The Open Source Party: A Proposal

[MondoGlobo]

By RU Sirius

The duopoly will have its way again in this year's election. Ralph Nader and whoever the Libertarians and Greens nominate as their candidates will drag their asses around the country, sometimes saying interesting and important things, sometimes not. Many of us will wish, once again, that there could be a dynamic discourse about the many real issues and problems that get ignored and then we will vote (or not) for the one who has at least a fingernail grip on sanity, or for one of the sad and hopeless alterna-candidates.

But we could make the political season less depressing by using the net and other networking tools to create a very large and dynamic discourse about the things that we believe really need to change, and we could evolve a new political organization that could be ready to kick up some noise by the time the next political season (2010) rolls around.

Therefore I propose a Liberal/Libertarian/Other unity party that will develop ideas and solutions to America's political problems through an open source process that will be engaging and fun. We will have online conferences, social networks, and wikis, we will have meetups, we will have parties, we will create games that model likely real world responses to our proposed ideas, we will field candidates starting in 2010, get "crazed" antiauthoritarians on TV and radio, and maybe change a few things before the apocalypse, the singularity, the second coming, the compete conquest of the world by Google, the election of another generation of Bushes and Clintons, or whatever other event you may be expecting.

There are two ways to go with an Open Source Party. One way would be to just throw it open to everybody. Everyone gets to throw their ideas into the maelstrom whether they're anarchists or fascists, conservatives or moderates, or if they just miss Ross Perot.

But I'm not an absolute believer in the wisdom of crowds and all that. I prefer another idea. I would bring together people who feel they are in agreement with at least 5 of the 7 points in the party platform below – giving us a starting point from which to launch activities on the basis of the platform and to have interesting fun in a democratic process adding to or subtracting from the platform.

Here then: the Open Source Party Platform:

1. Let's Have A Democracy!

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have yet another notion that only cranks subscribe to — that civil liberties can survive crime, mind-active substance use, and even terrorism. For starters, we seek the return of civil liberties, rights, and basic, sane conduct by the executive branch of government that has been lost in the post 9-11 environment. This includes the reform or repeal of the (mostly) unnecessary Patriot Act; the return of Habeas Corpus; the end of essentially infinite surveillance rights for the federal government; limits to privilege and secrecy in the executive branch; the end — or the imposition of judicial limits — on presidential signing statements, and (what have I forgotten? You tell me.). Beyond that, we support strong free speech that includes an end to implicit censorship through government intimidation, and an end to the so-called "War on Drugs," which has resulted in frequent violations against limits on search and seizure and an abhorrently high percentage of US citizens imprisoned.

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

3: Let's End the Imperial Foreign Policy.

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

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

4: A New "Energy Task Force"

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

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

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

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

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

6: Let's End Corporate Personhood and other Rules that Unfairly Benefit Corporations

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

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

7: Let My Web People Go! (Support Open Source Culture, Reasonable and Looser Copyright Laws, Reasonable File-sharing, etc.)

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

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

Democratic Processes Within an Open Source Party

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

We suggest that erecting a pay wall – a $15 fee for Open Source Party membership — would be instrumental not only in helping to finance a dynamic organization but necessary to keep out all but the most motivated griefers and help us to verify the legitimacy of voters, who would vote only once. Naturally, we would hope that enthusiasts who can would contribute substantially more.

Final Thoughts

We imagine that this in-group, open-source, participatory democratic process could be a way in which people who have been more or less on the fringe of American politics can encourage one another to think clearly in terms of actually eventually making policy. It's very easy to stand outside the system and protest or call for some absolutist ideological solution (anarchy dudes!), but it's more interesting and valuable to try to realistically envision the consequences of policy. We also want to emphasize again the ample potential to keep this playful – to create dynamic virtual worlds (in Second Life or wherever), to create games, fanciful as well as serious candidacies, videos and podcasts, songs, ad infinitum. The possibilities are limited only by our imaginations and even if we don't succeed in making the changes we hope for, we can learn from the experience.

Note: Special thanks to Jon Lebkowsky for help and encouragement with this document. The Open Source Party is currently a gleam in the eye and not an extant organization.

[PapayaSF]

Much of what you write is true, but somewhat beside my point, which is: What real-world problem would this solve? I literally never think "If only these dollars were something else!" or "Why couldn't these have been printed by some other entity?" (But US currency is printed by the Treasury Department, which is certainly the government, right?)

Dollars may be a fiat currency (created "out of thin air"), but if everyone has faith in them, the magic works. That's how all currencies are these days. How does open source currency get around that problem? Unless it's exchangeable for gold or whatever, won't it be the same?

Re Woodrow Wilson, I think it's hard to argue that the history of the US economy since the founding of the Federal Reserve has been terrible. Particularly since about 1981 the dollar has been fine, recent months notwithstanding (and the recent troubles don't have anything to do with the Federal Reserve, AFAIK).

