Unrestricted Internet access and freedom from .gov tracking. I'd add that. There is an arguement to be made that the Internet is a basic human right. At least that's what Hillary and the State Dept. explain in the Middle East crackdown. I'm sick of freaking agencies like the one's below:

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

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

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

http://gcn.com/Articles/2009/08/17/Web-c....

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/National_Cyb....

Quote:

The Homeland Security Department plans to develop a “cyber ops wiki” that agencies can use to improve collaboration on cybersecurity efforts, according to a notice from the department.

The wiki will be used by DHS’ National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) and the six other federal cybersecurity centers as a collaboration tool and a way to develop improved situational awareness, communication and information sharing, DHS said in a notice published on Aug. 11 on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site.

Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said "NCSC is engaging industry expertise to develop a Web 2.0/3.0-enabled collaboration platform — this is an important piece of the larger NCSC vision of meaningful collaboration across government."

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley....

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

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

There is a fine balance between protection and invasion of privacy. DHS under Janet Napolitano and TSA abuses are sickening. Just wait until the US Commerce Dept. ORDERS all people to register their personal information to use the WWW. You'll get the ol' DHS Internet pat down before being allowed to send an e-mail.

Step right up to the Internet approval window, folks. That's where this is headed. And like the Patriot Act, the .gov excuse is it's being done for your protection.

Do you need to PAC up?

Passports are required by OTHER countries - few respect our ideas and freedoms. Nor do other countries have to respect ours if they aren't issued with some due diligence. And we ought to require passports and visas as appropriate for those coming into our country. I'm from Michigan and before 9/11 I could go to canada and canadians could come here without anything more than a driver's license and even that was not often checked.

But for that we could just have a canada-USA document.

"There is a fine balance between protection and invasion of privacy".

There is no "balance", there is only the 4th amendment expressing the fundamental right to be secure FROM government - "protection" from government - which requires a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate.

I have not merely the right but the duty to be the first line of defense, not dial 911 and hope someone comes in time.

Communication is a basic human right. Shouldn't be any restriction of it to the internet.

What restrictions are there that you speak of here? Please be specific and note that our political system has no right to extend itself by force beyond our border.

I have the right to pursue happiness and I have the right to liberty and life, but I do not have the right to steal the means to all three from other people.

(That is, I have the right to locomotion, but not the right to demand that someone else provide me with the means of exercising it - e.g. that someone else provide me a car if I am unable to buy one.)

Asimov wrote..

Communication is a basic human right. Shouldn't be any restriction of it to the internet.

One would think, Asi. But now we have .gov pulling sites and blogs offline at a whim because they don't like the messages. I fully expect to one day come to TF and see the message: This domain has been seized by the DHS/FBI.

I was referring to:

Quote:

Unrestricted Internet access and freedom from .gov tracking.

It should be "Unrestricted freedom of communication"

[Edit: I should have said "limitation" to just the internet instead of restriction originally. Bad communication on my part.]

I agree with Eric W. There needs to be something that addresses the "or else" issue as you call it. As long as breaking the law is analagous to a regular cost of doing business for the TBTF entities of our world, reform on any meaningful scale is unlikely. Not sure how the wording should go - just think the concept needs to be addressed.

Everything else seems spot on!

@Spazznout:

The dollar cancels any right to contract. If I agree to trade you wheat for my cattle, what the note says is I don't have to deliver a single cow, merely a pile of paper. If I ask to be paid in gold, yen, seashells, or anything, that is what you are supposed to deliver, not cash.

There is no use trying to make the dollar "work", or the central bank behave. Let the government do what they want, with the only proviso is whatever they emit, e.g. toilet paper, they have to accept it back, even if it is used.

Let them define or create whatever they want, but leave me free to accept or not accept it, create or use a banking system based on one or more commodities or whatever else is desired. If I want to issue and accept plastic encased gold leaf, let them.

Asi: The 4th Amendment is already in the platform. Please explain what more specific requirements you believe should be present.

Karl: I was referring to Bohemian's post where he says "Unrestricted Internet access." If it has to be added, it should be "Unrestricted right to communication" and not be limited to the internet. The internet could easily morph into something else in years to come.

I don't actually think anything needs to be added to the platform in this regard as long as the 4th is respected.

