6 ms·

Ask HN: would you vote for "The Internet Party"?

5 points by hoodoof 15y ago

Here's the idea: create a new political party whose policies are solely focused on issues relating the the Internet and technology. Would you vote for The Internet Party?

mooism2 15y ago
No, I wouldn't vote for a single issue party.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  Me neither, I expect an all-weather elected official.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Yes, I would. But I think Pirate Party covers the most important Internet issues pretty well already. Your next best thing in USA seems to be Ron Paul. He's one of the very few and maybe the only one in Senate who defended Wikileaks, and he'd probably defend Bitcoin, too, as well as other Internet related issues. But the USA political system seems very rotten anyway. I'm not sure even Ron Paul can do much. They'd either try to beat him into submission (figure of speech) to do what they want, or assassinate him (if he actually wants to do all the things he's been promoting - no wars, no federal reserve, small government, etc). I like this video about him (fan made): http://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/ http://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/ But I think the only thing that can save America right now is a major economic crash and a major drop of the dollar (to make them really prioritize the budget and to get people very angry with the system), followed by a revolution that will lead to overhauling the system. I think we need politicians to be a lot more accountable for their decisions, and we need a more direct way to send our feedback than just a vote every 4 years on one of the parties, and we need this all over the world, not just in USA.
- polyfractal 15y ago
  I would necessarily vote against anyone who supported Bitcoin as a valid financial instrument.
- curt 15y ago
  You don't need a 'crash' you need a correction to fix all the manipulations of the economy by the federal government. When the federal government subsidizes a product (housing, ethanol), taxes/regulates it to an extreme, or spends your money it creates an inefficiency in the economy. The other problem is the lose monetary policy of the Fed since Nixon took us off the gold standard, that also needs to be corrected. There has been one study I know of that showed a very strong correlation between tight, non-inflationary monetary policy and GDP growth over 200 years of American history. Politicians and the media rail on business and wall street for causing the problems, when nearly all the crashes in American history can be tied mostly to faulty federal monetary policy and exacerbated by legislative policy (Smoot-Hartley). The United States is not a democracy, it's a republic the founders knew the danger of mob rule. The solution to the problem are term limits, so politicians don't worry about their jobs and the next election, instead they worry about the people they represent. PS. Ron Paul is in Congress, Rand Paul his son is in the Senate. Ron Paul is also retiring after next year.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I'm just saying that I don't think the correction will come when things are still not that bad. Major changes happen in times of crisis, not when things go pretty well. Even if they start thinking about some corrections, the process will be way too slow and the changes will be minor. For example, when do you think it's more likely they reduce the Defense budget from 25% to say 15% or 10%. Right now? Or when the dollar will lose half of its value and un-employment will double? I think it's basically almost impossible to make them reduce the defense/military budgets without a major collapse and near-revolution situation like that.
  - actionbrandon 15y ago
    id like to read the study you cite that shows a correlation between tight monetary policy and GDP growth. can you link it? yes to term limits
- ForrestN 15y ago
  Ron Paul's approach to the economy is deeply unserious. If he were to implement his monetary program, especially right now, the economy would collapse. If the economy collapses, lots and lots of poor people in America will face very bad situations, and many around the world who rely on U.S. foreign aid will die. Even if we like libertarian views on the internet, please don't vote for Ron Paul.
  - actionbrandon 15y ago
    only those who are not ultra wealthy would be screwed if pauls policies were implemented. thats not to say i support keynesian ideology, either. i have met (an increaing amount) many people who somehow think they are set for a full economic collapse because they have "significant" amounts of their assets in gold. imo unless "significant" is in the 10s of millions, one can expect near instantaneous impoverishment.
olegious 15y ago
No, but I would vote for a "sense and reason" party that works toward a moderate agenda.
mindcrime 15y ago
I might vote for an Internet Party candidate, depending on their positions on multiple issues... but I would not blindly endorse somebody from such a party, based solely on their stance on 'net and tech issues. And that's even assuming I agree with their position on the 'net and tech stuff, which wouldn't be a given.

