›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Pragmatic Rationalist Party

RymRym
edited December 2009 in Politics
As you all know, I'm working toward forming a national political party dedicated to the pragmatic execution of rational policies at all levels of government. It is mere months away from being at the point where our initial founding convention can be held. As the party's core platform solidifies, I am getting to the point where I need input from interested parties such as yourselves.

Particularly, I would like to know your thoughts in response to the following questions:


1. What should some of the stated goals of our society be? Specifically, at the highest level, how can we codify the results we should try to achieve, irrespective of the means?

2. What specific issues (at any level of government) could or should be used as example issues in deeply analyzing how the party's ideology would address them?

3. What suggestions do you have for the final name of the party? The working title is "The Pragmatic Rationalist Party."

4. (Poll) Would you be interested in attending either the founding convention or a policy convention in the New York City area in the Spring?
«134567

Comments

  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    As you all know, I'm working toward forming a national political party
    Are you serious about this, even in the slightest sense?
  • RymRym
    edited December 2009
    Are you serious about this, even in the slightest sense?
    I spent months researching all of the financial and legal requirements to form a national political party. The move put it all on hold, but now that I'm settling, I'm picking it back up.

    To start, the party cannot accept donations and cannot donate to individual politicians (until I find someone to take on the burden of treasurer), but it will exist with a platform (which is almost complete). In a few weeks, I will post the draft platform here.

    I am dead serious about this. I just have to tread carefully unless/until I either hire a lawyer and accountant or get some pro bono services.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Are you serious about this, even in the slightest sense?
    I spent months researching all of the financial and legal requirements to form a national political party. The move put it all on hold, but now that I'm settling, I'm picking it back up.

    To start, the party cannot accept donations and cannot donate to individual politicians (until I find someone to take on the burden of treasurer), but it will exist with a platform (which is almost complete). In a few weeks, I will post the draft platform here.

    I am dead serious about this.
    I'm just sayin'. You guys couldn't put together a web-shop to sell T-Shirts. I think a national political party might be setting your sights a little high.

    Maybe you could try to fund the party by selling T-Shirts.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited December 2009
    1. What should some of the stated goals of our society be? Specifically, at the highest level, how can we codify the results we should try to achieve, irrespective of the means?
    To develop a strong public education system whose curriculum is founded on a core of true critical thinking.
    2. What specific issues (at any level of government) could or should be used as example issues in deeply analyzing how the party's ideology would address them?
    You could take a shot at the problem of various states letting Intelligent Design materials be taught in a scientific classroom and how that situation could be rectified to improve the quality of education that children are receiving. I would say it would be a good way to leverage the idea of a nationwide philosophy curriculum; ID discussion doesn't belong in a science classroom, but it could be taught in a philosophy class where it is properly and critically considered.
    3. What suggestions do you have for the final name of the party? The working title is "The Pragmatic Rationalist Party."
    "Pragmatic Rationalist" is too elitist-sounding, and while we certainly are elitist jerks, I don't think you want the party name to convey this. How about something like, "The Party for Meaningful Reform?"

    EDIT: Joe's got a point. Maybe you could try starting this as a surreptitious political movement. I mean, the Teabaggers are the closest modern group that are anywhere close to forming a political party, and look at how large they are and how much noise they make. I do feel as though there are steps to take yet.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • RymRym
    I think a national political party might be setting your sights a little high.
    It's actually easier. ^_~ All I have to do is keep the books straight. I'm also much more motivated in politics than I am on merchant accounts.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Assuming The Rising Wind party is out. All I can offer is The Proof and Truth party.

    It'd be fun to see where this goes. Even if it takes longer than my lifetime to make a difference, it might be worth it.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited December 2009
    I think a national political party might be setting your sights a little high.
    It's actually easier.
    Organizing a national political party is easier than selling T-Shirts? That really gives me a high degree of confidence in your party's eventual success.
    3. What suggestions do you have for the final name of the party? The working title is "The Pragmatic Rationalist Party."
    "Pragmatic Rationalist" is too elitist-sounding, and while we certainly are elitist jerks, I don't think you want the party name to convey this. How about something like, "The Party for Meaningful Reform?"
    You need to have a name that will look good on the T-Shirts you won't sell and will appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to ensure popularity.

