Subscribe: Comments on: The Open Source Party Proposal
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
free  issue  issues  open source  open  party  people  platform  political  proposal  required  run  source party  source  system 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: The Open Source Party Proposal

Comments on: The Open Source Party Proposal

Your source for technology culture, internet phenomena, politics, interviews and entertainment

Last Build Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 16:53:27 +0000


By: The Origins of United States Open Source Party | United States Open Source Party

Thu, 28 May 2015 00:54:30 +0000

[…] November of 2007, I wrote a proposal for the foundation of an Open Source Party.  Political noise was being generated about the 2008 […]

By: Platform from Timothy Leary’s Campaign for Governor of California | Technoccult

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:20:41 +0000

[...] The Open Source Party. Before The Guns and Dope Party. Before The Revolution Party. In 1969, Timothy Leary ran for [...]

By: Open Source | Empress of the Global Universe

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:42:22 +0000

[...] November 2007, I presented a proposal to start a political organization I called the Open Source Party on the 10 Zen Monkeys website. The idea was to bring open source principles into the political [...]

By: Blogging in Argyll at ARBU: An UK Open Source Political Party Anyone?

Sun, 03 May 2009 10:28:19 +0000

[...] on our divided society into the networked world and reminded of cyberpunk icon R. U. Sirius’s Open Source Political Party (ars technica) for the American duopoly, it seems to me that there may be space in the political [...]

By: Open Source or not Open Source « ISIS-HATHOR LODGE

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:55:35 +0000

[...]  amorehilaritas Said: Whilst Hilary and Obama began their campaign for the US presidency. The writer and psychonaut R U Sirius proposed an Open Source Party shoul run for the US election. In his proposal he outlines some great ideas which include (my favourite) an Open Source monetary system which would encourage alternative currency. Here’s a [...]

By: Meijin

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:43:27 +0000

Ed says: 'To use the word “Libertarian” here is completely wrong. Libertarians would never support an “energy task force”- this implies a huge government program to throw money at something that the free market has determined to be uneconomical. ' I feel I must reply to Ed: Well, libertarians might if they were consequentialists and they believed that the only way to a future of soft technologies, which includes a decentralised energy system (i.e., tidal power on the coast and/or solar in the desert etc run by local people or energy companies) was to divert huge existing funds into R&D with the view to a less centralised, resource & $$ hungry system. That is, the consequences of some initial big (or diversionary) spending is that it lays the foundation for enabling the smaller people to take control over their lifes; that one initial 'wrong' leads to a better 'right'. Infamous US libertarian philosophers such as Nozick always argue for money for militias or armies & weapons, so unless Ed is arguing for NO funds then s/he will at least argue for something. If so, then that something ($$) might as well be spent on re-righting wrongs, such as cleaning up the environmental mess created by nuclear power, PCBs (thanks Monsanto), and regulating the emerging technology of biotechnology. Science sets us free but only if we realise that we are part of a web of life, respect other life-forms and see that our huge potential that can transform our lives, with a very little output from ourselves (in terms of time & money) can greatly assist our fellow citizens and species (after years of wrong-doing). And finally, my own experience of alleged 'libertarianism' aka 'neoliberalism' in the 80s/90s was that it required a massive state-represssive-apparatus to keep down those who'd been excluded, so not much $$ or liberty saved there.

By: Derek Lyons

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:16:49 +0000

Funny how none of the commenters seems to have noticed that this 'open source' proposal is released (as per the copyright notice in the sidebar) under a very restrictive license. A license that renders it impossible for any one else to actually use the proposal in an open source manner - and that the MondoGlobo website is under an even more restrictive license.

By: Chris Heilman

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:49:10 +0000

I have just announced that I will be running for Congress in the 15th district of Pennsylvania as an Independent. I like the platform that you have laid out here. These are issues that I could run with. My reason for running is to expose the stranglehold the 2 party system has on politics and the barriers that states have put into place which effectively keep other parties from joining the race. For instance: I was going to try to get my name on the ballot for the Presidential election. Since I don't have party backing and limited funds I can not get the required 59.000 signatures to have my name written on the ballot. Whereas Rep./Dems. only need 2000 or so to run in the primary. After the nomination goes to the winner of those parties the General Election is a pass for them without any required signatures. I gave up on a Presidential run and am now going for Congress which has a requirement of 2,124 signatures. At least that amount is doable for me. Being a lifelong Libertarian (albeit one with a foreign policy) I thought about asking for party backing. I did send out feelers but received nothing back as of today. This is a good time for other parties to run especially if the incumbent is a Republican. The US in general has a sour taste for the GOP.

By: esteban

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:51:13 +0000

I live in Costa Rica, there are points that doesn't apply here (there's no army or 1984-style police state). Also here we talk Spanish not English. Could this Open Source Party Proposal be modified, translated, etc for other countries? (...I'm assuming a "yes")

By: maggotronix

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:42:28 +0000

would it be possible to fuse these two together. they were not meant to be separated. with marx's sense of community. The way we live now is not sustainable and disconnect with nature and others is increasing. Technology has many positives, but also many negatives. Without balance forward progress is not possible; likewise, awareness is a prerequisite for envisioning a better future. So it would be mad interesting to be involved in the process of throwing ideas around. Different perspectives and experiences are the crucial to a flexible, dynamic group and broaden the collective knowledge.

