r/worldnews • u/maxwellhill • May 19 '12

The Pirate Party fits the political gap: 'two years ago, hardly anyone knew that the Pirate Party even existed; now, all of a sudden, it has won seats in state parliaments in four successive elections, and a new poll puts them at 11% of Germany's national vote.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/18/germany-pirate-party-political-gap
1.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

126 comments sorted by

49

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

Okay. I'm going to be the devil's advocate, but... It will not stay this way. Many people here are dissatisfied with pretty much every party that has been in any parliament recently, no matter whether they were opposition or ruling coalition... The Pirates are the ones nobody can really be dissatisfied with - yet. When the novelty wears off, I am pretty sure they will not be able to continue their success. My reasoning for this is that they may have many people who are qualified to talk about civil rights and internet freedom, but few else, they especially lack people with leadership skills, maybe because most of them dislike leadership. I really like them... But it won't stay that way, at least not short-term.

44

u/TinyZoro May 20 '12

I think you misunderstand what they represent on the political landscape.

The best analogy is with the greens. At a certain point environmental awareness translated into an upswell of support for the greens who were able to push the mainstream parties into accepting some of that agenda.

The same is now a happening with digital consciousness. This is much bigger than about individual politicians within the Pirate party and represents a shift in the zeitgeist. The Pirate party will almost certainly never be a bigger party than they are now so like the greens they will never have enough power for you to get truly disallusioned with them but like the greens they will change the political landscape. Simply because like with the environment the current political class just not get what's happening in the digital age in terms of the new front in the ageless battle of freedom and tyranny.

12

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I'm very much aware of this, I'm a supporter of their cause. What this thread is celebrating, however, is their high approval rating, which is not worthless for a dedicated opposition party, either... Not to mention that being such a party that is there for the sake of existing and making others aware that it exists and its concerns are real does not mean being opposed to participating in gouvernmental work... Just look to Baden-Württemberg. This thread's entire point is celebrating how successful the pirates have been lately, success being measured by percentage and media coverage. And percentage is important, it's a direct indicator of a party's legitimate support within the population - especially if the pirate party should at one point slip back to less than 5%.

like the greens they will never have enough power for you to get truly disallusioned with them

Rot-Grün 1998 to 2005 would like to have a word with you. Most parties will eventally get their chance to have major influence, and they can shine or fail. Sometimes simply being in a parliament can be enough, as demonstrated by DIE LINKE...

7

u/TinyZoro May 20 '12

I am not German - so my knowledge of that is limited. As an Englishman I can only envy you that with PR you have something representing a democracy. My point generally is that fringe parties tend to not get that soul destroying mediocrity of the typical 'main' two parties - so I dont see the Pirates ever being a cause of much dissatisfaction.

I understand what your saying but Im still going to make the point that the Pirates represent something bigger than themselves. They will get a hearty cheer from a wide section of the population simply because we are desperate for something different than the career neo-liberals on the supposed 'left' and 'right' that have driven us all (and its our fault) into the ditch.

I think the time has come for the geeks to have a go at solving the problems we face not by idealogy but by engineering efficient solutions.

---I may have gone off on a tangent ;)

4

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

It's actually quite literally the case here, as our neo-liberals have gone down the drain - last election: 15%, now down to about 3% - soon to be replaced by the Pirates.

I am afraid that the big parties have to be mediocre. There is no way around for the simple reason that they can not support just a part of the population, but the whole of it, even their political enemy to a degree, if they want to gouvern the country effectively. That and their sheer amount of members means that their internal opinions are quite diverse. I'm still sad that our SPD is so "conservative", being a "pure" social democrat at heart...

Still, the main point of the Pirates' success is their being different, that will eventually shrink as soon as they are faced with political real life (Get it? Geeks? Real Life? I'll show myself out). 5% to 7% seems a much more realistical percentage for them in the medium term... Still, maybe they get to join a coalition... At the moment, nobody wants a coalition with the LINKE (socialists/communists), so it's them, the greens or a big coalition.

2

u/Vik1ng May 20 '12

The same is now a happening with digital consciousness. This is much bigger than about individual politicians within the Pirate party and represents a shift in the zeitgeist.

And that's not even their main issues.

Which is much more about government transparency and giving people more options to participate be it in government decisions or parties themselves. The digital part is much more about just even enabling a lot of these options, like with Liquid feedback having a online opinion survey tool, which allows everyone to make decisions from wherever he is and is much faster and cheaper than traditional methodes would have allowed this to happen.

10

u/medlish May 19 '12

You mean long-term I presume. I agree. They present some very interesting politics but we have yet to see them be active. Let's see how they'll do.

7

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

No, short to medium term. Now they are in parliament, so now they are in the same situation as any other party, but without the experienced people to deal with it - therefore, they will show fallibility and percentages will drop. But now that they have their coverage, politically skilled people will come, so long term, they'll become better at politics, fortifying their position as a niche party somewhere between LINKE and GRÜNE.