    Suggestions:

    Techno-Facist Fun Boys

    Fight for Your Right to Party Party

    Keg Party

    Toga Party

    Frat Party

    Anti-Terminator Party

    Partisans for terminator Reform

    Puppies and Unicorns Party
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    The problem with naming your party any of those things, is that you need to stand for the complete opposite of what your name would suggest. Just look at the Constitution Party for an example of that.
  • RymRym
    The problem with naming your party any of those things, is that you need to stand for the complete opposite of what your name would suggest. Just look at the Constitution Party for an example of that.
    You're right. Henceforth, the party will be known as "The Irrational Homeopathic Genocide Party."
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    When can we expect to see a shop to by party t-shirts and bumper stickers?
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    "The Irrational Homeopathic Genocide Party."
    Gold!
  • Dr. TimoDr. Timo
    edited December 2009
    1. "Science! It works, bitches!" or something to that effect.
      • Proportional voting in all elections / Gerrymandering.
      • Separation of corporate and political life á la separation of church and state (much in the vein of Lawernce Lessig's new project).
      • Transparency, Openness and Competence in Government (this should be in 1))
    3. "Pirate Party" would get you a lot of free national and international publicity, but probably you'll end up shooting yourself in the leg in the long run.
    4. Yes but I am disqualified based on living in a more awesome country ;-).
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • GeoGeo
    When can we expect to see a shop to by party t-shirts and bumper stickers?
    Yeah seriously? I'm interested into seeing what will come of this and are interested in the contents of this draft you will be posting soon.
  • RymRym
    Yes but I am disqualified based on living in a more awesome country ;-).
    We would actually be barred from even accepting donations from you in many cases. ^_~

    The biggest hurdle I'm running into is the accounting. All of the rest of the legal aspects of founding a party are pretty simple, and the platform/everything else is the cool, interesting part that is up for debate.
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited December 2009
    Yes but I am disqualified based on living in a more awesome country ;-).
    We would actually be barred from even accepting donations from you in many cases. ^_~

    The biggest hurdle I'm running into is the accounting. All of the rest of the legal aspects of founding a party are pretty simple, and the platform/everything else is the cool, interesting part that is up for debate.
    I've found the most annoying aspect of any organization is the accounting... Ever wonder why most accountants are dicks.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • SailSail
    edited December 2009
    At the very least, I'll now have something to plug into that pesky "Political Views" box on Facebook.

    Although, I do have one question. Will this party have official "views" on issues besides the ones mentioned, like abortion? Because if this party's main belief is that only rationality can be used to solve a problem, then there can be no consensus on an issue like that. Sure, you can look at when a, unborn child's brain starts functioning, heart starts beating, etc., but just based on that data you can't rationally declare when a baby ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a human with rights. Therefore, it seems like, for a lot of issues, the only intellectually honest stance for such a party to take would be to remain "agnostic" on the issue.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • RymRym
    edited December 2009
    Because if this party's main belief is that only rationality can be used to solve a problem, then there can be no consensus on an issue like that. Sure, you can look at when a pre-birth child's brain starts functioning, heart starts beating, etc., but just based on that data you can't rationally declare when a baby ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a human with rights. Therefore, it seems like, for a lot of issues, the only intellectually honest stance for such a party to take would be to remain "agnostic" on the issue.
    You're forgetting the other word: pragmatic.

    The basic ideological underpinning of the party is that a government should only enact policies that verifiably further its stated goals. The goals must be agreed upon, and once decided (for any given issue), then debate can move solely into means of implementation.

    In the case of abortion, we can agree on a goal, prioritize it relative to other goals, and then implement a policy to further said goal. By default, if nothing is gained and no goal is furthered by a restriction, then said restriction should not exist. If one of our goals is self-determination for capable adults, we can reasonably argue that there is no logical reason to ban abortion for said adults. The only real arguments against most abortion rights are from unsound theological positions, not rational or observable ones. A rational actor who opposed abortion would allow others to have abortions, but simply not have one themself. There is nothing to be gained by preventing others from having abortions, and in fact one could argue that unwanted children are less cared for, causing a negative impact.

    All issues, no matter what they are, can be considered rationally and pragmatically. You set a goal, and then set a policy to further it. If said policy does not further said goal, you alter said policy. If your goal changes, your policy changes in kind.

    All rationalism means is basing your decisions on evidence and observation. All pragmatism means is that you go with what works over what is ideologically sound. Ideologically, as a society, we may well not want people to abuse drugs. But practically, our current policies to discourage drug abuse cause more problems than the drugs themselves, and don't appear to be furthering our goal. It may well be that reducing or altering the penalties for drug use (against the ideology) could do more to further the goal (reducing drug abuse) than following the ideology strictly (banning drugs unilaterally).

