsidies, or returned to the taxpayer. (Personally, I favor the former, but the latter is attractive to some)

    2. Re:Farms Farms Farms by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      PS if another country can fairly produce a crop which out-competes our own crop, then good. Propping up the domestic product is a waste of GDP. The difference could go to the debt or more rational programs.

  21. The usual.. by sinij · · Score: 1

    No matter what your policy and planks are it always boils down to following: abortions, guns, and cutting taxes.

  22. Population Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not that anyone will take me seriously, and it would almost certainly be too unpopular to be a part of a viable party's platform, but out of control population growth is probably the greatest threat we face.

  23. All I ask by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    I want a minimalist government that focuses mostly on preserving and the rights of our constitution while at the same time working to wean us off big government, give us back freedoms that were taken from us, and fix our patent and copyright systems.

    Can you do that?

    1. Re:All I ask by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I too want the government to gid rid of all the laws I disagree with, while keeping the minimal set of laws I support.

      I also want to grant Texas its independence. Most Americans support this, either because they live in Texas and want an end to Federal tyranny, or because they live outside of Texas and are fed up of the stupid, loudmouthed, assholes that hail from there.

      Finally, flying, self driving, cars or a similar form of transportation.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:All I ask by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I want a minimalist government that focuses mostly on preserving and the rights of our constitution while at the same time working to wean us off big government, give us back freedoms that were taken from us, and fix our patent and copyright systems.

      Can you do that?

      They could. But that would be pointless since it would just duplicate the Libertarian Party. If you look at the Justice Party's website, you will see that they currently advocate pretty much the complete opposite of what you suggest.

    3. Re:All I ask by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      We should reduce stupid and outdated regulations because they gum up the works. The problem is that the Libertarian party seems to just want fewer regulations, period, which is not the same thing. Deregulation of corporations is particularly tricky, because it quite frequently leads to serious abuse. It must be done slowly, carefully, methodically, and with an eye towards simplifying the regulations rather than removing useful protections. And most of the time, it shouldn't be done at all.

      IMO, what we really need are fewer laws that apply to individuals when acting as individuals, and for codification of differences in rights between people acting as individuals and people using the resources of large groups (corporations, unions, etc.). The latter should be more regulated because their power is inherently disproportionate.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  24. The Green Party Platform by WamBamBoozle · · Score: 1
  25. Who are you? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Who are you? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      I'd just LOVE to vote for another party that generates its values and policies from focus groups.

    2. Re:Who are you? by KDN · · Score: 1

      Inserting Babylon 5 Reference: What do you want?

  26. YES! by Chirs · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:YES! by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:YES! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      While I believe in Canada it makes sense because we have a bunch of national political parties, in the US with their two party system, it is likely less important.

      60/40 means only 40% of votes "wasted" in first past the post.
      20/15/15/10/10/10/5/5/5/5 conceivably means that 80% of the vote was "wasted", and that a party with only 20% of the popular vote gets to make the decisions for everyone else. Yes this is an exaggeration, but just to illustrate the point.

      With multiple party systems, first past the post makes things unbalanced. It becomes a unite the right, or unite the left, and win. It wants to push towards less parties to the point of a two party system. Currently the right wing conservatives have a majority government, yet I have no doubt that the majority of Canadians have a more leftist political view, how does that make sense? If the NDP and the Liberals united, they would win easily. Then we would just be a two party system like the US, the Conservative Party (Reform/Alliance/PC) and the New Liberal Democratic Party (Liberal/NDP) or whatever they want to call themselves. The only other parties of note is the Bloq Quebequois and the Green party. The Bloq was wiped out last election by the NDP, and the Green party have zero hope of ever winning anything without proportional representation (even less hope if left united also).

      Our current politics is a joke, it is no wonder so many have voter apathy.

      The only question I have about proportional representation is how representation would be selected, particularly regionally. However I am certain it is something that could be figured out. Likely X number of representatives per population voted, then have the parties vote whom they wish to send. Ultimately the parties would be accountable to the electorate, so if they make poor choices, they will simply lose the votes the next time there is an election. Not sure how this would with with independents however...

    3. Re:YES! by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Sounds similar to Germany, where the Bundestag has half the seats from geographic districts and half the seats from PR.

    4. Re:YES! by robot5x · · Score: 1

      Yes the system is NZ is bascially the same as in Germany - Mixed member proportional representation. The only other countries using it are Hungary and Lesotho according to the wikipedia page. While it has been rather controversial here, in practical terms it really has given greater profile to smaller parties and minority interests -- without turning parliament into a black hole of inactivity. Several pieces of dubious legislation have been diluted or ditched because of this system.

      YMMV of course - NZ has no upper house, so without this system any party with a majority in parliament can basically do what the fuck it likes.

      --
      Hej! Nasi tu byli!
  27. A few items I've been thinking about... by gQuigs · · Score: 1

    Outright Ban (or at least tax/warning) on Consumer-level DRM:
    It's anti-competitive consumer restrictive technology that doesn't help anyone (except I guess those that make it). The music industry has realized this, but other industries haven't. We are wasting bandwidth, silicon, power, and making it much harder for free operating systems to compete.

    Consumer right to at least inspect all code Utilities/Others place in their houses/cars:
    I'm particularly thinking about smart grid technologies. In an ideal world both the utility and the homeowner could run code on the device and verify what the other does. Obviously some areas would be off limit (like the homeowner fully disabling reporting).

    Internet providers/Cell phone providers can only provide 1 year contract to consumers. (Consumers being able to move a bit easier may help improve competition).

    Internet capable devices need to be supported with security updates for at least 3 years after that company sells the last device.

    BAN FAX MACHINES from all government offices and remove the provisions that make them considered "secure". (Sorry, fax machines really annoy me.)

    All generic hardware must support at least two operating systems (one of which much be open source). This allows you to repurpose them more easily in the future.

    More funds for NASA http://www.penny4nasa.org/

    Make Weather.gov a better source to get weather directly from

    Make USAJobs.gov actually the only website you need to go to for applying for government jobs

    Make Navy contracters use standard networking for ships instead of running a bunch of different networks for different systems.

    Wow.. I'm going to stop typing now.

    1. Re:A few items I've been thinking about... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for a law that requires DRM creators to promise permanent support for the DRM scheme and to post appropriate bonds to pay for it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  28. True Justice by Khomar · · Score: 1

    I think Asaph put it best:

    “How long will you judge unjustly
    and show partiality to the wicked?
    Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
    maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
    Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalm 82:2-4)

    The most important thing that our nation needs at this point is true justice without partiality toward the rich, the powerful, and the connected. We need the laws that we do have to be enforced with fairness and impartiality. Given the name of your party, this should be your central focus.

    --

    I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    1. Re:True Justice by Khomar · · Score: 1

      So long as humans are being tried and put up for justice, humans administer justice, humans define justice, and/or humans exist, I can guarantee this will absolutely never happen.

      You are correct, but does that make it any less of a good goal? Should we not worry about corruption because there will always be corrupt people? Should we not try to help the poor because there will always be poor? If you simply give in to defeatism, you will always be defeated. To give up on living justly is to give into the worst forms of evil.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

  29. Judicial System Oversight by Marrow · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Judicial System Oversight by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      This doesn't work because the Justice department is now a political arm of the Executive branch, and only enforces the laws they are told to enforce for political reasons.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  30. just know that by HPHatecraft · · Score: 1

    ideals fall pray to expediency and the necessity of doing whatever it takes to remain in, or to get into, office.

  31. thinking longer term... by Fubari · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:thinking longer term... by Dragonshed · · Score: 1

      Mod this up, please. There are an endless supply of examples where short-term perspectives & thinking have polluted American Life.

  32. My Little Politicians. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    1. Re:My Little Politicians. by femtobyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 a *real* honest, kind, loyal, generous, humorous ruling elite to responsibly wield magical artifacts of power: that's about as likely as getting real alicorn ponies for our elected officials.

      MLP(FIM) brushes aside the anarchist critiques of power that time and again prove to be right: "trust us, this time we're really the harmony-loving good guys" isn't a good platform for ceding ultimate political power to an elite few "princesses." We do not need political parties that promise a sparklier rainbow face to the future of power politics; we need radical reform that challenges and deconstructs the entire hierarchy of power.

    2. Re:My Little Politicians. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I agree, your post is pretty serious. The problem is that I do not believe that such ideas are applicable to homo sapiens in general, the majority is only interested in power (absolute power, when possible), and females. And to such beings, the welfare of those who are around them is the last concern.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    3. Re:My Little Politicians. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I believe that you are serious, now here is my absolutely serious counterproposal.

      I would like to see a Bad Motherfucker political party.

      Here is what it would entail:

      1. You have to physically fight your way through the ranks to achieve authority. The number of fights and who fights whom is secondary, I think drawing straws is not a bad idea.

      2. To become a party leader you have to proves yourself by surviving in the party for a minimum of 3 years (minimum 2 fights a month) and killing at least 5 other members with your bare hands.

      3. To become party nominee for the POTUS, you have to have at the minimum 5 years and 12 dead bodies behind you.

      4. There should be an element of surprise mixed into this in order to ensure some level of luck, so in some random situations one or both of the politicians get some type of a weapon for their next fight.

      5. Anybody that knowingly breaks the law or tries to pass a piece of legislation that takes away freedoms of individuals gets blown up by a land mine.

    4. Re:My Little Politicians. by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Within Equestria, there is little evidence that the governing system does not work wonderfully, to the benefit of the whole society --- but it's easy to make fictional governments work well in fiction. If you really had a true all-benevolent and all-wise dictator-for-life, that would be awesome; unfortunately, real-world attempts end up being a bit more... North Korea. My argument against the "Equestria model" does not hinge on how well Equestria works in Equestria, but how it is applicable to this world.

      MLP:FiM focuses on the dynamics of interpersonal relationships (friendship, family, neighborhood, etc.), and, in this area, does a fine job (the "Elements of Harmony" work fine here). Its portrayal of political dynamics, however, is rather "thin"; merely a background and plot-device source for character interactions. Political analysis requires consideration of extrapersonal systematic and institutional dynamics, which remain largely invisible in the MLP:FiM world. I think it is extremely dangerous to reduce political analysis to a purely "personal character" level, allowing serious unchecked systematic failures not visible on the proper-personal-character-integrity level.

      deconstructs the entire hierarchy of power.

      ...and reconstructs it into... something where the people are still on top? Right?

      Of course; this is the key difference between many critiques of power --- which identify particular existing power structures in need of reform, only to replace them with the next problematic power structure --- and an anarchist approach that intentionally avoids the reconsolidation of power after old hierarchies are dismantled, by generating new institutions that explicitly broadly redistribute power to the people, with feedback mechanisms to encourage continued diffusion rather than concentration of power.

    5. Re:My Little Politicians. by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      sorry about the formatting glitches in my post above... some trivial work matter distracted me from my important magical pony ranting at just the wrong moment (between "preview" and "submit").

    6. Re:My Little Politicians. by shikaisi · · Score: 1

      I would like to see a Bad Motherfucker political party.

      Here is what it would entail...

      Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I think you could have some real success if you asked the NRA to sponsor this party.

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
    7. Re:My Little Politicians. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      I'm not proposing we adopt all of Equestria's model of governance, just that some of their ideas would help what we have now.

      That said, I'd vote for Celestia if she ran for president of America. no question.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    8. Re:My Little Politicians. by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      That said, I'd vote for Celestia if she ran for president of America. no question.

      On the contrary, I think you should very strongly question that vote. You, as an "omniscient" observer of the events in Equestria, have the "privileged" knowledge that the authors of that universe have made Celestia to be truly kind and wise. In US presidential elections, there is no way to have that assurance --- all you know is the story being spun by campaign propagandists to sucker you into thinking the candidate's "publicly visible" values will be reflected in their governance. You might think you're voting for Celestia, but really elect Zombie Margaret Thatcher wearing a pony suit, running on an "elements of harmony" platform only because those terms polled highly with the influential brony voting bloc.

  33. Feedback loops by David+Muir+Sharnoff · · Score: 2

    Laws and regulations need feedback loops so that efficacy can be determined and acted upon. This means that the goal and rationale for laws and regulations needs to be explicitly stated and then the effects measured and reported.

  34. Mixed Message: by Hartree · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  35. Patents by KDN · · Score: 1

    No more patent trolls, patent owners must actually make what they patent.
    No more submarine patents, date of effectiveness should be that of original filing.
    Patent submitters must pay proportional to the number of claims that they make.
    No more patenting mathamatical functions like exclusive or.
    Patent holders may lose patents if they fail to disclose prior art.

  36. Citizens United by David+Muir+Sharnoff · · Score: 2

    Citizens United must be reversed. This will probably require a constitutional amendment.

  37. Term Limits for All by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    Two-term lifetime maximum regardless of office. No more entrenched career hacks.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:Term Limits for All by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Two-term lifetime maximum regardless of office. No more entrenched career hacks.

      No more people in office who care what the people who put them there think when they could just be lining their pockets instead.

    2. Re:Term Limits for All by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      You know that means the civil servants/fulltimers will run things any political system takes most of your first term to under stand how it really works.

  38. Election and Voting Reforms. also, Thorium by TehCable · · Score: 1

    Any small party should definitely support: * Election finance reform. http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html * Alternative Vote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Thorium Energy Policy: I'd like to see the Government focus on developing Thorium as an energy source. Liquid Florine Thorium Reactors have many benefits, and could provide all of our energy needs. Demand for Thorium would also make Rare Earth mining viable in the US (currently all done in China). If you mine Rare Earths here, you'd bring more high tech manufacturing here as well. Policy changes to enable and promote this course of action are fairly minimal. It's just hard to get politicians to give a damn.

  39. Chuck the post: No minority rule by major parties by Defenestrar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  40. Re:reduce nonsense by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly. Take your platform, and burn it to the ground.

    I want politicians who, when faced with legislation they support or not, will release a statement saying why it's a good or bad idea. Not a buzzword-filled piece about patriotism and inherent rights, but how the particular legislation helps or hinders your particular goals.
    I want politicians who will vote however they feel is right, rather than how their party tells them to.
    I want politicians who will act in support of not just their own constituents, but for all the neighboring regions as well, especially in regard to business incentives.
    I want politicians who honestly care more about making the world better than about the day-to-day drama of American politics.

    I also want a pony.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  41. tax payer funded by KDN · · Score: 1

    Inventions, knowledge, and data developed with tax payer money should be available to the tax payer without having to pay a company again. Will need restrictions for national security and privacy.

  42. Things it would be nifty to see by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Were I doing such a thing, the following would be in there for sure.

    1. Restoration of Copyright terms to where they were before 1976. (You have to register for it. Copyright is good for 28 years, with a possible 28 year extension).
    2. Software and "business methods" are not, and never should be, patentable
    3. A condition of being allowed to incorporate is that you agree to not make political contributions as a corporation.
    4. No visa slavery. Congress can come up with some other kind of special work visa, but there will never be an H1B-ish visa where the poor sap holding one can be effectively deported at the whim of their employer.

    That would be a good start. But of course any attempt to make a narrow third party in the USA is a waste of time. You have to aim to take out one of the big two, or don't bother.

    1. Re:Things it would be nifty to see by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      Copyright terms should not be limited to fixed terms. First 14 year term is free + one time unlimited extension costing $50 * (1.7^years). Paid up front after year 14. No further extensions. Indexed to inflation.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    2. Re:Things it would be nifty to see by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I could go along with this, though I think 1.7 is too high. 1.2 would make a 75 year copyright (14+61) cost $3.3 million or so.