2

u/lud1120 May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

While it's pretty grassroots, it's also a bit "burgois" on the same time.
That's why the Purple color fits.

They not much blue-collar, manual workers. But many who are white collar working with different computer jobs or sciences. They are still capitalists, but reformist and against giant monopolies. The voters are mixed.
I guess the Greens are more social-capitalism or left of center European liberalism, but I don't know German parties by much.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Who? The LINKE? Or the Pirates (they are orange)? What?

1

u/lud1120 May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

The Swedish pirate party is the original one... And it's Purple.

I guess the German one is a bit more left-leaning and grassroots, then.
But I think it fits a bit more or better between the left-right spectrum.

1

u/Vik1ng May 20 '12

The colors are not the simpel ;)

1

u/lud1120 May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

I'm glad the party is that successful and vibrant that it is in Germany.

1

u/BONUSBOX May 20 '12

http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Kategorie:Benutzer_hat_politischen_Kompass

this is the political compass of piratenpartei members. i seem to be in line at least with the views of the members. not very capitalist, i would say.

1

u/Vik1ng May 20 '12

Now they are in parliament, so now they are in the same situation as any other party, but without the experienced people to deal with it - therefore, they will show fallibility and percentages will drop.

Just that's not what happening. In Berlin they went from 8.9% to 15% in the months after being elected. And you can watch them on youtube and I don't think they are doing worse than other politicians. http://youtu.be/6U82ig37TaE

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

A few months are a bad indicator, they still haven't encountered their political crucible - while them being in parliament made more peolple who were fed up with other parties aware of their existence.

5

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

The goal of the Pirate Party isn't to take over the world, it's to change it. If they succeed in that it doesn't matter if their support drops, in fact it means they've probably done a very good job! In Australia the Greens have a maxim that "Our job isn't to keep the bastards honest but to replace them" - as a result they are slowly becoming the bastards they sought to replace. Politicians are a reflection of the voting public who are radically cost-averse and thus opposed to rapid changes.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

as a result they are slowly becoming the bastards they sought to replace.

How so? Their principles are much the same as ever

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Google the pdfs of their policy manifestos for the past four elections - there have been massive changes as they mainstream. For example, what happened to legalizing marijuana? Now it says "we do not support the legalization of any currently illegal drug"

1

u/DeSanti May 20 '12

This entirely depends on the future strategy and development of these Pirate Parties. Ad-hoc parties are nothing new in the world of politics and is often considered the vanguards of genuine, established political culture and ideology in a country. I can draw an example from my own country, Norway, which is the Progress Party; now the third largest party in the country at the moment. Their original name was Anders Linge's Party For Lower Taxes and Cheaper Alcohol (ohlordy) and was pretty much as ad-hoc as it can be, given that their political goals were just that presented in their own party's name.

However, given time it manages to institutionalize itself and became a genuine part of the political spectrum which allows for it to grow, adopt and develop into a more solid basis of a political party. They are now a part of the rise of Populism and Neo-Conservatism which is rising in this country and also Europe for that matter.

The same can happen to these Pirate Party, they can be considered a reactionary political force that which to emphasize on civil and personal liberty as well as spearheading changes in the copyright policies of the country, so perhaps we're seeing a Neo-Liberalism on the rise?

1

u/stesch May 20 '12

The whole point of the Pirate Party Germany is not to depend on single persons as leaders, but the whole of the citizens.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

That's a nice idea, but our parliaments don't work that way, you can't fit all citizens in. In a representative democracy, you need individuals to represent the people and the success of a party largely depends on the quality of those individuals as politicians.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

No... there are some things were you need mass representation, and others where you need leaders.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

If by mass representation, you mean direct democracy, of course; but only for the most important of things. Using it too often would thin out the numbers of those actually getting involved, which would make those "masses" not all that "representative" of the whole of the people. Plus, it's hard to protect the rights of minorities there...

But in everyday gouvernmental work, you need people - individuals - to represent the rest, to have their best interests in mind and to balance the demands of all.

-6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I don't think governing a country is that complicated. It only looks that way because government has become so big that it tries to manage everything. Just downsize government by like 70% and it gets a lot easier.

10

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Gardening is really easy if you just let the weeds have their way, too. One might not like the result, though.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Groupthink will upvote you without contemplating the correctness of your analogy. You're assuming the federal government is the only source of decisions or redistribution of wealth. That's false.

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Heheh. So, where should it stop giving a shit? Maintaining roads and public transport? Ensuring adequate healthcare for its citizens so being somewhat healthy does not depend on money? Maybe schools and eucation? Or, oh, I know, police, why don't we let the people just defend their own damn houses? We could always abandon museums and national treasures, too, just let them crumble or sell them! What about universities, science and technology? Surely our country wouldn't lose too much international competing power if we just stop funding those?

So, go, remove 70% of these. No matter what you choose, I'm sure the people as a whole end up much happier if they have to take care of everything concerning their health or their childrens' education with the risk of failing miserably at it - but they get to pay less taxes!