The Founders were opposed to lots of things (thankfully!), but if they were around today, I honestly doubt if the Federal Reserve would be their top complaint (or even in the top 50).

[JustinH_TX]

There are those who argue that it isn't that the dollar isn't backed by gold that is the problem. Some argue that, as you say, fiat currencies work just fine and the real problem is the interest we have to pay. The real problem with the Federal Reserve Act is that it forms the basis of the scam that is fractional reserve lending.

To make a long story short, I can't lend you money I don't have... but banks can, and they collect interest on top of that.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank whose function is to protect other banks from "a run on the banks". A run on the banks happens when a large number of people attempt to withdraw their deposits... which of course, are not there.

If you repeal the Federal Reserve Act and ratchet up the reserve requirement for banks from the current fraction (10%? less?) to 100%, you no longer need a central bank. You can also do what Lincoln did and allow the government to print it's own interest free fiat money. If our government was transparent I might not have to much of a problem with this. At least We The People would have more direct influence over our own monetary policy.

The problem with this is that someone still has their hands in it tinkering with things. We have only been truly severed from the gold standard since Nixon ended the fixed price of gold, although there were many previous steps involved. Gold and other precious metals would have value even if our government didn't exist and for that reason, I have to reject a fiat currency. Our forefathers saw the failure of a debased fiat currency and saw fit to instruct us that only gold and silver should be legal tender. One thing remains true throughout history... it is extremely difficult to fund wars without a fiat currency.

If you agree that this country is a shadow of it's former self and that we need to rethink our monetary system I suggest we seek to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, abolish the federal reserve, enforce 100% reserve lending, and have a 100% precious metal backed currency. The idea isn't that radical. I only suggest that we return things to the way they were.

[Tom Brown]

the key word is complementary. complementary currency. the key difference is each of us can create a trust that belongs to our communities and controlled by protocol instead of trust created by a central authority and enforced by laws and power. central money can vanish from your community. local trust stays local.

[Michael]

Agreed -- and there's nothing inherently magical about gold, either. Any currency basis that can be radically affected by new mining discoveries or new physics is no better than our current "clap your hands and believe in the Federal Reserve" approach.

Money is a convention. Money has no inherent value. You can't eat dollars, and you can't eat gold. All you can do is trade something for food, and the point of a currency is to normalize that system of barter. Period.

I see no reason to replace the current system. If the Reserve collapses, we'll all be buying things in Euros anyway, so who cares?

[PapayaSF]

Again, what real-world problems would any of this fix? Arguments about gold and the Fed made some sense in the Depression or Carter-era inflation, but we don't have major problems with inflation or deflation any more. Monetary policy doesn't seem broken to me, so "fixing" it seems pointless.

And if you're worried about people "tinkering with things," how can you also argue that "We The People" should have more direct influence over monetary policy? I suspect the average economist would pale at the thought of the populace voting on interest rates or whatever.

It's not as if the average person had more influence on monetary policies back in the gold standard days. There were plenty of depressions and deflations back then, too, often much worse than the last 25+ years. And wars, often very long ones, predate fiat currency.

I'm not an economist, but wouldn't 100% reserve requirements make it much harder to get a loan? Wouldn't the negatives outweigh any positives on this point?

Yes, there are complementary currencies, but I still have no idea why I would ever want to use one.

[Tom Brown]

A falling dollar drives up the cost of imports. Since the dollar is falling, to the extent that there is a dependency on imports, we should expect inflation.

Consumer debt is also a growing trend. Those in debt can still spend money but they're driving themselves into further debt, so maybe instead of paying a babysitter dollars, for instance, it might be better to establish a complementary currency for babysitting with the other parents in their neighborhood. This way, they save those dollars they don't really have.

Similarly, a college student may not have the money to get desperately needed math tutoring. Maybe the student can give guitar lessons. A college could have a complementary currency for tutoring and other lessons.

[Jon Lebkowsky]

I'm surprised to hear that "we don't have major problems with inflation or deflation." We're actually at the edge of a precipice.



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a47_1196002137

"We are confronting 'dollar plummeting hysteria, monumental levels of debt, foreclosure, bankruptcy, unemployment, energy depletion, skyrocketing gas and food prices, illnesses treated without health insurance coverage—or just not treated, unprecedented levels of homelessness, and by all indications, within a few months into 2008, America will be well on the road to a re-run of 1929-or something inconceivably worse,' Baker frets. 'These are the good ole days, my friend, and these are also the dark new days. Happy Thanksgiving; savor every bite.'"

That article was inspired by Gerald Celente's thinking. See http://www.trendsresearch.com/. He's been very effective in predicting economic trends.

Another tidbit:

"Corsi believes the economic crisis now revealing itself is engineered. 'It is engineered because again, the move toward globalism, the pumping of this liquidity to stimulate the markets was totally artificial.'"