By: maggotronix

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:18:01 +0000

This is some radical, free thinking shit. I am glad I stumbled upon this site. I have been working on a party platform combining small government original republic style democracy's ideals

By: Rudi Cilibrasi

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:39:30 +0000

Hi, I am an open-source author, computer scientist, and lifelong computer programmer. The idea of an open-source party was also something that I thought of years ago, and I have two points to suggest: 1) Achieve historical integrity with distributed revision control such as Mercurial/hg. 2) Implement transparent process through public-key digital signatures. At this point in time, I think the Debian free software team (consisting of thousands of public-key voting members with audit trails) is a great example of a working democratic process, as they have to constantly make amendments and work with exact language in their own policy documents. I have always been amazed that nobody in America has yet cared enough to check in a simple ASCII text file into an hg repository that holds all voting records and transcripts of all public sessions. Since hg is distributed, any citizen could type it and provide their own clone of the repository that could then be merged by any other citizen.

By: Open Source Party « Nothing to see here. Move along.

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:16:03 +0000

[...] on December 3, 2007 No, I’m not throwing a kegger. Sorry, guys. I’m talking about the political party that RU Sirius wants to establish before the 2010 elections. Membership in the party is open to anybody who feels they are in [...]

By: mihnea

Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:56:29 +0000

Excellent idea, I think. I'm trying to make people understand -back home in Romania- that the internet is an invaluable tool for bringing people together, especially when it comes to Politics. Best of luck, I think I'll donate a couple of million local pesos (or $1 :D)

By: Jonathan Pfeiffer

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:53:48 +0000

I think that RU Sirius's plea for sovereignty-driven rather than interest-driven foreign policy is well-intentioned, but I want to point out that for some students of globalization, the solution isn't quite so easy. As a case in point, I recommend the second chapter of Judith Bulter's book, "Precarious Life". Her point is that the United States foreign policy response to the September, 2001 attacks was itself an assertion of sovereignty, when what it should have been was an acknowledgment of the *vulnerability* that characterizes and unites all nation-states. I don't have the answer; I only want to raise caution about this call for sovereignty.

By: Colonel Panik

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:31:52 +0000

The headline for this page is: The Open Source Party Proposal And right above it are ads from Google, like: "Better Than Open Source" Free, full-fetured reporting & analysis platform. Free download. Seems to me that you are already on the slippery-slope.

By: Sergei

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:12:05 +0000

As per Plato, you know that guy "Democratic self-government does not work, according to Plato, because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of state. They are not familiar enough with such things as economics, military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics. They are also not inclined to acquire such knowledge. The effort and self-discipline required for serious study is not something most people enjoy. In their ignorance they tend to vote for politicians who beguile them with appearances and nebulous talk, and they inevitably find themselves at the mercy of administrations and conditions over which they have no control because they do not understand what is happening around them. They are guided by unreliable emotions more than by careful analysis, and they are lured into adventurous wars and victimized by costly defeats that could have been entirely avoided. This is how the Republic portrays politics in a democracy:" "Imagine then a ship or a fleet in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but who is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and whose knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors ate quarreling with one another about the steering—every one is of the opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation …" Not gonna work, the current system works as it should and was designed. You will not accomplish much, it is human nature, was so even back in Greek days.

By: Nathan

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:25:23 +0000

I think it would be best to focus on one issue. Democracy. People voting for laws and issues. That would be the smart bet in my mind.

By: Marcus Bailey

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:56:24 +0000

I feel that a good way to develop a party platform would to have a wiki on an issue. Members could write/edit the that particular issue. Members could then vote on the issue. If the issue(position) receives a high vote(like the proposed 75%) than it would be adopted as the partys platform. If a proposed issue(position) does not receive the percentage needed it is not adopted and could be edited until it receives the needed percentage. I feel that this would give a platform on the issues that most of us agree on(copyright reform, civil liberties, transparency) and will still leave room for debate on issues that we don't share as much in common(abortion, universal healthcare, taxes). This will provide the framework for the creation of a viable and effective political movement(party).

By: Chris Anderson

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:53:54 +0000

The strategy of the Swedish Pirate Party comes to mind. They have picked only ONE issue to focus on, and captured a large amount of support, which they can use to influence the other parties. The Swedish system is different from ours, but I think think there maybe more to gain from having a very narrow platform and using citizen support for it as a way of changing the terms of the debate. As it stands your suggestions seem to broad for me. For instance is screwing with the banking system more important than education? And the IP concerns of the "Web" section are too vague to be useful. The larger problem is that once you try to propose a complete platform you are required to have a stance on all sorts of issues that are not core to the change you wish to create. Abortion and gay-rights, for instance, are key issues, but they are being addressed perfectly well by the established system. No need to muddy your platform by making it comprehensive. What is the single most important change you wish to see? If corporate personhood had an opposition party, then the issue might bubble up to the mainstream. Otherwise it's just another group of wackos. This time they have webpages.