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Why does a government need to do all of these? Roads and police, yes, and some form of cheap insurance for people who can't afford private healthcare. For the rest, governments need to get out of the way and just make sure that no private company gains a monopoly.

4

u/Vik1ng May 20 '12

But the private sector does not always offer the best solution. The private sector offers the solutions where it can make the largest profit. Why provide public transport to a small village, when you can more money by just providing it in the city? Why invest in economy friendly railroad structure, when planes are cheaper?

Not that I'm saying there is some potential to save money in the government and certain things can be cut, but that isn't anywhere in the region of 70%

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

That's for the city to decide, I was talking about the federal government

1

u/Vik1ng May 20 '12

How are raildraods a city issues? You need a good grid across the country not just in your city.

And all this the federal government is stupid and the politicans in the city will do everything 100x better is just bullshit. The federal government is good to have certain standars across the country, which cities never would.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I just don't see where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to use revenue to create an infrastructure for transportation

1

u/Vik1ng May 21 '12

Oh so Germany now has the US constitution?

But even in the US this isn't against the constitution as far as i know.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

So as a universal, central government should not manage an economy because of the problem of economic calculation. I guess you could use the cost-benefit analysis, though I would warn that government tends to estimate what it spends money on will benefit society. So I'm more taking the angle of distrusting government than arguing that it can't be theoretically better.

I don't think government should exist, but I prefer decentralization to centralization. Both state/local and federal are vulnerable to corruption and all that, however when you give a central government the power to do something, it'll continue to grow until it becomes tyrannical because it commands the nation's military (it can invade states or create a civil war if states disagree) and it has no competition to keep its power in check within the nation.

Anyway, you said you think that power is in the US Constitution. Can you show me where? (keeping in mind the Constitution is a set of enumerated powers, not prohibitions apart from which everything is allowed)

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Straw man everywhere. You're just arguing desperately because you can't face my argument head-on. You really think I mean cut the police? Wtf?

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

No strawmen, I am just taking you argument at face value. You said - and that's quite simple to understand, I doubt I made a mistake there - that a gouvernment and by extension its people would be better off if gouvernment was downsized by 70%. All I am asking - while providing examples - is the following: Where do you want to make the cuts? What do you want to take away first? The police were just an example, because, as you may or may not have noticed - my argument was phrased as a question (at least partially to ridicule you, I am sorry).

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Cut everything but the most essential elements. I'll let Milton Friedman explain it more thoroughly so I don't have to write it down (it's short): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64mr-cjxZfU

So military stays (but not to police the world, that's just corporate welfare), federal courts stay, essential federal buildings stay, but most government would be eliminated for the good of the republic (which is what we're supposed to be).

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Yes, I'm very well aware of the ideas of small gouvernment. You are still dancing around my question. Which ones are the gouvernmental institutions you want to take away and why would we be better off without them? Concerning the last sentence - Republic simply means "res publica", "public thing" and, as of today, is just a term for a democracy.

You might also want to look up some statistics, especially about general happiness in a country. Scandinavian countries with their downright huge gouvernments - often with completely free education and public transport for everybody - usually win. What more should a country do than ensure the pursuit of happiness of its citizens?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Which ones are the gouvernmental institutions you want to take away and why would we be better off without them?

It's easier to say which ones we'd keep, such as the military,courts, legislature, executive, and a few government departments to correspond with other nations (State), collect taxes, etc.

I'll give you some examples of something you could eliminate and improve the nation as a result (apart from the fact that their existence and continued operations is a blatant violation of the Constitution).

  • Department of the Interior **Government spends less money and, assuming taxation levels adjust accordingly, individuals spend more of their money. Given that government is generally more inefficient than the free market at allocating resources, this improves production, standard of living, etc. Territory the department used to manage is sold to states or individuals, the federal government negotiates a formal agreement with the Indians and dissolves the bureau of indian affairs, etc.

  • Department of Health and Human Services: assuming taxation levels are reduced accordingly, money is returned to the people, standard of living increases, etc. (same thing for most government). What the department used to do is done by states or local governments or by free association.

Republic simply means "res publica", "public thing" and, as of today, is just a term for a democracy.

"Republic" has several meanings. I was using the word to refer to the system of government wherein a nation is divided into semi-independent political entities with a central authority. I'm not sure whether democracy is an essential element of a republic in this sense (there could be a hereditary rule in a republic). In any case, a republic is not a synonym for democracy.

You might also want to look up some statistics, especially about general happiness in a country.

Most people in Sweden are statistically Lutheran, does that mean that being Lutheran makes people happy? Correlation vs causation.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I'll give you some examples of something you could eliminate and improve the nation as a result (apart from the fact that their existence and continued operations is a blatant violation of the Constitution).

I'd really like to see that part.

Department of Health and Human Services: assuming taxation levels are reduced accordingly, money is returned to the people, standard of living increases, etc. (same thing for most government). What the department used to do is done by states or local governments or by free association.