      Should be more than enough to discourage extended copyrights, while not making it entirely prohibitive in the (extremely rare) cases it's worthwhile.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Things it would be nifty to see by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      My goal is to discourage copyrights extending that length of time. Only if one really thought the content was worth many billions would one choose to extend it that long. And society would get reimbursed for the loss to the public domain.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  43. What would I like to see for planks? Fewer. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I would far rather see a platform based on a small number of solid principles (e.g. the Golden Rule, non-coercion, etc.) than one based on a shitload of tiny little specific planks.

    1. Re:What would I like to see for planks? Fewer. by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I would put it differently. Not fewer planks, instead make a very few "major" and have the rest be "minor".

      The Justice Party sounds very leftist. Combines the Pirates, Greens, and Socialists into one big tent. In a way, good. The Democrats have shifted so far to the right that calling them the left is sad. We don't have a real left in the US anymore. The Republicans have responded by shifting so far to the right, to stay to the right of the Democrats, that they're about to fall off the political spectrum. They've turned crazy, and I think they are in serious danger of collapsing. They've managed to anger women, homosexuals, Hispanics, blacks, and even Asians, and the young, poor, immigrants, Muslims, atheists and agnostics, environmentalists, and scientists. That's almost everyone. And they've made a lot of plain stupid moves. People who appreciate competence can't be too thrilled with the Republicans these days. They've become so snottily exclusive, they aren't even trying to win over the "47%"! The only voters left who really like Republicans are rich, old, Christian white men, and that group is no longer big enough to keep a major political party viable.

      I don't think planks is the problem as much as eloquence. More than that, need exposure and coverage. How to get that when there's enough corruption to make sure their voices are never heard is a hard problem. Perhaps the best chance is hope the Republicans really do collapse and implode.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    2. Re:What would I like to see for planks? Fewer. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Yes, but I would put it differently. Not fewer planks, instead make a very few "major" and have the rest be "minor". "

      I'd buy that, as long as all the planks are based around the same set of core principles.

      "The Justice Party sounds very leftist. Combines the Pirates, Greens, and Socialists into one big tent."

      Yes, kind of sounds like it.

      "The Democrats have shifted so far to the right that calling them the left is sad. "

      Only in some ways. Many of the major "defining" characteristics of the modern Left have still been there: big government, Nanny State, tax and spend, gun control (I guess that falls under Nanny State), breeding of Copyright Trolls (though that one has been about as Right as Left lately).

      "The Republicans have responded by shifting so far to the right, to stay to the right of the Democrats, that they're about to fall off the political spectrum"

      Wow. I would sure disagree with that. For the most part, I would say they have been moving Left: they've largely embraced Big Government and taxation, and hell, some of them were even supporting gun control. As irrational as that is in today's America, with per-capita crime (including gun crime, school and mass shootings) down 50% from just 20 years ago, all while per-capita gun ownership was going up, and concealed carry actually skyrocketing in the same period.

      "People who appreciate competence can't be too thrilled with the Republicans these days."

      I would very definitely say that was true of BOTH of the "Big 2" parties.

      "I don't think planks is the problem as much as eloquence."

      I do. When party positions do not have a small, articulable core of principles that everything else revolves around, then they really don't stand for anything.

      Having said that, I agree that if you can't articulate those core principles, you're wasting everybody's time.

      "Perhaps the best chance is hope the Republicans really do collapse and implode."

      Again, I would say that of BOTH of the Big 2 parties.

      But aside from all that: this kind of reminds me of the Constitution Party. On the face of it, they are staunch Constitutionalists... except that they believe this is a Christian nation, and that our government was based on Christian principles, and that it is perfectly okay to willy-nilly inject Christianity into government, the Hell with any Constitutional restrictions on same. Which is a self-contradiction. Kind of what I was getting at. Sure, they basically have two core principles (religion and the Constitution), but those are necessarily mutually exclusive according to the same Constitution. That is to say: the government here is prohibited from running religion, and religion is prohibited from running government.

    3. Re:What would I like to see for planks? Fewer. by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      If you are saying Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, I don't agree. Republicans have become much worse.

      The Republican Party is riddled with contradictions. What principles do the Republicans stand for these days? Trickle down economics, military power, and a particularly harsh vision of Christianity. And stubbornness that goes beyond idiocy. They reject science that doesn't align with their preconceptions, preferring to cling to their notions no matter what evidence and results show. Besides, to change their minds would be flip-flopping. That's not the Republican Party of the 1950s. In those days, they recognized that science was crucial to military power, and supported it for that reason. Now they treat science with such disrespect they tar it as nothing more than liberal propaganda.

      So if we shouldn't follow where science leads, and certainly we shouldn't do so blindly, what or who should we follow? The Pope? No, they aren't yet crazy enough to anoint some religious authority as the Great Leader. So what does that leave? Why, the rich of course! They have a dangerous, unreasoning faith in rugged individualism, and the mythical self-made individual who can guide the nation like he guided his own fortunes and whose success will magically rub off on the rest of us, and think these people are to be found amongst the wealthy. That many among the wealthy got there through parasitic leeching off the rest of us is conveniently overlooked. They really seem to think wealth is a sign of God's favor, and poverty a sign of the opposite, and are readily persuaded to kick the poor. Punishing people for being poor is for their own good, you see, as they chose to be lazy and poor and maybe they can be forced to quit being so damn poor. Get a job, you lazy bum! Never mind that we wrecked the economy and there aren't any jobs to be found, make a job if you can't find one. This directly contradicts all Jesus had to say about poverty, charity and mercy. Then there's the Pro-Life plank, which thanks to Akin and Mourdock has been revealed as actually Pro-Rape, which fits very well with a party that is turning so hideously patriarchal.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    4. Re:What would I like to see for planks? Fewer. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "If you are saying Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, I don't agree."

      I didn't really expect you to agree.

      I'm not necessarily saying they're equally bad. But in my opinion they are approximately equally bad, plus or minus a little in any given year.

      As for the rest: I won't argue with you. I am well aware of the shortcomings of the Republican party. They are many. But you don't seem to be aware of the similarly serious (but different) shortcomings of the Democrat party. And I am not about to get into an argument about them here today.

      So maybe not equally bad. But close enough that I do not favor one over the other. Instead I reject them both, approximately equally.

  44. thought it said pranks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    nevermind, planks are boring

  45. anti big brother by KDN · · Score: 2

    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.

  46. Public funding of elections by Lserevi · · Score: 1

    As it stands now, members of congress apparently spend 40 to 60% of their time *on the job* seeking campaign donations. This raises reasonable doubt as to their true constituency. Public funding of all elections would eliminate this source of potential corruption at a cost that is much less than the benefit to society.

  47. Re:REPEAL THESE FREEDOM-ERODING LAWS by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    -Legalizing obstruction of justice ( most prosecutors come from top notch schools, they should be able to win conviction irrespective of the quality of evidence)

    Alternatively, force prosecutors to be sworn in at trial, and hold them and their star witnesses to the same perjury standards they hold the defense. Also, if it turns out they withheld exculpatory evidence and get an innocent person convicted, they should be charged with obstruction of justice and have jail time equal to the time the innocent person spent in jail and/or forfeit their wages for the same number of years.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  48. Use LOGIC by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  49. This is probably impossible, but... by MpVpRb · · Score: 1

    Before any law is passed, a simulation should be run to see what the side-effects will be

    Obviously, this depends on the existence of accurate simulators, which currently do not exist

    After simulation, if the law passes, it enters a trial period, where the actual results are studied

    If, at the end of the trial period, the law does not appear to be working as expected, it expires automatically

    If it passes the trial, another vote is taken to make it permanent

  50. Re:reduce nonsense by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    Most people want a candidate like that. But they won't vote for that candidate because "they don't have a chance".

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  51. Three for you by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    1) Make it illegal for a government agent (police, federal, any) to erase someone else's recording (photographic, video, or sound). This would be considered evidence tampering and have an appropriate automatic jail sentence. If you arrest someone with a recording device in hand, than it must be presented as is to the judge and the defense.

    2) If a person ceases to use a service (and sends either an electronic or paper notification) that service is required by law to destroy all 'non-business transaction' records. That is, they can keep records of money paid and services/products bought, but they can not retain any private, identifying information such as email, browser information (including search histories, IP addresses, personal settings, etc)

    3) In cases of Identity Theft, the right to request a "Replacement Social Security Number" (RSSN). Right now you can not change the one you have, even if you have had your identity stolen. Doing so requires you to be photographed, fingerprinted, and costs $100. Such a system would be entirely optional, and it would be forbidden by law to require someone to get or use this RSSN for anything. You can then use your new RSSN in place of the old original one.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  52. Plea bargains by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    Ditch them.

    Drugs, legalise them or at least the softer stuff and decriminalise the harder stuff.

    1. Re:Plea bargains by jopsen · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree, plea bargains should NEVER be used for anything, well, maybe minor offences, but only less than 30 days. (Disclaimer, I'm not American, but looking a relocation to California in a couple of months).
      So on a related note, I'd suggest shorter prison sentences and use of alternative punishment, especially for non-violent crimes.
      The US prison system is AFAIK not in compliance with the UN human rights convention.

      Note: I'm not planning to start a criminal career, if I wanted that I certainly wouldn't be considering the US as a place of residence.
      But your current practice of locking people away would make me think twice before starting a family in the US.
      I'd imagine that human rights compliance suddenly becomes important, if it's your kid who is in trouble...

  53. Pro Plankton by RockGrumbler · · Score: 2

    I would like to see a pro plankton platform.

  54. A Path to Partisanship by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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

    And soon after Emacs is declared illegal, it's users hunted down and forced to burn their meta keys, then what?

    Division and strife, that's what!

    Because one day the guy who likes typing in VI will meet the guy who really likes creating macros in VI. Soon those across each side of the : will be at each other, vicious attacks following. It will be brother on brother, or hot sister on sister action. It will be madness.

    Adopt a modal editor as a standard at your peril.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  55. Repeals Telecommunications Act of 1996 by hashish16 · · Score: 1

    Unlock the swathe of dark fiber running through this country that telecommunications companies laid with our tax dollars and regulate broadband internet under the “rate of return” model.

  56. Re:Please by KDN · · Score: 1

    For dietary supplements, I would say treat them as drugs in that the drug company that makes them must prove them safe, not that the government has to prove them dangerous, as is now the case.

  57. Political Contrabutions by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Only allow political contributions to come from individual US citizens with a maximum of 5000$. Zero corporate contributions. Outlaw lobbyists.

    The rest will just figure itself out.

  58. Huh? by WillgasM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  59. Replace the first-past-the-post voting system by Lserevi · · Score: 1

    The first-past-the-post (or plurality) voting system used in most public elections in the United States is arguably the worst possible choice of voting systems because it favors two parties, is relatively easy to manipulate, is relatively easy to gerrymander, wastes votes, and has resulted in a dysfunctional congress. It should be replaced in all elections with a superior system (e.g., Approval voting, a Condorcet method, Majority Judgment, or Range voting).

  60. Demilitarise the police by Let's+All+Be+Chinese · · Score: 1

    There's a strong "US vs. THEM" sentiment in law enforcement, facilitated by a decades-long trend of "militarising" the police, eg. SWAT teams. Originally specialised, now used for increasingly everything. The gun totery and body armour sure look impressive, but it has nothing to do with connecting with the community.

    Find ways to get police forces of all sizes, local, state, and federal, to focus on policing again, not on playing supercop with the general populace as targets of convenience. Don't be afraid to get rid of a few entire agencies should that prove necessary.

  61. How to any of your planks sit in terms of statism? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  62. Don't have a goal of a more tech-savvy America by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 1

    Our Government should not be choosing in what Americans have savvy. Focus on economic growth, maintaining the infrastructure, and keeping us safe. We will focus on what we want to be 'savvy' in, thanks.

  63. When will this myth die? Smokers cost taxpayers less than nonsmokers because they DIE SOONER (and everyone needs lots of healthcare in their old age.)

    1. Re:wrong by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      (and everyone needs lots of healthcare in their old age.)

      Define old age. Both my parents are above 70 and they don't have any medical issues. Same goes for my dad's older brothers (though the one who is now 80 is starting to show signs of his age). They're not on life support as apparently large portions of the country are judging by the way people are trying to force an added cost on me and others.

      As to the smokers, that may be true but the point is I still have to pay for their medical costs despite them knowingly doing something which is known to cause cancer and related afflictions. If I am forced to pay for their medical bills because I don't use the money I am forced to shell out for insurance, then I should be allowed to dictate to them a healthier lifestyle so I get the most bang for my buck.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:wrong by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Informative

      As to the smokers, that may be true but the point is I still have to pay for their medical costs...

      NO

      YOU

      DON'T

      I smoke, and because I do, I pay a higher health insurance premium than a non-smoker with similar health stats. Stop spreading that damnable myth.

      Conversely, fat people really do burden the healthcare system unnecessarily, and they are not required to pay an increased premium. You want to bitch, bitch about that.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:wrong by spitzak · · Score: 1

      During the time they are alive a smoker will use more medical care than a non-smoker for the same period of time. Therefore it makes perfect sense that they should pay more for insurance. They are not paying for the insurance after they die, while the non-smoker will continue to pay for insurance and thus make up for the fact that in the end they may cost more.

    4. Re:wrong by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. They die sooner, before they have a chance to fully develop the typical old age illnesses. If their healthcare costs are subsidized by you (as may be the case depending on your country of residence and/or details of your health insurance), then they are subsidized to a lesser extent than non-smokers.

      If your parents ultimately die of old age without ever having any diagnosable medical problems, good for them (not for dying, for the being healthy part.) The large majority of the population, however, will be treated for one thing or another for years and years. And before dying, they generally have at least one major hospital stay. Many will end up bouncing in and out of the the hospital emergency room as they 'circle the drain.' Lung cancer is expensive, yes, but not as expensive as decades of Medicare.

    5. Re:wrong by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Both my parents are above 70 and ...

      Good for them. I wish them good health for at least a century. However, there are over 300 million people in the US, so you might want to look at something called "statistics".

      As to the smokers, that may be true but the point is I still have to pay for their medical costs ...

      You don't get it. Smokers save you money. Even if they didn't pay higher health insurance premiums, their shorter life spans mean that on average smokers have lower lifetime medical costs. They especially save on Medicare and Social Security costs. If you were actually interested in fairness you'd say that, if they pay higher insurance premiums before 65, they should have a reduction in their Medicare and Social Security taxes. And that analysis doesn't even include the "sin taxes" they pay on tobacco, which reduce your other taxes.

      Most likely thought you don't give a rat's ass about fairness, except when your misinformation allows you to sanctimoniously complain about other people. Other countries do not have premiums that depend on smoking, weight, or even age. In Germany it only varies based of the cost of living in your area. In other countries even that doesn't matter. And it works. Other countries pay at least 1/3 less than the US (as a percentage of GDP, even greater savings if you use exchange rate or PPP), for medical care that's just as good or better than what we have in the US, and covers everyone. Complain about Obamacare because it doesn't go far enough, and is more of a customer guarantee for medical insurance and pharmaceutical companies than a plan for universal health care and cost savings.

    6. Re:wrong by RussR42 · · Score: 1

      Higher premiums. Check. Isn't some of the super high tax on tobacco usually justified by health care cost as well?
      Further: this and this.

    7. Re:wrong by Holi · · Score: 1

      Except studies have been done that prove the exact opposite of what you claim. And I don't believe there are many that will concur with your hypothesis.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    8. Re:wrong by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yes, we do. When you hit medicare we are subsidizing

      That's technically true for everyone, regardless of whether or not they smoke, over eat, or take really good care of themselves.

      Acting like smokers somehow represent a disproportionate amount of the welfare, er, medicare dollars spent, is disingenuous at best and downright propagandist bullshit at worst.