Agreed, Asi, if a person is making threats, they deserve arrest and should be prosecuted. But the new Cyber Security Command in Utah is some scary ****. I wouldn't want them tracking my teen-agers conversations with her boyfriends - and yes they literally can do that ... I have a right to privacy as law abiding citizen. We've seen how TSA turned out. The privacy invasion being bantered around now by the Commerce Dept. under Obama reads like the Hitler diaries. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do. And I don't want a Congressman named Rockefeller telling me with his Cyber Security Act what I can and can't do on the WWW.

...oh yea.

Corporations are not HUMAN(S).

They
Don't
Have
****ing
Rights.

Seems to me humans should be one rung higher up the ladder in the pecking order, than corporations.


That'll ruffle a few feathers.

The platform says in regard to the 4th Amendment:

Quote:

•The 4th Amendment means what it says. If you have a right to travel then you also have a right to do so without government searches of your person and property absent probable cause. The TSA is a wanton and outrageous violation of the 4th Amendment. Airlines have a significant property interest in their airplanes not being blown up, and also in not being sued due to negligence should a terrorist get on board with a weapon or bomb. The TSA not only violates your rights it shields the airlines from having to compensate your family if they are negligent in allowing a terrorist on board with a gun or explosive device! The airline has every right to demand you submit to a private search before boarding their aircraft. The Government, absent probable cause, has no right to search you at all. This same prohibition must extend to "warrantless wiretaps." If there is probable cause for a search then the government can present its evidence to a Judge and obtain a proper and lawful warrant.

Emphasis mine.

One thing that is not mentioned is patents, copyrights, and IP in general. This will be important if we get a 3d printed hip joint at a fraction of the cost from the med suppliers. Monsanto wants to patent genes. Microsoft and Apple want to patent mathematical formulae. Disney wants a perpetual copyright and nothing in the public domain. Orphaned works will remain censored. The RIAA and MPAA sues people who happen to have had a specific IP address.

Where is fair use (which the supreme court declared is what makes the first amendment work when there is copyright)? I would say any individual has a right to convert, quote, excerpt, anything they have legal access too - if I buy a DVD, I should be able to watch it on my phone.

It is probably not enough for a plank, but if there is a secondary section, I would put Intellectual Property reform.

But the threat from private parties with overbroad claims of ownership are as much a threat to this site as a direct government regulation.

The FBI can get a wiretap from a federal judge on a whim. I trust them about as much as I can throw them. It's more a basic 1st Amendment right. When the Commerce Dept. hands out WWW ID's, don't anyone say you weren't warned.

@Duc888: Corporations are entirely a creation of the state. I would tax them as much as needed. I would eliminate all individual and partnership (joint and several unlimited liability) taxes with the possible exception on interest on debt they might issue.

If I am dealing with another human being, or a group of individuals acting together, then we can resolve conflicts as both of us will have to answer for things.

Corp(se)orations are zombies - dead, so they can go around and do any damage and don't care if any part gets cut off.

I have a right to privacy. Period. .gov doesn't respect that right at all (see links above). I have a right not to be searched or arrested if I refuse a search by TSA or DHS. I have a right to drive down the road without being stopped at a .gov checkpoint of any kind for any reason, and then be threatened with arrest if I don't comply to answer questions. Sick and tired of .gov invasion to my basics rights.

A little constructive debate is fine, but I hope we're not nitpicking too much here. The simpler the better.

If you agree with even 75% of this platform, then you have to believe it's the best one out there, by far.

I happen to agree with much much more than that.

As a seed, it's fantastic. Let's help it grow first; we can prune it later.

Thanks Karl.

It's not going to get "pruned" or otherwise changed after the 31st. If you want to argue for changes, now's your opportunity. I will not move the goalposts for politicians after stating that I'm freezing it.

From the top level link:

"On these pages via links to your left you will find our party platform"

And in the FAQ you claim this is not a partisan effort. Which is it?

Militarized police, SwAT teams, the FBI, etc. - there needs to be a way of collecting civil damages when there are botched raids, or if the FBI manages to defraud a judge into issuing a warrant violating my rights, or if excessive force is used.

Part of the "rule of law" is that the police are subject to the same laws, and there will be a way of guarding the guardians.

Tz: See "Citizen Grand Juries"

Tz: See "Citizen Grand Juries"

F7: What's not clear about the platform and FAQ? If you were confused about the top page, I've fixed it.