5 points by hoodoof 15y ago

Here's the idea: create a new political party whose policies are solely focused on issues relating the the Internet and technology. Would you vote for The Internet Party?

mooism2 15y ago

No, I wouldn't vote for a single issue party.

sixtofour 15y ago
Me neither, I expect an all-weather elected official.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Yes, I would. But I think Pirate Party covers the most important Internet issues pretty well already. Your next best thing in USA seems to be Ron Paul. He's one of the very few and maybe the only one in Senate who defended Wikileaks, and he'd probably defend Bitcoin, too, as well as other Internet related issues. But the USA political system seems very rotten anyway. I'm not sure even Ron Paul can do much. They'd either try to beat him into submission (figure of speech) to do what they want, or assassinate him (if he actually wants to do all the things he's been promoting - no wars, no federal reserve, small government, etc). I like this video about him (fan made): http://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/ http://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/ But I think the only thing that can save America right now is a major economic crash and a major drop of the dollar (to make them really prioritize the budget and to get people very angry with the system), followed by a revolution that will lead to overhauling the system. I think we need politicians to be a lot more accountable for their decisions, and we need a more direct way to send our feedback than just a vote every 4 years on one of the parties, and we need this all over the world, not just in USA.

polyfractal 15y ago
I would necessarily vote against anyone who supported Bitcoin as a valid financial instrument.
curt 15y ago
You don't need a 'crash' you need a correction to fix all the manipulations of the economy by the federal government. When the federal government subsidizes a product (housing, ethanol), taxes/regulates it to an extreme, or spends your money it creates an inefficiency in the economy. The other problem is the lose monetary policy of the Fed since Nixon took us off the gold standard, that also needs to be corrected. There has been one study I know of that showed a very strong correlation between tight, non-inflationary monetary policy and GDP growth over 200 years of American history. Politicians and the media rail on business and wall street for causing the problems, when nearly all the crashes in American history can be tied mostly to faulty federal monetary policy and exacerbated by legislative policy (Smoot-Hartley). The United States is not a democracy, it's a republic the founders knew the danger of mob rule. The solution to the problem are term limits, so politicians don't worry about their jobs and the next election, instead they worry about the people they represent. PS. Ron Paul is in Congress, Rand Paul his son is in the Senate. Ron Paul is also retiring after next year.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I'm just saying that I don't think the correction will come when things are still not that bad. Major changes happen in times of crisis, not when things go pretty well. Even if they start thinking about some corrections, the process will be way too slow and the changes will be minor. For example, when do you think it's more likely they reduce the Defense budget from 25% to say 15% or 10%. Right now? Or when the dollar will lose half of its value and un-employment will double? I think it's basically almost impossible to make them reduce the defense/military budgets without a major collapse and near-revolution situation like that.
- actionbrandon 15y ago
  id like to read the study you cite that shows a correlation between tight monetary policy and GDP growth. can you link it? yes to term limits
ForrestN 15y ago
Ron Paul's approach to the economy is deeply unserious. If he were to implement his monetary program, especially right now, the economy would collapse. If the economy collapses, lots and lots of poor people in America will face very bad situations, and many around the world who rely on U.S. foreign aid will die. Even if we like libertarian views on the internet, please don't vote for Ron Paul.
- actionbrandon 15y ago
  only those who are not ultra wealthy would be screwed if pauls policies were implemented. thats not to say i support keynesian ideology, either. i have met (an increaing amount) many people who somehow think they are set for a full economic collapse because they have "significant" amounts of their assets in gold. imo unless "significant" is in the 10s of millions, one can expect near instantaneous impoverishment.

olegious 15y ago

No, but I would vote for a "sense and reason" party that works toward a moderate agenda.

mindcrime 15y ago

I might vote for an Internet Party candidate, depending on their positions on multiple issues... but I would not blindly endorse somebody from such a party, based solely on their stance on 'net and tech issues. And that's even assuming I agree with their position on the 'net and tech stuff, which wouldn't be a given.