      Also, whether or not I will be receiving medicare benefits in the future has absolutely zero bearing on the conversation about who pays for the healthcare I receive today.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  64. Open Access Government records by n2hightech · · Score: 1

    Any government funded research must be freely accessible on line. The people paid for it let them learn from it. All government records must be freely accessible on line. Make it illegal to have nondisclosure agreements on liability settlements. Help people choose good companies and business people to work with. If a company screws you it will haunt them forever. Make it possible to check everyones government IDs on line and any criminal / arrest record - Would stop Identity theft instantly. Open corporate records - So we can see who owns what. Eliminate prohibition of all substances - Make sellers liable for selling to uninformed buyers. If I person knows the risks they should be able to do what they want. Businesses would have to educate customers on risks of their products and have records demonstrating the person understood the risks. No record of knowledge unlimited liability. Records proving knowledge of risks Zero Liability. Would make businesses truthful about products. Implement the FairTax and eliminate all other taxes. Bring back old copyright laws - Shorten copyright terms to 20 Years on corporate owned media Change liability for copying to twice current price + lawyers fees unless distributed for profit then penalties 10 times profit derived + 5 times price + lawyer fees. Patents should be used and enforced or lost. - If you do not try to market your patent or enforce it within 5 years it is void. eliminate patent trolls Publish all patent applications and allow public comments on prior art and patent ability before granting patents. - Eliminate Junk patents. Make employee pension rights superior to all lending rights. - Banks are sophisticated investors they can understand the risks would force businesses to fully fund pensions.

    1. Re:Open Access Government records by KDN · · Score: 1

      I disagree on sellers liable for selling to uninfomed buyers. How exactly am I supposed to tell if someone is stupid or malicious? If I lie or mislead about what a product can do or what it contains, or how it works, I'm ok with that. Put how am I supposed to guess that someone will buy my toaster and fill it with napalm and ignite it in a movie theater?

  65. Bottom up governance by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

    I looked at your party's site, and I see one glaring thing missing for you to have my support. I'd like to see a focus on true grass roots, distributed, bottom up government be a concentrated goal. A move toward direct democracy, participatory politics and proportional representation. Obviously this is a big, complex topic that would probably take many decades to transition to, but any progress toward it would be good IMO. Power should flow up from the people, not down from the White House.

    Secondly, I think it would also fit in well with the rest of your agenda to make a concentrated effort in promoting mutualist organizations like cooperatives and other employee/member owned business models. Put in place incentives that push for them to replace the capitalist corporatism we have today. For true freedom we need democracy in the work place, not just the goverment.

    Until then, I'll stick with the Green Party.

    --
    "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
  66. Fix it. by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 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, should also not be prevented by governmental immunity and should result in prison time for any detectives and prosecutors involved.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    1. Re:Fix it. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Removing gerrymandering would be racist at its core. Districting ensures that minorities receive representatives from their own community.

      Removing plea bargains ensures that our courts would be clogged until the next century with meritless cases, where the defendant is clearly guilty but he's going to go ahead with a jury trial anyway just for that 0.01% chance of acquittal or jury nullification.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Fix it. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Restore the vote by eliminating gerrymandering.

      You do realize that eliminating Gerrymandering would kill the Voting Rights Act, right?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Fix it. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Restore the vote by eliminating gerrymandering.

      How exactly do you plan on doing this? Any group of people responsible for drawing the election lines is going to be corruptible.

      This is a 'solution' the same way the solution for poverty is to 'give everyone lots of money'

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  67. Aliens by Droogie109 · · Score: 1

    I want to know about the aliens at Roswell

  68. Kickin' It, Old-Skool by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Seems everyone else has covered the important topics (rights, patent/copyright, et. al), so I'll throw ya a curve:

    Bring back the Congressional cane fights. Far more entertaining for the People than listening to geriatrics drone on for hours in legalese, plus we could help shore up the budget a bit by televising the fights on PPV.

    I mean, c'mon - who wouldn't pay to see McCain and Pelosi go toe to toe with the pugil sticks?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  69. Re:reduce nonsense by thaylin · · Score: 1

    In other words you dont want politicians, you have a couple directly opposed wants in there.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  70. How about this by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Leave everyone the fuck alone and don't tell them what technology they can, can't, or must use.

  71. Efficiency of government by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

    Work on making it cost less for government to work. This means allowing greater discretion for pay raises, fewer government contractors, more government FTE's, incentives to spend less, rather than the current incentives to spend more (e.g. remove the system where your project loses funding next year if you don't spend your entire budget in the current year), and allowing government workers to be fired or laid off for incompetence. In addition, the red tape *really* needs to be addressed. There's some real talent in the government worker pool, but their work is often stifled by onerous approval processes and mandates from top-level executives that really should not be making ground-level decisions.

  72. 30 hour work week by Nickodeimus · · Score: 1

    rts

  73. Platform by s.petry · · Score: 1

    1) Tax reform. Not only a real concern to many Americans, but a popular and moving topic. See Ross Perot's platform and how it nearly won him the election.

    2) Education Reform. Yes, the US Government should mandate people receive public education. No, they should not be requiring the curriculum to achieve education and mandate the methods.

    3) Patent Reform. Most Americans are ignorant to the problems, Corporate media and influence has ensured that much. This will be a challenge, because the issue needs to be simplified so that most Americans can understand the issue. Be ready for lots of money spreading ad homimen in rebuttal.

    4) Executive Order powers must be ended.

    5) Restore Privacy. Abolish TSA, DHS. Other agencies must be more open to public scrutiny (CIA/FBI/ATF).

    I'm sure I could come up with more, but this list is already very hefty.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  74. There are better systems [Re:Third parties...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

    Note that multi-party systems can work fine elsewhere.

    Yes, in elsewheres that have different balloting techniques.

    I'm a great fan of Approval voting, myself. But there are numerous better methods than simple plurality.

    So even though this'll get plenty of knee-jerk reactions for reasons that are inscrutable to me, I'd suggest direct representational voting, or some other way to stop gerrymandering being possible, or useful.

    Gerrymandering is worse than merely an accidentally bad system-- it represents deliberate attempts to subvert democracy

    The system was indubitably pretty neat back when

    Or at least, was pretty good for a first try.

    , but hasn't scaled well. Take the ingredient principles and build something that fits the current (and future, for say 50..100 years--investigating your voting system every century for effectiveness and possible revision isn't bad) situation better. In general, some system that doesn't happen to have a two-party-only implicit system property...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:There are better systems [Re:Third parties...] by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Nice article! Concerning Gerrymandering, I would love to see a law declaring a minimum area/perimeter^2 (must scale well), and perhaps a maximum variation between districts. There would have to be an exception for western Oklahoma, I suppose. :) My favorite district is Florida's 16th. Hope all is well in Cambridge/Watertown.

    2. Re:There are better systems [Re:Third parties...] by PRMan · · Score: 1

      No district can have more than 10 sides. Done.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:There are better systems [Re:Third parties...] by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Good thing my two 1000-degree polynomials are safe :) Though perhaps I should move to a radial coordinate system :)

      More seriously, though, boundaries often follow natural borders such as rivers and urban areas, and therefore cannot be well bound by a side count.
      Besides that, I can make a 10 sided polygon by joining two quadrilaterals by an infinitely thin connector. Clearly still gerrymandering :)

  75. Keep the law confined to justice by z4ce · · Score: 1

    "Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation." Frederic Bastiat

    Here is my recommendation. If you want a party of Justice focus on making the law just and avoid making it philanthropic. You'll never have both.

    Ian

  76. My shot at obscure, fuitile wonking: by conspirator23 · · Score: 1
    1. Allow modern statistical techniques to be applied to the Census.
    1. Enlarge the House of Representatives by shrinking and fixing the population size attributed to each House rep. Then modernize the participatory infrastructure to allow the MUCH larger house to perform meaningful work while spending more time in their home districts. The effect would be that reps would need less money for their re-election campaigns, would have much more exposure to their local consituents, would have less comittee assignments to track, and would make national-level lobbying interests spend a lot more.
    1. Targeted spending of federal capital on decaying infrastrcuture. Roads, bridges, and the like.
    1. A combination jobs/environment program, as a public/private partnership with wilderness firefighting companies, to actively reduce fuel load in national forests

    I'm sure there's lots more but since our electoral system was designed in a way that reinforces a two-party model (intentionally or not), I don't see any need to giveadditional futile suggestions to a group that will never have any meaningful power at the national level.

    I really don't intend that as a dig. It is what it is. It's certainly possible that the GOP will continue it's self-marginalization until a third party finds an opportunity to supercede it. The GOP themselves did that in the 19th century.... but for any 3rd party to realize the possibility of becoming the new 2nd party, it will have to capture the attention of "boring" middle-of-the-road voters who feel disenfrancized by the polarization. Nibbling around the edges of public policy with highly technical optimizations are not going to cut it. If the GOP leaves that door unlocked, you'll need big, heavy, sexy planks to beat it down with.

    1. Re:My shot at obscure, fuitile wonking: by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Allow modern statistical techniques to be applied to the Census.

      DO keep in mind that this would require a Constitutional Amendment. "Actual enumeration" does NOT include "statistically significant approximation"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  77. add an expiration date to all laws by tatman · · Score: 1

    Let legislators spend most of the time debating if a law should be renewed not making more laws on top of existing laws

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    1. Re:add an expiration date to all laws by KDN · · Score: 2

      I sort of like a variation, ALL laws except the constitution come up for review, 10-30 years. If it can't be voted positive by simple majority, then it gets repealed. If you want to fix the constitution, then go through the amendment process.

  78. Give NASA control over how its budget is allocated by rabbin · · Score: 1

    Actually I don't know if that is the right solution, but I'm tired of seeing NASA being manipulated as a jobs program (and to be clear, I'm not talking about NASA being able to dictate the size of its budget). NASA could have so much more potential if it was able to focus on long term goals and could allocate its resources correctly. If anyone has a solution to this problem that doesn't involve depending too heavily on the limited nature of private enterprise (and the luck of people like Elon Musk--those that have bigger dreams than using their wealth to accumulate more wealth--getting rich), it would be great if you could share it.

    And increase the size of NASA's budget.

    Of course I believe there are much more important things at this particular time than issues relating to science and technology, so I took a look at your wikipedia page Justice Party's wiki page and it all looks very good. Campaign Finance Reform, does not accept corporate funding, abolishing corporate personhood, favors a financial transaction tax, repeal of Bush tax cuts, raising the cap on the payroll tax, reinstating Glass-Steagall, single payer health system, ending the war on drugs ... etc etc. It looks like the party supports a lot of the good things democrats say they are for, but without the corporate dependence that goads them to do the opposite.

    Now to see if you have anyone running in New York...

  79. Campaign finance reform by spongman · · Score: 1

    Everything else should be secondary.

    it's the only way to bring democracy back to Washington.

    Every dollar spent on other causes is a waste.

  80. Re:Pine, as in coffin by SQLGuru · · Score: 2

    This is the government we're talking about.....there are all sorts of compliance laws. It needs to wide enough for a wheelchair, have hand railings, be at a shallow enough slope, be made to withstand at last 1000lbs, be sourced from an approved lumber mill, be transported by union workers, etc.

  81. Re:Patents by mcl630 · · Score: 1

    End design patents. Either end software patents or make them expire after a very short time period.

  82. You are an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's certainly true that there are a lot of you who believe that you have the right skills. I'll grant you that one. And it also seems to have a 1-to-1 correlation with people who believe they deserve some sort of high-paying tech job because they believe they have skills.

    See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

    Why don't you NAME the skills that you are looking for?

    Or even an actual job posting that you have - with the company name to eliminate trolls?

    Instead of the snarky comments - like the above - give some examples? Please!

    If you TRULY wanted qualified people, you'd give some specifics. The folks who are looking for employment will figure out how to get the training - we're not as incompetent as you think we are. Then again, even if we do, it will be reuired that we have years of on the job experience - there's ALWAYS a way to disqualify someone.

    But see folks, the parent is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

    All I'm asking for is some honesty. I'll do whatever I can to be a good tech worker for YOU and everyone else like you - IF I could just have some guidance ON exactly what _I_ need to do.

    But we're NOT getting that and therefore, I cannot take the complaints of the tech industry in regards to their "shortage" of qualified workers seriously.

    And sir, I'd like to say, - if you're a CEO - if I were in charge, I can guarantee you there wouldn't be ANY shortage.
    .

  83. Ideas by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    1. Update the 4th amendment so it clearly covers personal data.
    2. Turn back Citizen's United.
    3. Term limits. No federal elected official should serve more than 12 years.
    4. Eliminate laws that provide special privileges to members of Congress.
    5. H1-B visas should be allowed for people educated in the US, only.
    6. Eliminate carried interest tax exemption.
    7. Repeal the DMCA.
    8. Eliminate software and business process patents.
    9. Decriminalize not-for-profit copyright infringement. Eliminate the outrageous statutory penalties.
    10. Repeal the Patriot Act.
    11. Adopt a national single payer health care system.
    12. Legalize marijuana
    13. Pass national laws explicitly authorizing recording and filming of any law enforcement activities that occur in public.
    14. Cap copyright term to 50 years or life of author whichever is longer.
    15. Re-fund NASA.
    16. Double the national R&D budget.
    17. Raise the bar for patent granting to be "not obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art" to "not obvious to one with significant skill in the art"

    For a start.

    1. Re:Ideas by KendyForTheState · · Score: 1

      A good start.
      18. Enforce the 2nd amendment. It is not about hunting, it is about the citizens being armed as well as the military so the government can't tyrannize the people.
      19. Disband the ATF. Prosecute agents and officers (ATF, FBI, Police, etc.) who willfully violate the rights of citizens. The murderers of Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. should be locked up at the very least.
      20a. Require an IQ test prior to voting. "You must be this smart to vote". Require voter to pass a written test on the constitution and current issues before voting.
      20b. Require a voter to have paid taxes in the last 4 years leading up to an election. If you can't contribute you shouldn't have any say in how the money is spent.
      20c. Require proof of past military service or other government to earn the right to vote. If you aren't willing to defend and support your country you shouldn't have any say in how it is run.
      21. Line-item veto!

      --
      ...I just came for the free beer.
  84. Easy by A+bsd+fool · · Score: 1

    The Libertarian ones. Too bad the party doesn't really adhere to the planks, nor have a good crank/wacko filter -- which can only mean most of the members are themselves cranks/wackos.

    1. Individual Rights
    2. Individual Responsibility
    3. Minimal government intervention
    4. Minimal government taxation

    That's really it. Those things encompass everything else.

    I'd like to see some serious punishments, as in criminal punishments, for elected officials who don't bother to show up for votes/debates or who even try to pass laws based on lies or emotional appeals. Paying people six figure salaries to vacation half the year from a job where their primary function is to lie to each other and the public is sheer idiocy.

  85. tax cut by KDN · · Score: 1

    Pet peeve of mine, a TAX CUT is a LOWERING of taxes. A decrease in the rate of increase IS NOT A CUT. If taxes go up 3 percent instead of 5, IT IS STILL AN INCREASE.

  86. Voting Style Needs to Change by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    I think the first past the post voting method used in the US is the first thing that needs to be fixed, probably go to concordant voting. When people can try out a vote on the guy they like, and not have to worry about "throwing their vote away" with the "other guy" getting in things will have to change. Right now the two parties fight each other because they are opposing teams. It doesn't even matter what it is. The current party is pushing a law that your party proposed 4 years ago, oh well, it's the enemy, we must vote against it. When there are 5 or 6 or more parties involved you can't end up with a straight up fight. You will get more discussion and partnering to make deals. And when the voters get used to the new system they will be more likely to vote for the guy they actually like, rather than vote for the guy most likely to win, because they can still give their vote to the likely to win guy if theirs is eliminated anyway.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    1. Re:Voting Style Needs to Change by V-similitude · · Score: 1

      This + a campaign finance overhaul would really do wonders for the US.