Currency policy and currency alternatives are critical.

[RU Sirius]

I want to reply to a few things at once in my own simple and somewhat rushed way (a bit busy at the moment).

1) Democracy: I love Lebkowsky's post about radical democracy. I remember way back in something like 1974 Tim Leary wrote about the death of representative democracy -- it was invented in the horse-and-buggy era etc. and suggested a kind of complex, cybernetic system through which people could register their signals. The goal would be -- to the greatest extent possible -- to satisfy everybody! A bit ideal, but not far from what Jon and some others have been talking about.

But for my purposes in developing the platform, I'm also responding to the amazing cynicism of the system's sophisticates with their dual message --

A) Get out and vote. It's your responsibility as a citizen and our proof that you don't live in some sort of autocracy and B) Of course, not every vote gets counted! Everybody knows that. What are you , some kind of yahoo thinking that your vote will definitely be counted?

This, of course has played out to the greatest extent recently in poor African American and other minority communities. You don't have to like the way these communities vote to recognize that they've been systematicallly robbed of votes. The data is overwhelming.

I think the answer to paranoia about majority rule is really simple. Limit what the majority can rule ON. That's certainly one of the ideas behind the constitution. Strengthen it if necessary.

Re: Open Source Money. The current currency works to the extent it does because people believe in it, but so does stage magic. Money is undoubtedly central to real power in the world... it's the matter of life and death but it's not very transparent. We don't really open it up and encourage people to look at the source code, to see how it gets formed and distributed, and to allow people to alter it. How can we talk about an open source politics without making money transparent and subject to open source principles? Of course, it maybe needs to be taken slow. People may lose confidence in money if they look at it too closely, which could be disastrous (maybe good in the long run!),

Rather than seeing this as something that is so hard it will never happen, I see it as an inevitable result of virtualization. Right now there's Linden Dollars. Soon maybe Google bucks. ad infinitum.

When people say "Social Security is running out of money" -- you can't really run out of money, in the way that you can run out of potable water, or salmon, or oil. I think it's a math problem (complexity-based post-scarcity economics? Anybody wanna try to figure it out?) And of course a perception problem...

[Feral!]

Energy Issues

Hey R.U. - great job getting this rolling - it's cool to see the progression of the QA work you've been doing since I first became aware of it back during your MLA "counterculture" class.

I'm glad to see that you are putting energy up there on your list of priorities - I think we are definitely moving into an era where "renewable energy is the new IT". One suggestion I might offer is that we re-couple energy with other resources, perhaps a "Resources Task Force" that not only looks at energy, but the synergy between energy sources, agriculture, food and water supplies, air quality, industrial and energy generation efficiencies and waste management. After all, "peak water" is quickly catching up to "peak oil" as the enviro-buzzphrase dujour....

Here in the Midwest, we are struggling with the intricacies of developing a renewable energy infrastructure (huge windpower development, biofuels boom, biomass research, etc) while watching it systematically legislated out of the hands of we "little people" who have been at it for 10-20 years, and delivered into the hands of big agri-business interests like ADM and big utility companies like MidAmerican Energy (owned by Warren Buffet). This is done not only through energy legislation, but through the farm bill and so-called "environmental" legislation.

When folks from opposite ends of the spectrum (like the Cato Institute and Greenpeace) agree that things like large-scale corn-based ethanol and nuke power are worthless, you don't really need to argue about if it is economically bad or environmentally bad. But when you drill way down into the issue, you see that our entire resource allocation model needs to be revised - we need to go back and re-write the source code.

"Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value. "

-R. Buckminster Fuller

[uncle osbert]

problem:

The duopoly will have its way again in this year's election. Ralph Nader and whoever the Libertarians and Greens nominate as their candidates will drag their asses around the country, sometimes saying interesting and important things, sometimes not. Many of us will wish, once again, that there could be a dynamic discourse about the many real issues and problems that get ignored and then we will vote (or not) for the one who has at least a fingernail grip on sanity, or for one of the sad and hopeless alterna-candidates.

if the problem is a reliance on the entrenched systems that punishes newcomers by making them adhere to a script that speaks to no one outside the political regulars... can we force changes to that? watching the debates last year, i was struck by how effectively gravel and paul both used the forum to discuss subjects that weren't being broached. in the mainstream analysis they were torn to shreds, but i think this was actually a successful strategy for paul. his people are kind of annoying, but you can tell they've been riled up. he's speaking to the frustration in the system, and even though i wouldn't vote for him, i think he's given us an opening.

i propose that we try to host an outsider debate. call up kucinich and paul and gravel, the guys who are usually on the outside... i bet they'd go for it. and if we all dispersed to make noise about it, it may draw the mainstream candidates. then we can make them all look as retarded as they are, or give them a chance to shine by asking questions that actually matter. this could put the youtube debate to shame.