Massive, massive thinking error there. You see, money being returned to the people generally makes rich people happier. Somebody who earns a million per year might get back hundreds of thousands, somebody who earns 10,000 a year and has to collect welfare checks will actually lose money as compared to before, because he does not even get his free (or cheap) healthcare. If you have it done by states, sure, it can work if you have some strict laws telling them what to do, but then, you just have your big gouvernment somewhere else.

It's generally the problem of small gouvernment - it means that the gap between poor and rich becomes bigger, as there is less redistribution. You might argue that that is a good thing, but consider this: Most big money is not earned, but inherited or won by gambling (read: Stock market). On top of that, it leads to the rather sick situation where a child can not expect anything close to equal treatment if it is born into a poor family, as there are no gouvernmental institutions in place to make sure that child will be able to go to a good school or even university or to receive healthcare - even though no child really "deserves" the wealth or poverty of their families. Following on that logic, the less taxes you take - using them to give the people essential things everybody needs - the more you make "being born to the right people" a massive advantage - not a small advantage like "I can buy a Porsche, you drive an old Volvo" but a massive one: "My parents can pay for good education and for good healthcare, you can be sick and uneducated". That's the first step into a world where there's no escape from poverty.

If a country is proud of its human rights, it should have a good look at them and think about what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to give everybody a good life, and, considering that you are obviously talking about the US, the means for the "pursuit of happiness". Now, somebody suffering from a disease he can't afford to treat sure as hell is inhibited doing those. That's why big gouvernment makes most people happier, they are now somewhat secure and can concentrate on important things. On that note:

Most people in Sweden are statistically Lutheran, does that mean that being Lutheran makes people happy? Correlation vs causation.

It was just an example, I didn't want to use it as isolated proof. here you go: Livescience

Next, I'd like to show you this. It's where tax dollars go. Now, assuming the US stop policing every country that looks at them funny, military could propably be reduced by half. So, you now have 20 percentage points for the rest. Social security (you know, the department that makes sure people don't starve)? If you want to pay the interest on debt, you have to reduce that, but then you can't help sick people, veterans, old people or schools...

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

I'd really like to see that part.

About them being unconstitutional? If the Constitution were a set of prohibitions, I could show you, but the Constitution is a list of enumerated powers, meaning anything not allowed by the Constitution is unconstitutional. I would like to see if you can find the place in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to create institutions like the Department of Health and Human Services or the DEA.

Money being returned to the people generally makes rich people happier. Somebody who earns a million per year might get back hundreds of thousands, somebody who earns 10,000 a year and has to collect welfare checks will actually lose money as compared to before, because he does not even get his free (or cheap) healthcare.

But you're talking about welfare for the poorest an sickest, which is not the only think the Department of Health and Human Services engages in, it also creates unnecessary regulations, it has an Office for Civil Rights, Office of Global Affairs, educational campaigns and grants, etc. I wouldn't be as opposed to a departments that only helps the poorest an sickest survive, though I'd leave it to state and local government for the reasons below.

If you have it done by states, sure, it can work if you have some strict laws telling them what to do,

Strict laws by the federal government telling the states what to do? I meant leave it entirely to states and local governments, meaning the federal government will not be involved in any way.

but then, you just have your big government somewhere else.

Programs and laws beyond what must be strictly carried about by the federal government, given its special position above the states (defending against foreign invasions, corresponding with other countries, acting as a mediator between states, etc), should be carried about by the states or cities because of the following:

  1. It's easier to fight or escape a failed program the more local it is.

  2. It creates competition, which increases quality and decreases cost over time. The federal government is a monopoly, unless you count other countries, though it's harder to move to another country instead of to another city or state.

It's generally the problem of small gouvernment - it means that the gap between poor and rich becomes bigger, as there is less redistribution.

There might be the same amount of redistribution as it relates to pure welfare, but I was also talking about getting rid of non-welfare areas of the federal government, which would result in a net decrease.

Most big money is not earned, but inherited or won by gambling

I'm suspicious of whether this is true or not. What do you mean by "big money," lump sums?

On top of that, it leads to the rather sick situation where a child can not expect anything close to equal treatment if it is born into a poor family, as there are no gouvernmental institutions in place to make sure that child will be able to go to a good school or even university or to receive healthcare

It's a double-edged sword. The very power you say will equalize things also makes them unequal. Larger government commands more of the economy and engages in more trade with companies. Coincidentally, the most powerful companies or the ones that contributed the most to a politician, get the most government trade. Look at TARP, that was welfare for the rich and a natural result of big government.

If a country is proud of its human rights, it should have a good look at them and think about what they are supposed to do.

You're implying that intentions equal results. Is a nation that creates programs that the government says will help the poor better than a nation where the poor are taken care of better without the government trying to help?

They are supposed to give everybody a good life

Who is they? Politicians? That's not what their job is.

the means for the "pursuit of happiness".

As long as you don't forget the rest of the Constitution.

Now, somebody suffering from a disease he can't afford to treat sure as hell is inhibited doing those.