  87. Lots. by Hatta · · Score: 2

    Basic income guarantee.
    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.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  88. The missing rule by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    Separation of corporation and state.

  89. You are doomed to fail by elcano · · Score: 1

    Your posting looks intelligent. You are getting generally good proposal. However, be aware that this is a democracy. Your opponent is too big.

  90. Mandatory gun ownership for idiots, too by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    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.

    Make gun safety courses mandatory for police chiefs, too-- they seem remarkably careless with their guns. One around here just shot himself in the leg http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/apr/19/former-boardman-police-chief-shoots-self/, and looking at the web, day before yesterday another one shot himself at a Boy Scout meeting http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-17/news/ct-met-boy-scout-gun-discharged-20130417_1_police-officer-retired-officer-des-plaines

    Maybe mandatory gun safety courses for Vice Presidents as well-- at least they could get the "if you can't see what you're shooting at, perhaps you shouldn't shoot. Oh, and maybe you shouldn't go hunting when you're drunk."

    Really, it's hard to support that "mandatory gun ownership" thing when there are so many idiots, careless people, and drunks out there.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Mandatory gun ownership for idiots, too by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, theoretically if you start teaching it in the schools at an early age, within a generation the majority of the populace will have went through the course, so you should have a lot fewer incidents like those you mention.

      Another potential upside would be that, if the training were mandatory, perhaps future police officers would develop a higher accuracy rate than bad guys in action films.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  91. my proposal - just make the government work by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Recognition that government is a necessary evil.
    Emphasis on "necessary" and "evil". Make the country run successfully, and stop focussing on social issues.

    Take today's spending for the US gov't. Fix that for the next 4 years. No growth until the debt is reduced to 0.
    Divide spending that by the number of people in the country.
    This is the average, per person tax burden.
    Proportionalize, based on the person's total income (of any kind) vs the average income. If you made 2x the average income, you pay 2x share. If you made 1/10 the average income, you pay 1/10.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:my proposal - just make the government work by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Proportionalize, based on the person's total income (of any kind) vs the average income. If you made 2x the average income, you pay 2x share. If you made 1/10 the average income, you pay 1/10.

      That is the same tax rate for everybody, described rather obscurely. Is that what you intended?

      If you intended the *rate* to be proportional, ie the person who makes 2x the average pays 4x, and the person who makes 1/10 pays 1/100, that does not actually integrate the correct sum (except in the trivial case where everybody makes the average amount). And it has the problem that the highest incomes have to pay more than 100%.

  92. Large scale experiments by quantaman · · Score: 1

    I'd argue for scientifically rational policies but people seem to disagree as to what those are.

    I just listened to a debate about abolishing the minimum wage, and fundamentally it wasn't a moral debate so much as a wonk debate. The libertarians arguing that abolishing the minimum wage would bring more people into the work force and help the poor, the opponents claiming that studies suggested a more complicated relationship and that the minimum wage didn't cost many jobs and transferred more wealth to the poorest part of the population. Fundamentally I don't know which argument is the right one.

    For a real party I would suggest two bedrock principals:
    1) Clearly identify that your party works towards moral goals, a policy is only a tool to achieve those goals. ie you're not interested in "Open Government (data) access" but the public being able to act as an effective watchdog over government.

    2) To achieve 1 write policy with research in mind. If people are considering abolishing the minimum wage write legislation that will help you gather data to tell you if it's a good idea, if you want to promote science and math than apply that legislation in a handful of states and see if it works. It's not possible to do for all legislation but if you approach lawmaking with the idea that it's still an experiment and you have to gather data than I think you can really increase the quality of the governance.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Large scale experiments by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      In such debates it is likely that the right argument is not even being presented; when setup with emotionally irrational person(s) in a debate, the whole process is sabotaged from the start. False Dilemma; its unlikely the right argument will be presented at all.

      Religion, it is NOT only about gods. Libertarians these days cling to an unfounded belief in a process that will magically result in some form of "realistic" utopia - its a supernatural "market force" that will bring it about. It is religion; doesn't matter what the data says - the ideology (dogma if you will) is mindlessly followed like the christian flat earthers.

      Parent post is right about moral goals. Broad missions statements provide the foundation one can always refer back to when figuring out the details. They need to exist in law far more often as a broad guide on the intent rather than pure technical writing which can technically be logically twisted to the opposite of the intention. Now if in practice the moral goals do not work most of the time, that is a time to reconsider them or limit their scope, not emotionally cling to them. The thing with the fanatics is the mission statement becomes an all consuming universal truth.

    2. Re:Large scale experiments by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Religion, it is NOT only about gods. Libertarians these days cling to an unfounded belief in a process that will magically result in some form of "realistic" utopia - its a supernatural "market force" that will bring it about. It is religion; doesn't matter what the data says - the ideology (dogma if you will) is mindlessly followed like the christian flat earthers.

      Note that the big-government types are also clinging to the unfounded belief that we can achieve that Utopia with just a few more laws....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Large scale experiments by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      When all you have is a hammer... Politicians for the most part can only create law; even to kill a law they must create a law to repeal the old one. So even the small gov people are creating law to shrink it.

      Big government is a loaded buzz phrase. People might support that it is too big, but they WANT nearly everything it does and often WANT more - politicians are stuck in the middle kissing ass; both cheeks... some down the middle others flip flop... sorry this is getting to dirty.

      If government only stuck to the basics, it would still be the 2nd largest employer in the nation. constitution says post office - that is the 2nd biggest today alone.

  93. Morals by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Eliminate all attempts to legislate morals.

  94. Re:Population Control by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    I dunno if that's a good alternative. Oral sex sucks.

  95. Two biggies with me that relate to technology by promixr · · Score: 1

    One that seems minor, but it will drastically level the power that huge cable/telcoms have over content. Make a Federal Mandate that Cable Networks MUST provide a la carte cable television. No more packages. You only pay for the channels you watch. Even if the average price of each channel goes up, it will force an entirely new paradigm and decentralize the power that advertizers and also allow consumers to send clear messages about what channels they want to be paying for. The second thing is that we have to get the US on track with modernizing the power and internet backbone- Federally mandate sustainability and moderninity for the enite grid. Nothing is more important infrastructure-wise to our continued competitive survival in the global marketplace.

  96. technology patents and copyrights by alienzed · · Score: 1

    They either need to disappear or become MUCH less onerous. The digital age has redefined markets and manufacturing of digital goods; it no longer makes sense to consider digital copying as theft.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  97. Fiscal Policy by gd2shoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, no political party position is complete without addressing money. You need to decide whether to tax your way out of this hole, or cut your way out. (or both, but aggressively, not half heartedly)

    First plank? Cut the deficit all the way to negative. ASAP. That means now, not planning on it several decades out. Real reform hurts, but it will hurt more if we don't address the problem. Can you imagine the US declaring bankruptcy? That's where we're headed. (or the equvalent, anyway) And that's not just the federal government. Many of the states are insolvent right now too. Even some of the big ones (California).

    Real deficit cuts are not decreasing the planned growth of deficits! Grab both the Rs and Ds and slap them with this during campaigning.

    Second, start spending the money we've got wisely. We're like a leaky sieve. For instance, there's a constant drumbeat of "we've got to support the schools and teachers!" In reality? Almost all the money get's lost between tax payers and the classrooms. Setting more money aside for schools almost never results in increased learning. But cuts? Those go straight to the gullet.

    Third, stop the hidden tax. Inflation. The FED and other financial entities have been focused on a constant, steady inflation to "protect" the economy from the boogeyman of deflationary-spirals. The reality is: deflation is a symptom of the spirals, but isn't the primary cause. Healthy economies absorb deflation nicely. The real reason for constant inflation is to cause the stock market to be the safest place for people to store their cash. It's a money grab for the rich, and a way for the Federal government to shrink the value of the national debt.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re:Fiscal Policy by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem with cutting deficits with spending reductions is that there is often a major cut that is required that no one wants to be responsible for. You can gut the military, or you can drop off elderly, disabled people at the door step of their next of kin, but without taking one or both of these drastic measures, there just aren't enough budget cuts available. As a percentage of GDP, the US national debt combined with other public debt on the state and local level is not that much better than Greece, Spain, Ireland, or Cyprus. It really might be already too late. Governments do "declare bankruptcy" by defaulting on public debt. The US may see a situation similar to what Russia went through during the 1990's. If it's not too late it would be better to pursue budget cuts now willfully than to be forced to after no one is willing to loan to the USA.

      Maybe we need some out-of-the-box thinking. The world enjoys a prosperous global economy in part due to Pax Americana, where the USA is the primary, sometimes at 90% of coalition force, peace keeping force and deterent in the world. Why not charge for this service? Tell the Europeans that we're pulling out of our bases unless they start paying their security fee. If they would prefer we could offer services, at a fee, to train their own armies to protect their territories. And sell them weapons, with a markup sufficient to cover some of our debt repayments. Go to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. and do the same, as well as the major importers of oil from these countries, since we are paying millions to protect all these Arabic sources of oil from invaders (was Iraq, now supposedly Iran). Charge a fee to South Korea and Japan for keeping North Korea at bay. Sell off unprofitable territory - ask the French if they want New Orleans back, or ask China if they would like to lease California for 100 years so they could import their manufactured goods duty free and build factories closer to one of their biggest customers. Sure this would mean that Californians would have to work 100 hours each week for $16 a day, no benefits, brutal oppression of human rights, etc., but it would bring jobs back to American, sort of.

      Start selling immigration rights. If you want to come here, pay $40k and you get to move in, no questions asked. $10k more buys citizenship. If revenue is less than expected, drop the price a few points every couple of years. Here's a thought - charge wealthy people the same tax rate as working Americans. No more exemptions from social security tax for every dollar over $100k. Stop making punishing those with "earned" income and rewarding those with passive income - tax it all the same. Free market theory would suggest that people will invest and don't need government to prop up the system with bogus tax incentives. Collect a deposit of 20% of net worth for every individual leaving the country. Return deposit only when they come back.

      Just some thoughts.

    2. Re:Fiscal Policy by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      It really might be already too late.

      I think that you're right. I pray that you're wrong.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    3. Re:Fiscal Policy by joelsplace · · Score: 1

      It's too bad that a party platform doesn't seem to have much to do with what the politicians actually do. The Republican platform is really good. So far no Republican I've heard of outside of Ron Paul makes any attempt to vote according to the platform. Massive cuts are required and neither party is willing to do it.

    4. Re:Fiscal Policy by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      You know what they say, we've got the tax-and-spend party and we've got the borrow-and-spend party.

      (And the Democrats don't want to tax the rich and give to the poor. That's just bad populist rhetoric. They want to tax the rich and give to different rich people... and buy votes.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    5. Re:Fiscal Policy by sahonen · · Score: 1

      >Cut the deficit all the way to negative. ASAP. Because austerity has worked so well for everybody else, right?

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    6. Re:Fiscal Policy by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      It beats the alternative. No, I'm serious. You only think "austerity" is bad.

      It has been said that the fundamental problem with Democracy is that people eventually figure out that they can vote themselves money... and eventually, one way or another, by defaulting on debts or by hyperinflation, they run out.

      (Atrributed to Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.)

      The problems with so-called austerity stem from poorly thought through reforms, and from citizens who are loudly upset that they can't get paid on the government's credit card anymore. The former must be addressed. The latter must be suffered through. Consider everyone who's vote has been purchased - yes, bought and paid for. It's crass, but it's also accurate. None of them want to believe they are an inherent part of the problem.

      But the biggest "austerity" steps are almost never addressed. Those are to cut out graft and corruption at each and every level of government where it exists. So long as politicians remain in charge, this is a very, very daunting task. Corruption is like a bad mold. It tends to survive even when the house falls down.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    7. Re:Fiscal Policy by drsquare · · Score: 1

      For a start, a country which can print its own currency can't really go bankrupt.

      And what if declaring bankruptcy would be better than cutting the deficit?

    8. Re:Fiscal Policy by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      For a start, a country which can print its own currency can't really go bankrupt.

      The technical term is "sovereign debt crisis". I used "bankruptcy" since very few people know the other term. Inflation through printing is a lot like taxation, but with some nasty side effects. if we "printed" our way out of this, we'd still wind up with a sovereign debt crisis, but we'd also acquire hyper-inflation. One of the foundational axioms of fiat currency is that the government that manages it can act like grown-ups. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

      And what if declaring bankruptcy would be better than cutting the deficit?

      Remember, there is a major difference between the federal debt, and the federal deficit. The debt is how much we owe, and the deficit is how much deeper into the hole we are digging ourselves. If (and at this rate, when) we have a debt crisis, it will no longer be a matter of whether or not to eliminate the deficit. We won't be able to borrow any more. Thus, the deficit will drop practically to zero, by definition.

      That would be bad. Not only will it demoralize and panic the economy, (causing all kinds of havoc, starting in the so-called financial sector, but spreading everywhere) but we won't be able to borrow in case of dire emergency. It would probably spark a true depression. It's a lesson we are simply going to need to learn. I just hope it's not by experience.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  98. your party platform by stenvar · · Score: 2

    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?

  99. Reasonable by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    Reasonable copyright, 10 years, and only applies to commercial interests like it was originally intended.

    Reform patent law to take an extremely strict view of any purposed patent and strengthen prior art thresholds (ie.: combining multiple existing technologies is not patent-worthy just because it hasn't been done before, the standard for obviousness is whether it would be logical for a qualified engineer), fund the patent office with taxes rather than the current rubber-stamp-for-hire process, can the incompetent schmucks currently staffing it and hire actual experts from various technology and science fields.

    Reasonable drug policy that doesn't criminalize and lock up non-violent people minding their own business putting into their own bodies what they want.

    Reasonable understanding of technology-based "crimes" that don't unnecessarily trump up charges because z0mg!!! compoooteers!!!

    Reasonableness in general? Stop the creation of bad policy based on bullshit perceptions and knee-jerk pandering politics. Law should be required to meet some sort of scientific rigor before it's acceptable.

    I guess I might was well also ask for unicorns and free Ferraris while I'm at it, because that stands no less of a chance than anything else listed here.

  100. Not asking other people to decide your policies by PhamNguyen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  101. Sensible people. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

    As an intro, I am not a political expert nor do I claim to have a firm grasp on all things politics.

    1) How about making sure the leaders and other political figures of the party aren't ignorant egomaniacs with an agenda and a pocket full of bribe money. That is my first request.

    2) Be open about who is donating money to your party.

    3) When speaking they should sound intelligent but not condescending, they should be confident. Be sure they are briefed on the subject beforehand by qualified experts that can be accounted for. I don't want to hear "experts say that bla bla bla...." What experts? Who are they? What are their credentials?

    4) Have a science and technology panel that serves as a resource for educating politicians on science and technical matters. After all, science and technology make a nation strong and competitive.

    5) How do we remain competitive now and in the future with China both in terms of manufacturing and technology? China isn't going to play second fiddle to the US for ever. One day they are going to develop their own competitive technology from scratch which isn't a cheap knockoff. They have tons of manpower and are sharpening their skills. We have to be sure we stay one or more steps ahead of them technologically. They also have no problem stealing IP from us. That is another problem which needs to be addressed.

    6) National security should not trump the rights of its citizens. Three letter agencies and local police forces need to be restrained in their ever invasive surveillance practices and policies. Warrants should be mandatory for all wiretapping whether its a phone or internet connection. Why should the CIA get to build massive secret data centers in the middle of the desert and install fiber taps into major backbones? What are they collecting and why? How is it helping us? Think of it like this: after all the slow erosion of privacy and rights with increased surveillance, two guys still managed to set bombs off at the boston marathon. We need to rethink how we approach national security.