    Pragmatism and Rationalism. These are the basis of all intelligent decisions.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • CremlianCremlian
    0.0025% of the population will win us elections!
  • DiagorasDiagoras
    edited December 2009
    1. What should some of the stated goals of our society be?
    a) The repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
    b) Strict enforcement of anti-trust law.
    c) The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't ask, don't tell."
    d) An amendment to the constitution to enforce network neutrality and to ban censorship of the Internet.
    e) An amendment to the constitution to define a specific, reasonable term for copyright.
    Post edited by Diagoras on
  • GeoGeo
    1. What should some of the stated goals of our society be?
    a) The repeal of theGramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
    b) Strict enforcement of anti-trust law.
    c) The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't ask, don't tell."
    d) An amendment to the constitution to enforce network neutrality and to ban censorship of the Internet.
    e) An amendment to the constitution to define a specific, reasonable term for copyright.
    All that.
  • AprecheApreche
    d) An amendment to the constitution to enforce network neutrality and to ban censorship of the Internet.
    e) An amendment to the constitution to define a specific, reasonable term for copyright.
    Two really stupid ideas. This is not what a constitutional amendment is for.
    a) The repeal of theGramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
    You want some law to be repealed. Do you really understand this law, what it means, and the full breadth of consequences are for having it/not having it?
  • GeoGeo
    d) An amendment to the constitution to enforce network neutrality and to ban censorship of the Internet.
    e) An amendment to the constitution to define a specific, reasonable term for copyright.
    Two really stupid ideas. This is not what a constitutional amendment is for.
    a) The repeal of theGramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
    You want some law to be repealed. Do you really understand this law, what it means, and the full breadth of consequences are for having it/not having it?
    This is rare. You actually expressing an interest in politics?
  • AndrewAndrew
    This is rare. You actually expressing an interest in politics?
    He's just pointing out the obvious. So no, it's not rare.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Fix DSHEA?
    Disclaimer:
    Do you really understand this law, what it means, and the full breadth of consequences are for having it/not having it?
    No. I am not a lawyer.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    edited December 2009
    I would be willing to attend the founding convention in the spring, but that wholly depends on WHEN exactly it is. Business is picking up, so if you can give me a particular date, I can determine my ability to go and begin putting money aside for tickets, expenses, etc.

    EDIT: Although, to be completely honest, My primary motivation to attend would be to be able to say "Hey, I was there." and to meet you awesome people.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    edited December 2009
    As it's obscenely late (or early, I suppose), I'll just add my two cents in regards to general platforms:

    1. Education. Gotdamn. Critical thinking etc.
    2. Lack of government support for craziness / religion (ties in with "Separation of Church and State" and bullshit "medicine")
    3. Rational foreign policy, free from jingoism and "preemptive" war.
    4. Open and transparent government.
    5. Codification of laws (a monumental task, but it would help a lot in the long term)
    6. A strong, modern grid (utilities like power, water, and waste, as well as phone and internet) that isn't at the whims of local monopolies
    7. Food safety/quality regulation, which would (probably) cut down on our terribly large obesity rate and other health issues.

    There's more, but those are issues that seem pretty important to me.

    Also, I would love to attend the first convention, and we should design some sort of logo (after the name, of course). Might I suggest the "Common Sense Party," or simply the "Rational(ist) Party?"
    Post edited by YoshoKatana on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Fully support the open and transparent government plank of the platform. All meetings of elected officials should be open and recorded.
  • RymRym
    I should note that high level goals are the focus, not implementation details. Don't say "we should repeal/amend X law." Say "we should strive for Y result." Don't tell me how you want to do something, tell me what you want to do. We have to debate the high-level goals before we even consider the realities of achieving them. What is the intended result of our policy and legislation? What are we truly striving for? What should we truly be striving for?
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited December 2009
    1. No philosophical or political idea should not be disregarded without a rational look at the idea's merit in comparison to other solutions. (I.E. repeal laws that give a unfair basis to the two major political parties)

    2. Laws and Policies should be looked at on a short term and long term basis (I.E. Will taking money from the S.S. fund in the short term, cause the S.S. fund to dry up or be unfunded in the long term)

    3. All problems have more then two solutions. (No us vs them, their policy is evil)

    4. There is nothing inherently evil about Capitalism or Socialism rather these systems fail due to corruption and human failing. Regulation is a necessary thing but should be carried out intelligently and as non-invasive as possible.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    Expand the train systems to make them more viable means of commuting/transport for more people.
Sign In or Register to comment.