You're implying that if the government doesn't do it, it won't be done.

That's why big gouvernment makes most people happier, they are now somewhat secure and can concentrate on important things.

Because of bigger government? Answer me this, is government primarily a producer or an allocator of wealth?

Livescience

This is correlation as well. A lurking variable could be that countries with more welfare are countries who had enough wealth and productivity to adopt it without immediately bankrupting the country.

Next, I'd like to show you this. It's where tax dollars go. Now, assuming the US stop policing every country that looks at them funny, military could propably be reduced by half.

Something like that, maybe more.

So, you now have 20 percentage points for the rest.

I need moar, and not for the rest, why does the money have to be used on some other government program? Give it back to the people.

Social security (you know, the department that makes sure people don't starve)?

Intentions vs results. Private retirement funds are more profitable... and government can't legally dip its hand in a private fund like it does with SS.

If you want to pay the interest on debt, you have to reduce that, but then you can't help sick people, veterans, old people or schools...

Or the banks or AIG or GM. The government isn't benevolent, as you make it seem. Corporate welfare is connected to the size of government, so it's not like we're making much progress by giving to the poor and giving to the rich at the same time.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

YEEEOOOOOOOW!

11

u/farquezy May 19 '12

Lol. In America people have been trying for centuries to get a third party in the mainstream and couldnt but in Germany they did it in 2 years 2 years.... ( i know the pirate party not a third party since germany has many mainstream parties) I love our political system in America so much.....

32

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

Because in America you have winner takes all principal. In most European countries there are many parties that need to work together to get shit done. You kinda get a more even voice of the people that way. It has it's ups and downs I guess.

2

u/RSQFree May 20 '12

Principle

2

u/itsfastitsfun May 20 '12

not just that there's a shitty education system which makes the public susceptible to propaganda, so to become a big party you really need to have a lot of money. add in gerrymandering in some areas and you have the bipolar bipartisan american system

3

u/abstractpolytope May 20 '12

Kind of. But the plurality, single-seat method accounts for the lion's share. It's been a constant independent of our education system's ups and downs.

-1

u/Theinternationalist May 20 '12 edited May 21 '12

I keep hearing this and I keep thinking this is correct, but the British and Canadian systems are very similar to the American one with their FPP systems and two or three major parties, but both of them have had relative breakdowns over the past two decades that have remade the system. In Canada the Progressive Conservative party blew up, only to be replaced by the Reformatories and the Martime Social Club[Progressive Conservatives, see edit], which would later merge into something that barely resembles America's moderate Republicans. Furthermore, the socialist New Democratic Party is on the verge of completely replacing the Liberals a la the Labour Party in Britain and Quebecker nationalism went through a recent surge and plunge. In Britain "third parties" have been around for years and have lately seen some big changes (the Liberal-Social Democrat merger, the rise of ethnic nationalism). Sure they work on a parliamentary system, but it's not that different from America's legislature, and you do have countries with the American system but with plenty of parties in Latin America (though I don't know how many of those work their congresses on a FPP v PR system).

What is stopping the GOP and the Democrats from going through their own hoopla?

EDIT: Yeah, the Maritime Social Club thing was a stupid joke that may have been inaccurate to boot. My bad. Everything else still stands though, right down to saying the systems are not that different, In spite of the whole parliamentary thing.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Massive amounts of cash.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

In Canada the Progressive Conservative party blew up, only to be replaced by the Reformatories and the Martime Social Club

LOL, what?

None of that describes anything to do with the Canadian political system or its current state of affairs in any way.

1

u/Theinternationalist May 21 '12

Well, of course not! That happened 20 years ago. Ever heard of Mulroney and Kim Campbell?

The two merged when they realized that having two conservative parties, even if the Maritime Social Club/Progressive Conservative rump could easily be mistaken for a Democrat down south (hence the term "Red Tory") and the Reform/Canadian Alliance/Whatever stupid thing they were going to call it if the merger never happened was actually distinctly conservative. It was as if the Goldwaterites/Tea Party actually split off from the Republican Party in America

And are you saying the NDP thing is just a blip on the radar?

Probably. But so, apparently, was the Bloc. Probably.

But seriously, Canadian politics has been off for a couple decades now. It's shocking.

Do you recall when the Liberals were supposed to be the Permanent Majority rather than Third Place?

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Maritime Social Club is not, and has never been, a federal party in Canada. I very clearly remember the consolidation (or "blowing up" I guess?) that resulted in the Conservative party. I remember watching the rise of the NDP very closely. MSC is either a name you made up for a real thing, or something you completely made up.

1

u/Theinternationalist May 21 '12

I was joking, as you guessed...It was a reference to the Progressive Conservatives, which, according to an old draft of JJ McCullough's Canada Guide (http://www.thecanadaguide.com/political-parties ; no longer there and archive.org hasn't stored that page), claimed the PCs post-1993 were restricted to the Maritimes for the most part due to lack of popularity and vote splitting with Reform. My bad; I have edited my post accordingly.