    7) And another important part of your platform is foreign policy. This I cannot take the time to explain but let's re-evaluate our position of rolling into countries balls out because of some purported terrorist threat. I understand its a tough position to be in, someone attacked us and people demand justice or revenge. You can't be timid and look like a pussy but you shouldn't start a war by spreading lies. In short, lets stop looking like a dick to the rest of the world.

    I wrote this in haste and its simply a brain dump. I just want a political party that sounds rational, is open and honest and confident in their actions.

    1. Re:Sensible people. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      How about making sure the leaders and other political figures of the party aren't ignorant egomaniacs with an agenda and a pocket full of bribe money. That is my first request.

      Who other than ignorant egomaniacs are going to run for office? It's like saying that professional sports has too many gifted athletes.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  102. "people everywhere just gotta agree..." by swschrad · · Score: 1

    All of your data has got to be free.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:"people everywhere just gotta agree..." by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      All of your data has got to be free.

      Ok, what are your credit card numbers, their associated security codes and expiry dates? What is your bank account number and banking site password? What is your date of birth, name and SSN? What is your current address and two previous addresses?

      Wait, you don't want to share "your" information? But I thought information has to be free?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  103. IMPORTANT: nuclear energy policy by cbarcus · · Score: 1

    It can be said that the underlying weakness of the current political system is that it is straddling a transition from fossil fuels to an unknown. The key to making it through this transition is to understand the scale of energy need, the economic problems with low energy density sources like traditional renewables, and the potential of nuclear technology that is decades old.

    Our current level of energy consumption is some 17 TW globally, dominated by fossil fuels. Projections of future consumption will depend upon factors such as: population size (9-10 billion), quality of life desired (5-13 kW per capita), and the availability and economic viability of various energy sources (fissile and other vital materials for reactor initialization). It is conservatively estimated that we will need somewhere between 2 and 3 times current capacity by 2050. I suggest trying to imagine a global energy system that can provide 50 TW of usable capacity by 2050. This is the point where anyone with a familiarity of our current regulatory system and state of technology give up in despair. It is a frustratingly daunting task to try and conquer poverty and global warming simultaneously.

    As we scale up traditional renewables, poor capacity factors, high material use, and remote siting end up negatively influencing the economics. Furthermore, copious land use becomes coupled to economic activity as we ruinously strive to give everyone their due resources by covering more land (and shallow sea) with energy generating equipment. At the scales I am suggesting, we will be covering at least single percentages of land with energy farms. This should give all renewable energy advocates extreme pause, though most will gladly sacrifice this land on the altar of their radiological superstition.

    For decades we have been in possession of nuclear technology capable of helping us realize a vision of a world without poverty and global warming. Numerous crises from economic shocks to industrial accidents have malformed the political landscape, and the present confusion over how to proceed on energy threatens us all. Building out nuclear capacity rapidly will require the efficient production and use of incredibly rare and valuable fissile. We will probably need fissile factories (super breeders) in addition to U mining and enrichment. Reactors will need to breed their own fuel (from fertile isotopes), but will still require a quantity of fissile for initialization. The most efficient reactor system to mass produce will be a thermal molten salt reactor based on thorium, as it should only require about 1 ton of fissile for 1 gigawatt capacity. No other system comes close to this, and all of the fast neutron systems have large fissile loads (not a problem if you are only going to build a few machines). We need to build tens of thousands of machines. Present global fissile stockpiles are in the few thousands of tons.

    Energy is easily the most important issue facing our civilization as it is the fundamental input into our economic system. Our failure to respond to this situation of inadequate technology, political backwardness, and general public ignorance, superstition, and apathy can entail us becoming another 'accident of history'.

  104. ok... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Pledge to only except individual campaign donations and post those donations online.
    Pledge to attend EVERY vote unless medically unable. No abstaining.
    Pledge to Vote against or veto (depending on office) any legislation that contains earmarks (I realize that this is currently all legislation)
    Pledge to avoid "hot button" issues like abortion, Gun control, gay marriage and focus on the many issues most people agree on where easy progress can be made. These highly incendiary issues are used by the current parties to distract people from their lack of real action on real issues.
    Pledge to budget only for the current year. Budgeting for years you will not be in office is ridiculous because it will simply be re-written at that time. Budgets that claim to spend now and then save in 4 years after you're gone are a joke.
    Pledge to reduce the US military presence in the world by at least 50%. Let the military decide which bases to close and where. We'll still have the largest, most expensive military on earth. So it'll be ok.
    End the drug war.
    End mandatory minimums.
    Make it illegal for police seizures of cash to go to the departments involved.
    Make it illegal for any drug sentence to exceed the sentence for murder.
    Make getting a greencard so easy, people stop traversing the dessert in order to avoid having to get one. If you obey the law, and have a job, you should be able to get into the country easily.

    ok, flame away... :-)

    1. Re:ok... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...

      You're pledging to attend every vote, yet avoid "hot button" issues? Not really a great idea.
      Also, budgeting for only 1 year at a time is a fool's game. Sure, the goal posts can and will shift, but program managers need some stability to get things done. Though I agree with the eternal 'spend now, save after I'm gone' games.

      Reducing US Military presence - that's a tough one. I happen to believe that the US Military is, at least on average, a stabilizing influence on the world, actually reducing conflict.

      Otherwise I pretty much agree.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  105. Free Speech by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Free Speech including the right to cause offense is critical. Everything else is secondary. If you don't have Free Speech you have *nothing*. Now you may argue that the US already has Free Speech, but it turns out that actually what US citizens can and can't say is being steadily eroded by political correctness. Here are some things for you to consider: The incompetant Hiliary Clinton co-sponsored UN HRC Resolution 16/18 which seeks the criminalization of those that defame or cause offense to religions; consider the film "Innocence of Muslims" while it was mostly factually correct (see: http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/) the Obama Administration hunted down the producer and put him in jail (on some bullshit charges) which was a big signal that exercising Free Speech in the US about the subject of Islam (even making true statements) is an exercise that can land you in jail.

    A party that has a central platform that will *actually* defend Free Speech would be great. That is, rather than assuming it exists and doesn't need to be defended, or only gives lip service to defending it while it gets progressively eroded (as Democrats do).

    A second plank your Party might like to consider is making explicit the support for the primacy of the Constitution over foreign laws. There have been an increasing number of cases where foreign laws (particularly Sharia) have come in conflict with the US Constitution and the Constitution has often yielded. This got bad enough that Florida and Oklahoma need to draft state laws to prevent this happening again. It would be good to have a political party that was explicit about the primacy of US law for US citizens on US soil. This would also help Internet users - they should not be subject to foreign laws of censorship etc when accessing a server hosted outside the US.

  106. No Lawyers by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Most Important: a modern election process. rank voting, ON PAPER. If volunteers to do the counting can not be found, if they can't wait for results, then democracy is not important.

    While in office, they can only have 1 income. no investments, 401k, etc.

    No Lawyers can be elected to office. (do you know the ones in firms tend to help their firms become specialists in the laws they write?)

    Why not just put in the crazy ideals:

    Politician Pension Plan for life + they can never work for another person ever again; or be a consultant.

    A Parliamentary system. they are superior.

    Limit the congressional seat CAP when it was originally designed to SCALE with the population - based upon the common sense that the more people a rep represents the more removed from them they become. This would also make corruption more difficult because you'd have to buy off a LOT more politicians, their individual power would be less, and their constituents would know them better. The creation of the cap gave them more individual power; one can totally see why they actually did it. This can apply to a parliament system as well.

    1. Re:No Lawyers by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Politician Pension Plan for life + they can never work for another person ever again; or be a consultant.

      Also, peg the politician pension plan to the median income.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  107. Wood. by bodland · · Score: 1

    Big effing wood planks so all my hunting buddies can drink and eat when we cheer for MOHR GUNZ

  108. Who cares? Go with dictatorship by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Having a say is overrated.

  109. Voting Franchise Restoration by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    The only issue that matters anymore is the restoration of the voting franchise. We need to:

        - eliminate PACs and SuperPACs
        - limit contributions to individual, human contributions only, capped to $1000 per person
        - outlaw gerrymandering and require an immediate redistricting such that, except for districts on state lines, no district has a concave border.
        - functional, tamper-proof, open source voting machines that issue paper records of the votes cast must be in sufficient supply and for a sufficient time period that everyone in the district will be able to vote
        - No ID card is required, but the person voting must be on the roll for the polling station they are assigned to and they must give a thumb print and sign their name.
        - No penalties for honest voter registration drives; heavy penalties for fraudulent practices during voter registration drives.
        - failure to provide adequate access to the voting process is grounds for heavy fines and overturning of the election results.

    And don't just pass a set of laws -- pass an Amendment to the Constitution. Because the vote of the people is the most essential part of the foundation of our form of government, and it has been seriously eroded over the last few decades to the point where well-financed parties seriously believe, and rightly so, that they can sway elections and deform our laws and regulations to suit their interests alone.

    When the voice of the people is restored, when we are truly once again a government of, by, and for the people rather than the top 0.001%, everything else will fall into line.

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    1. Re:Voting Franchise Restoration by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go ahead and reply to my own post... :)

      Take the issue that makes you angriest because you're just sure our government is lying to us about it. Doesn't matter what it is. You are probably confident that politicians that vote "the wrong way" are getting paid off by some big money lobbyist representing people you despise.

      Now imagine that money was no longer considered, in the words of Antonin Scalia, "impossible to separate from the speech it enables," and therefore speech itself. Imagine if one party was unable to gain unfair advantage by preventing people from voting or altering the districts so the majority lost regardless. Imagine if the only thing that mattered when it came time to get re-elected was a Congressman's record and whether he honestly represented the interests of his constituency.

      Yeah, you want it too. You know you do.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    2. Re:Voting Franchise Restoration by V-similitude · · Score: 1

      Definitely need redistricting reform, but "no concave borders" is probably unworkable given the inherent chaos of population distributions. It also doesn't solve one of the major problems currently, which is that cities are so strongly democratic that it's easy to form districts (even concave ones) that are 90+% democratic, while distributing suburban & rural votes more evenly, essentially "wasting" a large portion of city votes.

      I think the solution (and certainly the technology-oriented approach) is to algorithmically dictate districts according to certain apolitical rules.
      E.g.
      - All districts must have population = district_size +/- acceptable_variation
      - Minimize sum of all districts' perimeter/area ratio
      - All else equal, maximize overlap with former districts
      - etc...

      This would still potentially have the city packing problem, but at least it would be more neutral in the application of it. Take the human out of it and it's far more likely to be fair.

    3. Re:Voting Franchise Restoration by V-similitude · · Score: 1

      * even convex ones

  110. How about adherence to the Constitution by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

    How about this radical idea: strict adherence to the entire Constitution, not just little bits and pieces.

  111. Abolish software patents by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

    There's absolutely no reason for them to exist. They don't provide any benefit at all to society, and abolishing them would save industry tens of billions of dollars a year.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  112. Primaries by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    Third parties are fine in the USA as long as they run canidates during primaries and not the final election. If your a liberal leaning party then the Democratic primary is your runoff election where you can get your guy in. Conservative leaning should run in the Republican primary. That is what the Tea Party has been doing.

    1. Re:Primaries by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Third parties are fine in the USA as long as they run canidates during primaries and not the final election. If your a liberal leaning party then the Democratic primary is your runoff election where you can get your guy in. Conservative leaning should run in the Republican primary. That is what the Tea Party has been doing.

      Actually, no. Primaries turn out to make the voting problem worse, not better.

      Primaries have the same ballot problems, which means that they are unreliable if there are more than two candidates. And, in the case of two candidates, the primary selects a candidate that is closest to the median position of a subset of the total voting population. What this does is means that the candidates are chosen away from the center, not toward the center.

      In an idealized model of two parties with the position of voters normally distributed along some axis, the two election system would mean that the elected candidate's position randomly flips back and forth from positions plus and minus 25% away from center. (Where "25% away from center" means "75% of the voting population is on one side of the candidate, 25% on the other.)

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  113. Truth-based legislation by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    We need legislation based on evidence (not dogma), budget items prioritized by Return on Investment (any increase in expected tax revenue as a result of government spending), and market failures corrected (polluter pays, etc.).

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  114. Financial, science, immigration, military by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  115. Or just avoid the pension costs by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    If they are so patriotic... as they profess to be when they run for office - why not execute them when they leave office? Wouldn't that bring about a whole different kind of dynamic? Worth pondering all the wide spread changes that would cause. Given the stakes and how many die as a result of their actions (even the small ones) it doesn't feel barbaric at all.

    1. Re:Or just avoid the pension costs by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Damn, I like the way you think.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  116. Re:Patent validity and copyright maint fees by KDN · · Score: 1

    I would say that if they miss more than one prior art they risk losing the patent. That will light a fire for them to be more accurate.
    I think copyrights need to be dramatically shortened. I mean come on, 75 years after the DEATH of the of the author? And corporate ownership is FOREVER
    I would mandate that copyrights need to be registered. Even if it is something like a dollar a year.. In that way we can identify orphan works that should be made free.

  117. Transparency by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Full transparency. At all cost. For all the government and related sectors. That the answer for the old question "who watches the watchers?": all the citizens.

  118. Justice Party, ha? Then take this list by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    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.

  119. Moderate libertarian here... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Okay, I consider myself a moderate libertarian. I'll try to keep my views to 'plank' level, as many topics can expand to book size for details/reasoning:
    1. I believe in Keynesian economic theory: The budget should be balanced *ON AVERAGE* - IE over a 10-20 year period revenues should equal expenditures. This means that the budget should be balanced when the economy is worse than what most people would like, have major surpluses when the economy is 'hot', and deficits when the economy is bad.
    2. Legalize, tax, and regulate recreational drugs: The harm caused by prohibition exceeds that of what legalization would have. It's harm mitigation, not prevention. It's not going to be perfect. Use the revenues to fund treatment options, empty the prisons out of drug offenders, treat addiction as a medical issue.
    3. Fix our schools: Excessive testing isn't the answer, neither is 'more money' normally. A new method needs to be found to provide adequate funding and oversight to truly address the problems of troubled schools.
    4. Fix our prisons: Reform, not warehousing. Most of Europe managed to have a recidivism rate 1/3rd ours and 1/3rd the prison sentence. We just can't afford to keep running our prisons this way as the cost of keeping a prisoner soars past $30k/year.
    5. Fix our infrastructure: encourage a positive business climate. Oh, and an educated workforce is infrastructure as far as businesses are concerned.
    6. Go through the government with a fine toothed comb to reduce duplication(we have how many 'green energy' subsidy programs?) and waste.
    7. Reduce subsidies and regulatory overhead, not oversight(yeah, I know, easier said than done).
    8. Encourage free speech and an open, fair internet.
    9. Reduce copyright terms; as far as I'm concerned they should be limited to somewhat less than the expected lifespan of the media they're commonly printed on. IE people can legally copy it BEFORE the media would statistically have failed 10X over.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Moderate libertarian here... by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

      Okay, I consider myself a moderate libertarian... I believe in Keynesian economic theory

      Huh? That's like saying: I consider myself a moderate scientist... I believe in Intelligent Design.
      Libertarianism is about choice, competition, and the freedom to decide. Keynesianism is about centralized economic control.

    2. Re:Moderate libertarian here... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      1. I believe in Keynesian economic theory: The budget should be balanced *ON AVERAGE* - IE over a 10-20 year period revenues should equal expenditures. This means that the budget should be balanced when the economy is worse than what most people would like, have major surpluses when the economy is 'hot', and deficits when the economy is bad.

      Just out of curiousity, what do you do with the surpluses when you have them?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Moderate libertarian here... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Libertarianism is about choice, competition, and the freedom to decide. Keynesianism is about centralized economic control.

      You need to study more of both then... A better statement would be 'I consider myself a moderate Christian, I believe in Evolution'. Libertarianism is a philosophy, Keynesian economic theory is actually a theory, an economic model.

      Also, Keynesian theory, at it's base, doesn't require much in the way of individualized control(where my libertarian tendencies lie). It's more about the idea that the government should act as a counter-balance to the private economy, not that you need extensive 'centralized economic control'. It's quite possible to run a keynesian economic policy that's libertarian compatible by simply messing with general tax rates and the amount and rate at which the fed loans money at.

      Still, economic theory is on of many reasons why I stick 'moderate' in there for being a libertarian. I certainly don't agree with the platform 100%, but I'm still more in line with it than I am the republican or democrat parties. I've been called 'less a libertarian and more a practical minarchist'.

      Basically, governments have an important role to play in economic prosperity, but they shouldn't be micromanaging.

      After all, I'm for legalizing drugs and prostitution, really simplifying the tax code, eliminating whole branches of the federal government, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  120. Patent and copyright reform. by coats · · Score: 1
    Here's a very simple start:

    Loser pays the legal fees.

    If the plaintiff loses, he pays double.

    --
    "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
  121. My favorite planks... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2
    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.
    --
    That is all.
  122. Eliminate Daylight Savings Time (EDST) Plank by kj_chaotic · · Score: 2

    I am committed to voting for any candidate who will do away with the anachronistic concept of Daylight Savings Time. I am a morning person--let there be light.

    1. Re:Eliminate Daylight Savings Time (EDST) Plank by SampleFish · · Score: 1

      I am committed to voting for any candidate who will do away with the anachronistic concept of Daylight Savings Time. I am a morning person--let there be light.

      Hear hear!
      If you want to get up an hour earlier change your alarm clock. Don't attempt to change time itself!

    2. Re:Eliminate Daylight Savings Time (EDST) Plank by speedplane · · Score: 1

      I like watching movies at 5PM. Let darkness reign.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  123. Three simple planks would work for me by sirlark · · Score: 1
    1. Put civil liberties and the general princicples of individual liberty (in the Jeffersonian sense) first, before national security or profit motive
    2. Electoral reform (Distributed Direct Democracy would be nice, but there are much less radical improvements that could be easily made, e.g. overturning Citizen's United)
    3. Technological literacy (for want of a better term), i.e. representatives who either understand (at least in principle) how the technologies that affect our daily lives work, or who are willing to take approriate impartial advice on matters; we have laws that deal inapproraite/unfair/immoral/illegal interactions between various legal entities (including people), no need to make more of them just because those interactions happen over the internet or on a mobile phone

    Just an aside, I'm not a libertarian. and I strongly believe point 1 would require more regulation of companies and industries, not less.

  124. 90% there, then you became a 16 year old by raymorris · · Score: 1

    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.

    In other words, government should leave you the heck alone, minimal government power and intrusion. Cool.
    Then:

    Basic income guarantee

    and you want government to be your mommy.

    It's like a told my daughter - I can take care of you, or you can be a grown up. I can pay for your healthcare, your food, your transportation, etc.
    If I'm paying for it, I have to make the decisions about your healthcare, your food, your transporation, etc. (I'm responsible for the decisions, after all.) If you want to make your own decisions for your life, you are then responsible for your decisions - that's called being a grown up.

    Pick either, but you can't have both. Either you are responsible for yourself, or a government bureaucrat is. Don't ask me to take care of you,
    while allowing you to piss off the resources I work so hard to provide for you.

    1. Re:90% there, then you became a 16 year old by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You can moralize all you want about who is taking care of whom. I'd argue that the rich are the true idle class, and basic income would simply help level the playing field. Being able to amass large quantities of wealth is a privilege granted by government in the first place. You say I want the government to be my mommy? No, I want the government to protect everyone, you just want the government to protect the rich.

      But anyway, the real question is, what leads to a more prosperous society. By which I don't mean, what leads to the highest GDP, but what leads to the highest number of happy and healthy citizens. I don't believe that coercing people into work under the threat of starvation and homelessness is going to accomplish that. When people are free to choose the work they believe will make the world a better place, instead of that which will deliver the highest return on investment to a capitalist, the world will actually be a better place.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  125. Acknowledge that consumerism is a dead end by Coop · · Score: 1

    Have the realism and courage to state that the economy, being based on finite natural resources, can't grow forever, or even much longer. We were 20 years behind the curve in responding to global warming, which is just one more clue that we're f*cking up a nice place to live. Let's not stay in denial about the fallacy of perpetual growth and the immorality of waste, and develop policies that acknowledge it -- consumption taxes being a great starting point.

    --
    "If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
  126. Cart before the horse before the cheese. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    "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.

    When a party tries to crowdsource it's planks - it's doomed, as it's just following the fads. (Doubly so when they claim to be working on V2, and there's not V1 available for reference. There are a lot of pretty buzzwords though.)
     
    When the Technology Manager is the one doing the asking.... well, that's just another nail in the coffin that's already been welded, superglued, bolted, and clamped shut.
     
    Seriously, WTF?

  127. Back to fundamentals by wirehead_rick · · Score: 1

    1. Use gold for money.
    2. Shut down the Federal reserve and ban fractional reserve banking practices.
    3. Shut down IRS and eliminate income tax.
    4. Reduce the military to a maximum size no greater than the next largest military on the planet and station it inside US borders never to leave.
    5. Reform Copyright limits to it's original timeframe (eliminate MM laws).
    6. Reform patents to it's original requirements (you must build a working physical device that represents the patent).
    7. Eliminate any laws governing the behavior and rights of corporations. Specifically remove any law that deems the rights of a corporation equivalent to an individual.
    8. Ban campaign contributions. Allow campaigns for public office to occur for two days and only the two days before the election. Candidates pay for their own campaigns out of their own pocket.
    8. Implement a term limit for _all_ public servants, elected officials and government employees to no greater than 6 years.

    Good luck with anything less. You'll just be another re-branded statist party and you might as well run for office as a republican or democrat (either will work for you).

    --
    -- Mean People Suck
    1. Re:Back to fundamentals by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      8. Ban campaign contributions. Allow campaigns for public office to occur for two days and only the two days before the election. Candidates pay for their own campaigns out of their own pocket.

      I like this one. With this, we don't have to worry about any of those poor people getting elected, since the only ones who can afford it will be independently wealthy (enough so that they have money to throw away on an election)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  128. They have no beliefs, no consistency by raymorris · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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 their "Core Values" list includes:

    Justice: Behave with fairness and compassion, and be accountable for one’s actions;
    Respect: Treat all people, including those with different views, philosophies, and circumstances, with respect;
    Rule of Law: Uphold the equal application of the rule of law.;
    Rationality: Reach decisions consistent with facts and reason;
    Farsightedness: Consider not only the immediate, but also the long term, consequences of our actions;

    How do you provide "poverty is eliminated" when some people don't care to work? By robbing the people who do work, of course. So much for Justice, rule of law, and respect.
    Vision: "college ... high-quality healthcare is available for everyone". Again, if someone produces $18,000 / year and is going to get $20,000 worth of healthcare, and $20,00 for college, who are you taking that $40,000 from? Someone whom you're not treating with "justice", "respect", etc.

    Does that plan, which has been an utter failure anytime anyone has tried anything like that, sound like "Rationality" or "Farsightedness"?

    Clearly they don't know what they believe, haven't thought that through. (I assume they're not lying about most of it, and just haven't thought enough to realize that pretty much all of their "Core Values" are the opposites of their "Vision".

    1. Re:They have no beliefs, no consistency by Jalfro · · Score: 1

      Looks like a well organised set of beliefs to me. In fact it looks so well organised that I suspect you of caricaturing it. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it moronic or incoherent.

    2. Re:They have no beliefs, no consistency by uberbrainchild · · Score: 1

      But is it really that wrong or bad? Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a society that had less homeless people and less poverty because everyone pitches in a little extra? Is it fair that a child should get worse education because you say his or her parent's are "lazy". It is about giving everyone an equal opportunity while still having the freedoms that you do now. I don't know much about this party, but it sounds a lot better than what America has now.

      --
      Anveto
    3. Re:They have no beliefs, no consistency by DMJC · · Score: 1

      Working pretty well here in Australia, we have the strongest economy in the world and we all get healthcare. Might want to research before you go blowing your horn off. I am a Tax payer, and yes right now I do qualify for unemployment benefits as I was hired on a maternity leave contract which has now expired. When I find my new job I will continue to be "robbed" as you call it. But the reality is it's a system where my tax dollars go towards myself not starving to death if I find myself out of work. It's a system which is a lot better than me picking up a knife and threatening people because I can't get work. Higher crime rates and higher poverty are all that America seems to be getting these days. I'll keep my high taxing country where it's possible to still get ahead and have dreams without being lucky.

  129. too many things to fix by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    1. Candidate may only accept campaign contributions from those that can vote for that candidate.
    2. New bills should have a justification as to "why this is the federal government's business".
    3. new bills should sit for 14 days for all to read before a vote
    4. all bills should be voted on by themselves.
    5. all laws should have an expiration date
    6. every bill and nominated individual should get a vote
    7. legislators should live and work in their home district
    8. federal legislators should be paid by their state
    9. replace income tax with consumption tax
    10. cancel the F35
    11. repeal obamacare
    12. legalize marijuana
    13. legalize online gaming
    14. give national park management to environmental groups
    15. white collar and violent crime should be the DOJs highest priority ...

  130. Be specific by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

    Instead of using vague, feel-good terms like "social justice" and "economic equality", say what you really mean: you want to use the force of government to push your view of what's "right" on the rest of us. You believe in freedom, as long as people don't say or do things you don't like. You believe that government effectively owns people's lives and property, and has the authority to tell them what they may, or must, do with it.

    Or...
    Come up with a good platform, based on the American ideals of individual responsibility and community involvement. This is all you need to do that:
    Eliminate the executive and judicial branches as part of the legislative process. They execute the laws or judge the execution. (Hence the clever names).
    For a bill to pass the legislature, it must have 90% approval.
    If the bill consists entirely of repealing an existing law, it needs only 10% approval.
    A ballot proposition can eliminate any law with 10% approval.
    Done.

    Things that would pass the 90% mark:
    Bans on murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.
    Things that would fail to pass the 90% mark:
    Bans on sexuality, drugs, guns, etc.
    Wars, slavery, genocide, etc.

  131. Instant Runoff Voting by srobert · · Score: 1

    Instant Runoff Voting. Look it up.
    That's what we need.

  132. Re:Flat Income Tax and Balanced Budget by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

    Perfect!

  133. GIT by snadrus · · Score: 1

    Others have great ideas too, but how about GIT for everything.
    - Research in GIT:
          Where's the data, how was it processed?
    - Politics in GIT:
          Have a commitment? Put it in your TODO. Achieved it? Mark as done.
          No one will vote for a claim/plan unless you register it to be held accountable.
    - Bills in GIT: If a law changes, who did it, how when?
    - Laws as Unit Tests: Unit tests show the behaviors & results. To start a business, follow the start_business unit test.
          These tests could be "played with" to determine what is legal & illegal.

    --
    Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
  134. All policies subject to empiracle review by invient · · Score: 1

    1. Subject all policies to empiracle review, if the policy isn't improving the general welfare of the people or is causing unintended problems, force it through a mandatory review in which changes are made or a new policy is proposed. Various optimal constraints will be used, chief among them is the gini coeffecient. The following planks are subject to this one. 2. Decentralize power. One way of doing this is forming citizen councils, 100 people to a council, which elects one person to another 100 citizen council, and so on until you have 1 to 100 councils at the top. Every representative must vote the way the council that elected them voted, given appropriate time for debate. The only horizontal communication allowed is between leaf councils, except in a vote of concious by a representstive council, in which case they can communicate horizontally to force the issue to all the councils below that level.all communication must be recorded and freely available. 3. Disband the military. For defense purposes , all citizens will be given 2 years of military training in the fields that best use their abilities, and best match the needs of the nation. After that two years, they can chose to go to a four year university, private or public sector employment, or form a business using the money that would have gone to their education. If loans to start a business are required, the business must be in the form of a worker owned coop a la democracy at work.

  135. In the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombing by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    As an American I am extremely angry at those who create troubles for my country, particularly those who came to America but refuse to live peacefully with the others

    If they do not want to live peacefully with the rest of us in the United States of America they can either ***NOT*** coming to America in the first place, or, get out of America before they start creating trouble for others

    I was very very angry at what happened to the World Trade Center in NYC, and I AM very very angry at what happened at the Boston Marathon

    If people of a certain violent sect want to kill and main people, they should do it in THEIR OWN COUNTRIES

    Stop doing it in the United States of America !

    If you party is for "Justice", then do justice to the Americans --- get those troublemakers out of our society !!!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:In the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombing by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Only AMERICANS are allowed to kill and maim Americans! Goddamn immigrants and their contribution of 0.1% to the national murder rate! They're ruining Murrika!

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    2. Re:In the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombing by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So does that mean you want all those bloody pink skinned arse holes to leave and give America back to Native Americans. I mean a lot of them are nasty dicks, you know psychopaths and narcissist and all but kicking them all out for the behaviour of a minority, well, hmm, I suppose the majority of those nasty pink skins did benefit by the genocidal activities so.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  136. Justice Party reply by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    Hi TaoPhoenix, This is a valid point. In hindsight, I would have logged in and posted. My original /. account was tied into an email address of a dead domain. Anyways, I have logged in for you. Not looking to scrap ideas. The point is that science, technology, internet and much more has taken a pounding from politicians. We are hear to say, 'We want to listen. Give us your ideas in these matters. Help us make a more better America.' Does that help a bit? Not like we are throwing some 'dark money' at Slashdot here. lol. -- Thanks, Justice Party

    1. Re:Justice Party reply by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      ... Better!

      So start by giving us a list of who the top leaders of the Justice Party are.

      What is "CT"? Is this a Connecticut State party?

      Then since you are working on your "Platform 2.0", give us your latest 1.x series platform so we know how far you got before you decided to ask for opinions! No need for us to rehash old hat if you've already agreed on something!

      Good Politics is about information. So let's have it! Lots of it! As in, about 50 pages of it!
      (Think that's a lot? That's just 5 pages on each of ten hot Tech topics!)

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  137. Observe the Law of Nature: Evolve or Die. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Representatives aren't working. That's not even the word for them, they don't represent us or decided based on the best interests of the people. A purely democratic system would be horrible due to the mob-rule, but it has become abundantly clear that we do need a 4th power as a check and balance. This is the information age, we now have the technology to put all these crap laws directly to vote by the people. The US Citizens are not being adequately represented by their representatives because of the percentage of apathy of the average American and of the lack of accountability afforded to those who are up for election to such offices. The founding fathers had a great idea, but they could not anticipate a design that operates in today's climate of vast corruption and apathetic voters who rightly feel that their votes don't matter. We have the technology to make our voices directly heard in the passing of any bill -- Laws that will directly impact our lives shouldn't be passed without a representative portion of voters actually aware of the bill and voting to instate it.

    We need those registered voters to have their own individual digital offices of government. Each voter given the option to participate in voting to veto or pass the same bills that come before the president -- A public veto power. Furthermore we need only pass the laws that the public ACTUALLY knows and cares about. If there isn't enough direct voting support for a bill then it gets dropped automatically. This could be a HUGE boon to the current system: By opening up a direct line of thought to the actual people the laws will affect the other branches will better see how to align their decisions with that of the people who supposedly vote them into or out of office next term.