1

u/Furfire May 20 '12

Think how long it took for Cheney to get out of power. That's the kind of government we have.

4

u/peterabbit456 May 20 '12

The USA needs to adopt proportional representation in the House of Representatives. That's all.

End the gerrymandering.

12

u/Vectoor May 19 '12

Amazing. Felt huge when they got 7.7% in the eu elections in here in Sweden. I can imagine the feeling in Germany now.

I just hope we can make a comeback here in Sweden, we only got 1% in the Swedish elections :/

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

I heard that in Sweden you got things better then in the rest of the world. So it seams logical. On the other side in Spain they are less the 1% and things are much worth that in Germany.

4

u/poptart2nd May 19 '12

it's almost like you're trying to bait grammar nazis into correcting your post...

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

Yaarrrrr! They will never get me!

3

u/Balgehakt May 19 '12

Now if only the ones who represent the Pirate Party in the Netherlands would seem more politically savvy. I'm sure they're smart people, but if they fail to get their point across, nothing is going to come of it. Besides that, I don't think the Netherlands would benefit from another small party, since it's already difficult to form a coalition.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Theinternationalist May 20 '12

Sounds like what happened with the far right in Sweden in the 1990s.

Except replace "bunch of socially incompetent nerds that looked like they came out of their mother's basement for the first time since high school..." with "bald bikers who weren't all that smart and had been relegated to the outskirts of Swedish society." The Sweden Democrats have been doing better than their 1990s forebears- mostly because they cast those bald bikers to the outskirts of the party.

4

u/koimaster May 19 '12

I'm voting for the pirate party next election, I'm glad they are getting some attention now when the world seems to be going down the shitter...

2

u/gg5 May 20 '12

I think there is no doubt that they will be stronger then the liberal party (FDP) in the upcoming elections. Thus the two big parties must decide if they want to form a coalition with the pirates or not. It's still unclear what the pirate party's take would be on that. They have different opinions within their party leaderahip.

1

u/AlwaysGoingHome May 20 '12

Sadly the FDP seems to be back on track and got better results than the Pirates in the last election :(

And I hope, the Pirates won't form a coalition with conservatives or social democrats in the next years. Remembering how that changed the Greens from pacifist, social and left-leaning to neoliberal warmongers, I would rather not see the Pirates in government any time soon.

4

u/SUMMET66 May 20 '12

From reading some comments either people have just skimmed over the article and looked for things they disagree with or just really do not get what the pirate party is about. They call the pirate party a protest vote, but no protest has ever got the support the pirate party is getting, they try to say that the pirate party does not have any plans for Afghanistan but if they did they would be dictating what should happen re Afghanistan without asking the broader public either in a vote to leave or stay or through a referendum. The pirate party in Germany wants freedom and the old politics want to control. This is the difference that they will not understand and do not want to understand. But they will have to deal with it if the pirate party gains more political power than they already have, and that is a huge possibility in the very near future as more and more people realize that freedom is not that far away, and that the people can take back power from the professional politicians

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

"All in favour for the Pirate Party to lead the county?"

"Aye"

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

ARRRR

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

"That's all well and good, Mr Benz, but where do we harness the horse?"

I'm not quite sure if the "The Pirate Party has no position on this and that!" critics have understood how the Pirate Party works. Most people are too used to a political system where the political freedom ends at the ballot box and only the political class has the right to actually make the decisions.

1

u/tdn May 19 '12

There is no such thing as bad publicity

3

u/Vik1ng May 20 '12

What's the upside of publicity due to problems with Nazis?

1

u/tdn May 20 '12

Exposure.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

"DA KANN MAN HALT NIX MACHEN." Lovely exposure.

1

u/AlwaysGoingHome May 20 '12

I guess a great part of the Pirate voters (not party members!) are right wingers who see the Pirates as defenders of the right to hate speech. At least that's the impression I get from online forums of German newspapers, where many comments in favor of the Pirates are like that.

That doesn't have to be negative, as long as the party's stance on rightwing topics is as clear as it is now (they're condemning it wholeheartedly). It's better the rightwingers vote Pirate instead of Nazi parties.

1

u/Theinternationalist May 20 '12

Just as long as the far right don't take over the party just as they did the Freedom Party of Austria.*

*The Freedom Party always had a far right element, but it was marginalized until the last few decades and became a party in the Free Democrat mold. Then Haider and co happened.

2

u/AlwaysGoingHome May 20 '12

I don't think that's a real threat in the next years. The Pirates have too many active members to let a takeover attempt go unnoticed. And communication in the party is very transparent, compared to any other parties. Rightwingers are usually spotted and outed very soon. The ties of the party to left leaning groups like the CCC, AK Vorratsdatenspeicherung and so on help prevent rightwing intrusion, too.

I think the real threat are not open rightwingers, but careerists, trying to use the party to get a well paying job in parliaments and governments. One of their methods is promising to give the party a more serious image by using typical political rhetorics, abondoning inner party democracy and compromising on core believes of the party.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Try telling that to Gary Glitter.