    Of course there are many issues with gaming such a system, but just look at the current system! Can you say it's ANY Better?! Is it any LESS game-able? No, it is MORE SO. Anyone who has even heard of the practice of paperclipping a bill to another to fly it under our radar should either be fighting to change the broken and corrupt system, to save it from extinction.

    Has nature taught us nothing? Any entity that does not adapt to its surroundings WILL become extinct. That is the mechanism by which History makes itself repeat -- Thus government-organisms have life cycles. Any system collects more baggage and entropy as it grows and ages, enough so that it eventually "dies" -- Governments are no different, except that now you recognize it as such a system we can prevent its death. It's time to re-make the government while its running... The alternative is a bloody new government is born of revolution, that's less efficient. It's time to make an evolutionary leap in terms of government: It's time to end the cycle of death by building adaptation right into the organism itself.

    We have the technology. Let us use it.

  138. Hello by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    See post above. My apologies for not logging in. Sometimes us bald guys don't want to be noticed. ;-)

  139. Reply from Justice Party by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    >Is this really how political parties get started? No. We started in 2011. Which is not long ago. But we are rather new. >Shouldn't the platform come before the party? We have a platform. It is being revised. On issues of social, civic and environment justice we have various planks. Our hope here is to listen to people who immerse themselves in technology and issues related to technology. To simply listen. And to absorb ideas that will help lead the country down a path of improvements in science, engineering and so much more. >This makes it sound like you found a large, under-served demographic and decided to cash in on their passion. Actually, I've been visited Slashdot for many many years. Lost my account years ago and haven't bothered to recreate a new one. These days, I just read the OP and it is enough. But /. holds good memories for me from back in the days I was pushing open source game development. You can get some insightful comments here and there.... >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. Take a look at some of our Founding Documents. Or visit our founder's website, voterocky.com. He has many videos on what we stand for. Our (old) platform is offline right now as we work on the new version. >At the very least, you should lurk more. Been lurking for many years my friend. Probably started back in 2002 or so. >but surely you understand why this looks deceitful Yes. It is because the two major parties have so twisted our political system. That's one reason why I myself, and doing what I can to help out the Justice Party. >It's like asking a girl in a chat room how old she is and she asks how old you want her to be. More like, 'Which Linux distro should do you like? With answer, 'Which distro do you want us to like?' Thanks for posting. Throw us some ideas though. That is why I decided to recreate an account. -- Thanks, Justice Party

    1. Re:Reply from Justice Party by PhamNguyen · · Score: 1

      The fact that it was posted as "ask Slashdot" is irrelevant. The purpose of your post is to drive people towards your site and promote interest in your party, and is therefore more on the spirit of an ad even if it is technically phrased as a question. The fact that you have said absolutely zero about what type party stands for aside from hollow rhetoric about other politicians being bad guys suggests that you are not even interested in having a serious discussion here. Again my sole suggestion is that you act with more respect and stop filling up the front page with garbage.

  140. Justice Party reply by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    I like your ideas. I have been studying many open source projects for Open Gov. There are some cities around the planet that are embracing it. We would love to see this more on a national level. BTW, there are many Greens in our party and a few on our National Steering Committee. (Actually, a range of people from other parties.) Thanks for input! -- Thanks, Justice Party

  141. Justice Party Reply by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    No dig felt! Good input. On other areas such as the environment, social issues we are indeed looking for input. But today, we are looking for input from people who love science and technology. I am in the field, so want to hear what my peers want and hope for. We will attempt to bring Sexy Planks back. Thank you my friend. :) -- Thanks, Justice Party

  142. I personally like this platform. by fwc · · Score: 1
  143. Reply from Justice Party by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    Hiya, we have our vision, mission and core values posted on our site. I was thinking to post them but didn't want to take up too much space in the OP. Figured the URL was enough. Most of our platform is in the area of social, civic, economic and the environment. What I am hoping to achieve here is not to pander. Rather, to simply listen to what is on your minds. Most parties simply look for a vote. And their platform is made by men in dark suits. We want to be different and reach out to people in different communities. Since I have liked /. for many years, I thought it would be cool to ask here. Some input has been great. And some input Score: 0, but hey, it is SlashDot, so you gotta be prepared to take it. We submitted it to Ask Slashdot (community). Not posted as 'news'. Anyways, if you have some ideas that you would like to see occur for our country related to the sciences. Let us know. Cheers -- Thanks, Justice Party

  144. Two wolves and a sheep AKA Occupy by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It's called tyranny of the majority. The the classic line is "two wolves in sheep voting on what to have for dinner". you see it to today with Occupy bums who declare they will not get a job, but insist on taking their living from that you do work.

  145. Reply from Justice Party by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    Be happy. Glass-Steagal is on our new platform. -- Thanks, Justice Party

  146. Reply from the Justice Party by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    "I don't believe my list of 10 suggestions will make it into your platform." Why not? :) -- Thanks, Justice Party

    1. Re:Reply from the Justice Party by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Because nondiscrimination before Law is not what "justice" is about in the modern definition

      Nondiscrimination immediately eliminates graduated (so called 'progressive') income tax.

      Nondiscrimination means you can't treat people differently whether they are employers or employees.

      I can go on, but you get the point.

  147. Reply from Justice Party by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 1

    Hi, thank you for the list. If I recall, we will be putting a plank in for ending the war on drugs. Also looking to address our prison system (look at our VP candidate in 2012). Your input is one of the best. Thank you for actually thinking on these topics! -- Thanks, Justice Party

  148. you are so close, then you turned 16 by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You were doing awesome:

    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.

    in other words you want government to leave you alone. you want government officials to have minimum power. Cool.

    Basic income guarantee.

    now you want government to be your mommy.

    You can run your own life, or you can ask someone else to be responsible for you. Those are opposites, you can't do both.

    You want to legalize drugs? Fine. You want me to take a second job so I can pay your bills while you smoke pot all day? GFY. If you want to be a grown up and rin your own life, go do it. I'm not buying the heroine FOR you.

  149. Justice Party Reply by JusticePartyCT · · Score: 2

    Hello gl4ss :) I'm OK with you beating up the website. Little background. The visual design was MUCH MUCH worse in 2012 if you can believe that. What you see is a 'default' template on our cloud-based CMS. Yeah, not so great. I admit it. I'm working on moving us to an Open Source CMS/framework. The party has a good amount of political people, but lacks people in web/IT/Dev etc. By the way, I am not paid and putting in 3 hours a day and all weekends. I do this because I don't want to sit in my chair and simply say, 'our politics suck.' I'm trying to do good, eh. There are a few tech people in the party but we could sure use many more! We hope to get our docs into GIT and use other open source tools to push OPEN GOV. You might see ads. But truly, not my intention my friend. I have visited /. since I ran a site that promoted open source development. There are some insightful people in this community. Though sometimes it seems many have moved on. Anyways, the idea is to get input on topics that I haven't listed out for our platform committee to consider. That is a bad thing? I suppose if we were one of the two major parties we would spend some PAC money and spend a million on a paid focus group. Please see our website. There is a vision, mission and core values. They certainly could be tweaked and in time I expect them to be smoothed over. I highly recommend you go to the site of our founder, Rocky Anderson (voterocky.org). Watch the many videos on his website. It has much more content to educate you on what we are trying to build. The platform we had in 2011~12 is offline. We are using some tools to have our membership submit ideas and improvements. This Slashdot post is an attempt to reach out beyond our members for input. I think that is a good thing. On the pledge and some of the other articles. Some are a bit dated and haven't been updated since the election. We need more people to help with editing I think. >and if the technology manager bothers to read this: I'm here my friend. :) I won't bother to address the rest as it looks like you melted off. -- Cheers mate, Justice Party

  150. I want the freedom to make a bad choice by mr+dirtbag · · Score: 1

    I want neither, health insurance nor gov single payer. I want the freedom to pay my own way. The cost of health insurance, because of gov mandates, is too high to justify, if you are young and healthy. I should be allowed to make an adult decision, not to have health insurance. You can write me off if I get an extreme disease at a young age.

    Gov single payer takes away my choice to just pay as I go. Gov should not be allowed to impose on your freedom in that way.

    Most of your health care costs in life are in you later years. If you have your whole life to save for them, then you can make a decision to spend *your* hard earned money on things today, or on healthcare for later in life. It should be *your* choice. It's your hard earned money.

    If you don't save, the gov should not take other peoples hard earned money, against their will, to save you.

    If a charity wants to save the destitute, that's fine. No coercion is involved with charities.

    IMHO.

  151. Digital platform by davydagger · · Score: 1

    0. Don't touch guns. I know you are liberals, but if you go for gun control I am out. I don't expect you to make an stances for guns, but if you come out against guns, I'm out, peroid.

    1. All research funded by the US government should be given back to the US Government. All Research the government has should be either Public Domain, or licensed under something like a BSD/MIT license.(I prefer the GPL myself, for my own projects, but I recognize this is probably more correct for the current system we have, and would allow more people to use government funded research we all pay for.)

    2. Stipulate the government own all software and all source code that it uses on all its computer systems, and have access to the technical information of all computer and computer based hardware it uses. Forbid contractors from bidding on government projects submit source code for review, as a condition of getting a contract.

    3. net neutrality. Lets be clear on what this really is. No filtering of data, no segeration of data based on layer 3 data or higher. Also standardize internet as a commodity, with standard ammounts.

    1 unit of internet is proposed to be 1 mb/s @ 100 GB/s month transfer.

    The carriers have a right to set the price for
      -width of the pipe(say mb/s)
      -total flow through the pipe(say GB per month)

    and they may count, monitor and regulate a connection to make it conform to publicly stated agreed specifications, but nothing else. Low level connections by law need to be agnostic of high level connections in all regards.

    This is almost related, is to enforce set contracts against the carriers, verizon is notorious for taking on mysterious fees. This needs to end.

    At time of contract, all telecommunications represenatives by law should be required to inform the customer of the total monthly fee to include tax, fees, and all extras, and it should not change, except a change in the services rendered(i.e. adding/removing features).

    4. End warrantless wiretapping and survaillence. Government must disclose its full survialence capabilies against domestic targets, and explicitly need public warrants for use.

    5. Remove the concept of a "software patent".

    6. Try and eliminate patent "trolls" and other IP trolling. Make it illegal, and get patent troll lawyers disbarred. Make holding a patent for the sole purpose of disrupting other products or retarding technological innovation a felony.

    7. implement a "Do-Not-Email" registry for spam. Make repeat offenses, spam with intent to commit another crime(selling drugs, fake products, fraud,extortion,money laundering) a felony with jail time.

    8. Repeat the recent laws that make Site TOS criminal violations, instead make it a civil matter, where the site has to prove damages.

    9. Preserve the right to post anonymously/pseudononymously online. Make a law saying websites have a duty to protect the identities of their visitors except to law enforcement under the proper course of investigation with a warrant or probable cause, which they must show the website.

    10. legal code reform. Get legal allies to review bad law, and greatly simplify the legal code to make it easier to read. Instead of "legal speak" make all new laws written in plain newspaper grade English, the 11th grade reading level.

    All legal documents should be written in language easy to read and comprehend by a person who graduates from a public high school.

    Thats just the start.

    1. Re:Digital platform by davydagger · · Score: 1

      forgot to add.

      public access to the internet.

      1. the internet belongs to no one. Enforce it via law. Companies sell access to the internet, but they do not own it. Its public property with null ownership.

      2. Internet as a right. We need to make sure that everyone who wants to have access to the internet does. Either via their own computer, or on a smart phone if they are transient.

      1 unit of internet(see above), is the bare minimum needed.

  152. What about basic human rights? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    "[in response to: Basic income guarantee] and you want government to be your mommy."

    Recently the right to consume has been linked for most people to earning wages through paid labor. The value of most human labor is declining with the rise in robotics and other automation, relatively cheaper energy, better design, voluntary social networks, and other factors. All material goods are based on resources taken from nature, where the original ownership of those seeking rent from the land is always questionable morally. All intellectual goods are the product of thousands of years of collective thought and information sharing, even if individuals may add their own twist to that. After centuries of hard-work, cultural progress, and the accumulation of physical infrastructure, why should s many people have to work so long and hard just for a basic existence? That is part of the moral reasoning behind a "basic income".

    Consider an analogy. You and your daughter live on a productive tropical island together. You tell her you own 99% of the island because you got there first, and she can only live on a barren rock in the middle with no access to water or food. What is she supposed to do? How should she feel about that? See also:
    "The Mythology of Wealth"
    http://web.archive.org/web/20120617182409/http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  153. I don't want the environment in the abstract by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    I don't want people blah blahing about the environment in the abstract such as global warming. I want more focus on the measurable such as polluting the ground, the air, and the water in ways that can be specified, limited, and measured. Any government that allows some company to pollute is effectively giving them a subsidy. This subsidy can be measured in either in the damage done to the environment(very hard) or the much simpler how much would it cost them not to pollute. This way companies can easily be fined multiples of how much it would cost to have not polluted if the cost of a cleanup is too hard to measure.

    I pick this one as many above have gone with my real favorite: Patent Reform!

  154. The Internet and Privacy by Cogent91 · · Score: 1

    A core foundation of our internet freedoms being abused is the Government's position that digital storage does not have an expectation of privacy. BS! A declaration that privacy is reasonably expected by individuals storing private data digitally is a must!

  155. Healthcare by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Comprehensive, universal healthcare is an absolute must in my book. Senator Obama hinted at it, just enough to entice folks like me, then completely caved to the right once elected President. They love to pick on "Obamacare," though I am one liberal who is thoroughly disappointed in its scope and failure to ensure all are well covered in a truly affordable manner. Our watered-down non-system lags far behind those in France, Canada, and even England, both in terms of comprehensiveness and cost efficiency. I fully believe we have the greatest country in the world, thus we can do much better than we have.

    Also net neutrality, copyright reform and greater consumer protection, severely limiting corporate political donations, and common sense and the spirit of laws being placed above loopholes. Congressional term limits have already been mentioned and are worth considering, as might be reforms to make it easier for non- GOP/Dem. candidates to get on ballots. Income tax reforms to close loopholes?

    A reasonable living wage. Who can live without 4 roommates and raise a child on minimum wage or slightly above? The college kids my company pays $8-$9 an hour are surviving by taking on serious long term debt, and the older folks with kids rely on assistance programs and in some cases compassionate family members. Inexperienced and uneducated workers, or those with criminal records, too often seem to be doomed to lives of government cheese and perpetual poverty. Can't we do better?

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  156. legalize drugs... by meburke · · Score: 1

    ...or decriminalize them, giving amnesty to all whose only offense was using, having, selling drugs.This should have the added effect of reducing the crime rates, and greatly reduce the costs of law enforcement wasted on the failed "War on Drugs".

    Lower the age of emancipation to 13. We already prosecute 13-year-olds as adults for heinous crimes, but we don't give them the opportunity to acquire other adult skills such as working for themselves and maintaining a credit rating. If we insist on keeping publicly funded education, then we can have "recovery" educational opportunities for those emancipated people who fail on their first tries. (And, we would have more workers to pay for the social programs foisted on us by the socialists in the past.) There is no justice in imprisoning children in daytime prisons, or discriminating on the basis of age.

    Revoke all federal programs having to do with welfare, education, public health. These should be considered un-Constitutional anyway. Face it, the public education system is a massive failure and the parents aren't even allowed to sue the school districts for fraud.

    Abolish all laws penalizing adults for consentual acts, such as gambling and sex.

    Repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.Taxes are theft. You cannot steal from another person to give the proceeds to someone less fortunate, nor can you authorize someone else to commit the theft in your stead. Yet that is exactly what income taxes do.

    Limit Federal spending to only those projects directly necessary to ensure National Defense, or the fair administration of Justice under the Constitution. Limit Federal spending to 10% of GDP except in case of war.

    Abolish the Federal Reserve System, Central Banking, and legal tender laws. Create ONLY 100% asset-based currency or monetary instruments.

    Outlaw US interference in the internal affairs of other countries, except where there is a clear threat to our national security. Respect the sovereign rights of all other countries. Create only alliances and treaties that all parties are capable of adhering to.

    Re-affirm the Constituion as the highest authority for US law, and reject any entaglements that diminish our sovereignty. Interpret the Constitution strictly as it was written.

    Streamline the immigration process. Don't elevate any immigrant to citizen status unless they know the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Welcome guest workers up to the limit that they can fill necessary jobs.

      Aren't you glad you asked?(I have more ideas if you want to ask again.)

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  157. What Planks? by rmav · · Score: 1

    I would start with Max Planck.

  158. A political party? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    For a political party to be taken seriously, it must address the whole range of issues that a government is faced with, especially in the US, I think, where government is formed almost exclusively from one political block. You might get away with being a single-issue party in a Scandinavian country, where there are many parties in parliament, but only just.

    This means that you have to have a well thought through economical policy - ie. more than just 'cut taxes', or 'reduce spending'; it will have to tell exactly how and you will have to present some plausible calculations that show what the consequences will be.

    There will also have to be policies for everything else that goes on in society: military, criminal justice, social services, etc etc. Good government is not at all about exciting ideals, it is pragmatic and desperately boring, I'm afraid, unless you happen to like to be an executive manager of a whole bunch of things you don't understand and don't actually want to know about.

  159. A 2x4 would be fine.... by Oloryn · · Score: 1

    As long as we're allowed to use it on the party's politicians when they inevitably start trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

  160. the best plank... by crutchy · · Score: 1

    ...a 2"x4" in the back of a politician's head

  161. Surpluses by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Generally I picture most of the surpluses would go towards paying off the debt accumulated during the bad times, but if you actually manage to get a true surplus, I'd probably go with a investment fund that concentrates on items that tend to gain strength during economic downturns, so you can liquidate them for a profit when you need to.

    Of course, at the scale the federal government works at, you can distort the market pretty easily, but on the other hand the fed has lots of options. It's entirely possible for the fed to 'park' the surplus within itself, creating deflationary pressure as less cash becomes available. This can be a GOOD thing to combat the rampant inflation of an overheated economy.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Surpluses by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Generally I picture most of the surpluses would go towards paying off the debt accumulated during the bad times, but if you actually manage to get a true surplus, I'd probably go with a investment fund that concentrates on items that tend to gain strength during economic downturns, so you can liquidate them for a profit when you need to.

      Sorry, wasn't entirely clear. I assumed that they would go to paying down debt till the debt is gone, was wondering about afterwards.

      Of course, at the scale the federal government works at, you can distort the market pretty easily

      This was my big problem with the government running surpluses - pretty much anything they can do reduces to invest (which will distort the market when you make the investment, and again when you have to divest yourself to cover shortfalls in bad times), or just sit on the money (which will distort the economy as money is withdrawn from circulation, and distort it again when you put it back into circulation).

      Note that I'm NOT a Keynesian for pretty much that reason - Keynesian economics assume that the government can run surpluses without any effect on the economy as a whole, and that assumption starts to fail if you have an extended period of good economic times (I'd hate to have the government get into a position where it NEEDS a bad economy every decade in order to make things work).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Surpluses by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Sorry, wasn't entirely clear. I assumed that they would go to paying down debt till the debt is gone, was wondering about afterwards.

      I'm not sure we'd ever entirely pay down the debt. The 'good times' don't ever really last long enough. My idea is that the government acts as a counterweight - dragging the economy down a bit to prevent it from overheating in the good times(when rampant inflation happens), attempting to pop economic bubbles early(like the housing market) to reduce harm, etc...

      This was my big problem with the government running surpluses - pretty much anything they can do reduces to invest (which will distort the market when you make the investment, and again when you have to divest yourself to cover shortfalls in bad times), or just sit on the money (which will distort the economy as money is withdrawn from circulation, and distort it again when you put it back into circulation).

      This would be where the federal reserve comes in; it can help counter any distortions, and besides that, as you say - they're distortions, which means that they can be good OR bad. The main point would be to recognize the possibility for distortion and account for it.

      If you're not a Keynesian, then what economic theories do you prescribe to?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  162. Repeal most of DMCA by Quila · · Score: 1

    You want to keep, and even strengthen, the safe harbor provision.

  163. Walk the Plank by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

    It's arguable that the rise of 'Party' is a direct cause of the decline of true 'democracy'. We used to vote for individuals we trusted, either as 'representatives' (US) or 'members' -whose outlook we largely shared (UK). Now the effective choice is too often binary between Parties, and the individuals concerned stand no chance of election unless they jump through whichever hoops the party machine requires for selection. How might a simulation look if candidates were forbidden from joining a Party until after an election?

  164. Read your first two sentences by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Power will always exist so long as people are willing to delegate responsibility; government is the entity that has the power of violence over you.

    and in fact government power will exist TO THE extent that people are willing to delegate responsibility to it. Think about that.

    If people let government be responsible for deciding what they should put in their bodies, there will be drug laws. Hatta said he wants to get rid of drug laws.
    Hatta wants to get rid of prostitution laws, again having people choose for themselves rather than delegate that responsibility to the government.
    That's tyhe theme of everything Hatta said, that people should choose for themselves and not have the government responsible for running their lives. But then, Hatta wants the government to be responsible for ensuring that their income is 100X the global average. Pick one - either you are responsible for yourself, make your own decisions, or the government is responsible for you, makes the decisions for you.

    You can EITHER have the freedom* to do crack, or the benefit of world class health care. We can't keep you healthy while you're smoking crack and we certainly can't keep everyone healthy while the doctors are stoned out of their minds.

    * addiction is not freedom, but slavery to a substance

  165. The gas station starts people at $11.50 / hour by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You think that there don't exist people who do care to work but just can't find any work or no one wants to employ them? Or you think those people should be left on the street in our modern society

    I've never met one. I've met a LOT of people who choose to sit on their ass rather than work a job that's not their favorite. The gas station down the street starts people at $11.50 / hour. How many people do you know who aren't qualified to sit behind the register? If they aren't working, 99% of the time it's because they choose not to.

    1. Re:The gas station starts people at $11.50 / hour by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Nice example of shit that never happened. Have you actually ever talked to actual unemployed people? BY FAR the majority of them hate being without work, but they just can't find any jobs within their skillset. Every unskilled position is filled by non-union people working at or below minimum wage already.

      Of course there are people who vehemently refuse to work, for whatever reason. Would you rather they be thrown in the gutter and left to die, or given a small allowance, enough to put a roof over their head and food on their table? Let me give you a hint, the first option is barbaric, primitive and abhorrent. The second option is the only humane choice.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    2. Re:The gas station starts people at $11.50 / hour by raymorris · · Score: 1

      Have you actually ever talked to actual unemployed people?

      My best friend was collecting unemployment for two years. When the unemployment ran out, he started working.
      In my work with ex-cons, I REGULARLY watch them "look for a job" for a couple of months. Then, when their parole or probabtion officer says "have a job this week or go back to jail", they go get a job that very day.

      BY FAR the majority of them hate being without work, but they just can't find any jobs within their skillset.

      So work OUTSIDE your skillset (preference) for a month or three while you look for something better!

      My dad worked as a janitor on the way to becoming a vice president of an oil company, flying around on his private jet. He was laid off several times. He NEVER in his life was without work for more than two weeks. I flipped burgers before I got computer science, and applied for a burger flipping job in between computer gigs.

  166. It'd be great, but some humans don't. by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a society that had less homeless people and less poverty because everyone pitches in a little extra?

    That'd be great. What species of alien would that be? Here on earth, where we deal with humans, not everyone "pitches in a little extra" or pitches in at all. All around I see "Now Hiring" signs. The friggin gas station is starting people at $11.50 / hour. Yet, some people choose not to work a job. They complain they are broke, I tell them the gas statiopn is hiring at $11.50 and they reply that they don't want to work at a gas station. Fine. But don't turn around and ask me to ALSO work at the gas station along with my regular job so that I can pay your bills for you.

  167. The new normal as we trend towards post-scarcity by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    "You can support "basic income" OR you can support everything else Hatta said. It simply makes no sense to support both."

    AC, you present a false choice between two economic extremes. You can have a free market system where, say, 50% of the GDP is distributed as a basic income and the other half is earned. Further, there are many activities often outside the exchange economy (like the gift economy, the participatory planned economy, and the subsistence economy) where people might show initiative even if they have the material basics from the exchange economy via a basic income. Raising children well is another activity mostly outside earning money, even if in our society someone may need to earn money in a family to raise children well because we don't yet have a basic income.

    "Median income has increased a thousand fold because a farmer on tractor produces FAR more than a farmer with a rake. The rest of your logic flows directly from this utterly false premise, so you end up with conclusions that are exactly wrong."

    Think through the implications of your very point. Lets say we have 1000 farmers with rakes feeding a community, and someone invents a tractor. Now one farmer can do the wok of 1000. That farmer probably now earns more, true (depending on market issues, claims about patents on the tractor, fuel prices, etc.). But the other 999 farmers now have their labor devalued, because there is only so much people in the community can eat. Most of them can no longer be farmers economically. Granted, the quality of food may raise some, or farmers might feed food to animals to produce meat, or advertisers may convince everyone to become obese or to burn corn for fuel, so some extra demand for farm products may be created, but probably not 1000X more. And a few years later, with a super new robotic tractor or better seeds or better weather reports or better soil science understanding, that one farmer may become even more productive, even if demand increases some. Farmers are down from 90% of the US workforce to about 1%-2% over the past 200 years, but we produce more food than ever (so much it is exported and we eat lots of meat -- with various health implications as we now suffer from diseases of affluence like gout and heart disease), So, most farmers must try to find other jobs.

    So, they became factory workers. But the same thing happened in manufacturing (that human labor is replaced by machines and improved know-how), so they can't do that anymore. US manufacturing employment has dropped about in half over the past few decades from about 35% to about 15% while total output has grown, with no end in sight to that trend. So, we will likely soon see manufacturing employment down to 1%-2% same as farming.

    So, then these ex-farmers and ex-factory workers need to become "service" workers (like waiters or hairdressers or CPAs or plumbers or doctors) in order to earn the right to consume in our society via wage income. But robotics and AI and better design is now replacing most services. Examples include eating frozen dinners instead of going out to eat, alternatives to paid hair services like special shampoos or YouTube videos on home hair cutting, or using tax software via the web instead of using a CPA, new types of pipes that last longer or can be assembled by snapping them together as DIY purchased from big home improvement stores or the web, or IBM's Watson to do medical diagnosis. That leaves fewer and fewer service jobs (which often did not pay well anyway, and most were not as independent as being a farmer). So a race to the bottom for the wages starts for most people as the unemployed compete with each other.

    Deny it if you want, as do most mainstream economists, but most of the economic trends in the USA reflect what I am saying. We have seen flat real wages for decades (yes some compensation increase goes to a dysfunctional medical sector), no job growth for a decade, an increasing rich-poor divide with come having skills still in value or having capital, and so on. Mainstrea

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  168. Remove all democrats, socialists, communists, . . by JohnnyConservative · · Score: 1

    Invite all democrats, socialists, progressives, communists, independents, rhino republicians to renounce their citizenship and move to the socialist or communist country of their choice! (at their cost, of course.) Reduced government intervention in our lives and businesses. Significant reduction in the size and scope of the EPA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, and other departments that reduce our ability to conduct business and indoctrinate our children. Get the government out of the healthcare business and the lending business immediately!! Tax only democrats for wasteful democrat programs! Or eliminate the democrat programs entirely! and the list goes on and on!

  169. Re:pandering to the tech-savvy? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    He's probably not pandering for positions, but for issues to build a platform on. There's a big difference. One is: "which issues are important to you, and should we research, decide on a position for, and try to build a campaign on?" The other is "which issues are important to you, and what position do you want us to take on these positions so we can get your votes?"

    The first is fine: some issues are more important to your "base" than others, and you'll want to emphasize those more, perhaps try to push for legislation in that area, so that you build support with voters who share your ideals. The second is not: you're just doing whatever you can to get votes, and have no conscience of your own.

  170. Change your party name by vandamme · · Score: 1

    "None Of The Above."

    I predict landslide victories.

  171. Political parties are dinosaurs by Mephesh · · Score: 1

    Scrap political parties. Who can stay loyal to any party when their checkerboard pattern of policies are so all over the place. No party fits my ideal and most of them save all their controversial law changes for the very last part of the term they are about to lose. They basically rip holes in the sails just before they jump ship. I'd prefer a policy system where I can vote for smaller groups of people who have a strategy for a small part of government e.g. energy, education etc. Voting in a party that takes control of everything might have been what the people wanted 100 years ago but not today. Our current political systems favour the government, screw over the people. What if you are a minority? Why not let all parties have power effectively by spreading the taxes over all them by % win in votes. Sure this has its pros and cons. Splitting the taxes into small quantities reduces its spending power but there has to be a better way than what we have. Party swapping every few years seems so schizophrenic, bills come and go over time, what a waste of resources, so inefficient.

  172. No bribes please. by Occams · · Score: 1

    This Party does not accept campaign donations and neither does any member of this party.

    --
    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
  173. Not morals. Leave you alone = (!take care of you) by raymorris · · Score: 1

    There's nothing in my post about morals. It's basic grade school logic. You want government to a) leave you alone and b) take care of you.

    You simply can't do both. You can a) control your own life , OR you can b) have me control how your life turns out. Obviously, in order for me to make sure ypu have a good life, I'd have to control your life. If you have the freedom to choose to spend your time and money on drugs, that IS the freedom to not spend it on education. It's IMPOSSIBLE for me to educate you while you're high and ditching classes. So you can EITHER have the freedom to not go to school OR I can force you to get educated. There's no way I can make your life not suck without controlling your life.

  174. Cantons_of_Switzerland by NewYork · · Score: 1
  175. Re:Not morals. Leave you alone = (!take care of yo by Hatta · · Score: 1

    You overestimate how much control you have over your own life. Government is not the only force that removes control from you. Forces of nature, foreign threats, and relevant to this conversation, economic forces are also threats to control over your own life. The millions of people who fell into poverty after the 2008 financial crisis had no control over that. The lower 90% of Americans experienced *zero* income growth over the past 45 years, while productivity increased doubled. How do you think people are supposed to have control over that?

    Obviously, in order for me to make sure ypu have a good life, I'd have to control your life.

    I never suggested we ensure everyone has a good life. I suggested we institute a limit on how much poverty people endure.

    So you can EITHER have the freedom to not go to school OR I can force you to get educated. There's no way I can make your life not suck without controlling your life.

    But you can provide opportunities. e.g. free but optional education.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  176. The spider-man platform by alexo · · Score: 1

    Plank #1: "With great power comes great personal responsibility".

    All the rest can wait until after this gets implemented in practice.

  177. Bullshit by flaming+error · · Score: 1

    "Social justice is bullshit"

    By that do you mean that it is both undesirable and impossible?

    The impossible I can't speak to, but justice seems desirable no matter what adjective you stick in front of it.

    I think a just society would not produce homogeneity of outcome, but it would produce a distribution of outcome where most of the wealth is shared by most of the people.

    In other words, wealth distribution should look something vaguely similar to a normal (bell) distribution. America's, though, looks like an exponential function (hockey stick).

    We love to gush patriotism and congratulate ourselves on being the land of freedom and a meritocracy where anyone can make it. That's been true for a few individuals, but collectively, the cold empirical facts tell a different story. A story of wealth being siphoned from the masses to the few. A story of social injustice.

    Social injustice is bullshit.