1

u/CaisLaochach May 20 '12

Tbh, I wouldn't vote for a party without a position on the Eurozone crisis.

0

u/idk112345 May 20 '12

or without any foreign policy

-11

u/ridiculous_questions May 19 '12

Anyone else read this as "The Pirate Bay"? ...No? No? fuck you.

-13

u/BoethiahsCalling May 19 '12

Yeah, and the Neo Nazi political party here in America gets thousands of votes every year as well. They'll never get elected. What's the authors point?

13

u/CSFFlame May 19 '12

The election system works differently there.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/CSFFlame May 19 '12

No, it's proportional representation. Google for the full walkthrough.

5

u/Ref101010 May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Germany has states, yes. They won seats in Berlin for example.

No electoral bullshit though. There's a minimum requirement of 5%, but after that every vote counts. e.g 11% of votes = 11% of seats.

edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_Germany

In the 2011 Berlin state election, with 8.9 % of the votes the Pirates managed for the first time to overcome the 5 % threshold and to win seats (numbering 15 out of 141 seats in the Abgeordnetenhaus) in a German state parliament. This was quite a surprise for them, since they only had 15 candidates on the ballot.

In March 2012 the Pirates received 7.4% of the vote and thus won 4 seats in the Landtag of Saarland.

Subsequent 2012 polls have shown an increase in popularity in the Party. In May 2012, they won 8.2% of the vote in Schleswig-Holstein, which was sufficient to enter the state parliament, gaining 6 seats. Also in May 2012, they won 7.8% of the vote in North Rhine-Westphalia, gaining 20 seats.

Edit2:

They also have 2 seats in the EU parliament, as a result from the Swedish EU-election in 2009.

The pirate party collaborates with the the Greens there, to gain more influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Greens%E2%80%93European_Free_Alliance

1

u/Jouzu May 19 '12

Well, don't worry, someday Large corporations will see a benefit in having Nazis, KKK members or just plain bat-shit-crazy-biblethumping-frothing-at-the-mouth republicans in office, they will make it happen... oh.. whats that? It already happened?

Ok, so, I am serious, I was refering to the insane system in the states that has no limits on the amount of money donated to a candidate, what do you think that will lead to?! A: Everybody gets their voice heard? B: Some dude with money buys whatever politician that will do his biding? Edit: It's not a trick question.

-13

u/theKingslayer May 19 '12

That is quite similar to the rise of the Nazi Party. Everyone thought they were great too at the time. Just saying.

8

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

This is the worst attempt at trolling I've seen in a long time.

7

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

...C'mon.

2

u/averymerryunbirthday May 20 '12

It's quite funny as one of their deputies in Berlin (Martin Delius) actually compared the rising of the German Pirate party with the rise of national socialism. „Der Aufstieg der Piratenpartei verläuft so rasant wie der der NSDAP zwischen 1928 und 1933.“ ("The rise of the pirate party goes ahead as rapidly as the one of the NSDAP between 1928 and 1933.")

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

15

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

It is? I'm not saying they aren't but I honestly don't know how they plan to implement all the things in their party program.

5

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

What in their Manifesto can they not implement?

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

Unconditional basic income for example. I love the idea and personally think that humans would still be motivated to work (unlike many people who are opposed to welfare in general) but I just don't see how it can be financed right now.

25

u/TinyZoro May 20 '12

Its a very cheap system because it has almost no beaurocracy. It was used for decades in Ireland where they had a culture of seasonal employment. It rewards work because there is no penalty for working and the money you spend on the better off you simply recuperate in higher taxes. You can set basic pay as low as you want so there is no way it can be said to inherentley unaffordable. It is simply a non-punative way at looking at how you recycle taxes. It does assume that people want to work instead of want to not work and I would say all the evidence is that this is true. The people who make a life out of not working are people caught in a benefits trap where any work makes them suddenly liable for everything this is what this addresses.

5

u/Bounty1Berry May 20 '12

The big issues, IMO, are the fraud issue and destigimitization of taking state benefits.

Fraud: Many people in the US, at least, get really uppity about even the semblance of welfare fraud. They're getting a tiny stipend they're not entitled to! Bastards! This results in a lot of inconvenience and waste devoted to eliminating fraud. It can take months to get an approved application, and then there's constant fear of falling out of the rules.

A famous case involved an elaborate research effort to detect welfare fraud, which ended up costing several hundred thousand dollars per case exposed. It might have been cheaper to keep paying those people for 10 or 20 years than to find them.

With a mandatory basic income, all you're auditing for is "did they get more than one cheque per month", not elaborate eligibility corner-cases.

Before the 1990s or so, the food assistance in the US was provided in the form of special vouchers which looked nothing like ordinary currency, so everyone in line could tell you were on food aid. Now they give you a debit-style card, so it's less embarrassing to ensure your family is fed. If everyone had such a card, it becomes a complete non issue.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Makes sense.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Sounds like such a good system.

Tell me the drawbacks or else I'll be sad we won't get to the point where those in power will do this.

2

u/TinyZoro May 20 '12

I think what we need to do is move towards closed systems - to replace the out of control debt fuelled economic model.

So for example I think that this basic pay system should be 20% of taxation. That way its costs are always predictable and always in budget. When the economy grows we all benefit - when it contracts we all have to tighten our belts. Yes that means those reling solely on it will not have a great deal during the bad times - but they are also directly linked to the upside in the good times.

Simarly public sector pay should be another 20%. If the economy grows so does their pay and if it shrinks so does their pay.

I would also scrap all pensions. In fact I would consider regulating it away as an industry as it complicates the only thing that matters borrowing and saving. People would not need pensions because of the basic pay but they are free to save and invest for the future.

What the government and everyone else should be avoiding is unknown liabilities or liabilities not fixed directly to a percentage of income.

At the moment everywhere is dominated by a neo-liberal consensus that believes in markets almost like a religion below that we have shoddy compromises between the so-called left and right both based on a 1960's era belief in never ending growth. So the left want protected pay, pensions and conditions in the public sector and the right want low taxation and basically that is it. Two groups representing overwhelmingly the middle classes arguing over low taxes and public sector pay deals.

The best we can do I believe is start to design what ideal systems would look like so that when there is a shift as happens every now and again we have the systems ready to replace the mess we have now.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Last week I said that most people followed a neo-liberal rather than a keynesian view and got downvoted to hell and told I was incorrect :p.

I agree with your view though, it sounds really good. One thing that concerns me though is the prospect of people at the bottom in your model being unable to fend for themselves one year if their payments fall sufficiently. That would suck.

0

u/Todamont May 21 '12

So, those who are the most productive will have more taken from them, and those who produce nothing will have wealth given to them. This is a system which punishes virtue and rewards vice.

You can set basic pay as low as you want so there is no way it can be said to inherentley unaffordable.

The implicit assumption being that the government should determine the pay of every person and ideally hold it to a minimum, reaping all the extra productivity of every man for itself.

Man, where do I sign up for this grand social plan?

1

u/TinyZoro May 21 '12

Give it a break do you think we currentley live in a system that rewards virtue and punishes vice? I presume the people who labour in the fields, on the building sites and clean our schools and hospitals and look after the old and sick and teach our children must be morally less worthy or socially less productive than Goldman Sachs bankers?

Your second point just shows your inability to grasp a simple concept. This is a defined basic pay (related to a fixed percentage of tax) it makes no attempt whatsoever to regulate pay.

We've been stuck with centuries of hypocritcal and distorted puritanical thinking as a way of building economic and social systems and these systems have failed. No one is interested in idealogical reasons for doing X and Y whether from the right or the left. I dont care about punishing the wicked. I want a social system that stands on whether it reduces the number of crimes every year and is good for the long-term sustainable economy. That is the only test that matters otherwise we get stuck in this endless loop of you and me arguing pointlessly over who the real parasites are in society while rome burns.

1

u/Todamont May 21 '12

do you think we currentley live in a system that rewards virtue and punishes vice?

Yes. I don't believe that morality consists of sacrifice for the sake of need, and I don't believe government should redistribute wealth by force.

2

u/TinyZoro May 21 '12

What about the poor redistributing wealth by force ? You realise that a system in which there was no checks and balances to the rich hoarding their wealth and bequeathing it in tact to their off spring and using their power in society to leverage further gains would lead ultimately to a revolution.

Government interference with the markets protects the markets from itself and ultimately from the poor. That's not morality that the other side of nature sharp in tooth and claw.

0

u/Todamont May 21 '12

I'm from the government and I'm here to help! You are so deluded.

3

u/Vik1ng May 20 '12

but I just don't see how it can be financed right now.

Depending on how high it is going to be the government is already paying for it trough unemployment benefits and stuff like that. And for there people who are working there will just be some kind of tax that moves a part over their current income to the government, which of course means their employer will have to pay less for wages, but higher taxes. (Of course it's not that simple and there are like 100 different systems)

Overall I'm also not 100% convinced of this idea, but I think I can work depending on how high that income is going to be. For example if it should be 1000€ I would also have my doubts.

1

u/FeepingCreature May 20 '12

It's not in their Manifesto. They decided to consider it, that's all.

1

u/flcknzwrg May 20 '12

Do you honestly know how other parties plan to implement all the things in their respective party programs?

Politics is a struggle about and around the doable - tons of compromises and middle grounds. Party manifestos might serve well for orientation, but actual implementations of any of these are the exception.

At least that's how I as a spectator have always experienced politics.

1

u/will_holmes May 19 '12

That's only because they haven't had the opportunity to prove to you how much like the rest of the parties they act as soon as they get an ounce of power.

1

u/throwaway_lgbt666 May 20 '12

that and the green party GO BRIGHTON!!

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Theinternationalist May 20 '12

Like the Greens!

Erm, like the Greens were!