Peter
Hanely for Public Office
(do I really want
the headaches?)
Why should you support
me? Read a few of my positions.
Civilization
and Liberty
Liberty is practical only among civilized,
responsable people. Liberty may only extend so far as it does
not impose on the rights of others. Where a person, through
youth and inexperience, mental incapacity, or uncivilized
inclination, is unwilling or unable to conduct themselved in a
civilized manner, it is fitting to restrict their liberty.
The
role of Government
When people fail to live up to the
standards of civilization, it is necessary for government at some
level to step in. This 'government' may range from family
elders to centralized government authority. Action local to the
offender and offence are generally prefered. Excepting such
cases, government is best unobtrusive.
Drugs
The
illicit drugs most harmfull to society are those that render the user
mentally incompetant, and unable to exercise the judgement and self
control required of civilization. Civilization is justified in
restraining such people for their own good and it's
preservation. Those who conspire to sell the poisons which
render people less than human deserve to be apprehended and punished.
Gun
Control
Self defense is a fundemental human right.
Corolary, the right to keep and bare arms suited to exercise self
defence, which is pretty much any arm suited to directed and
controled damage. This does not apply to weapons of mass or
indescriminat destrustion. Nor should it apply to those whose
criminal actions have demonstrated hostility to civilization.
Taxes
Taxes
are an intrusion of government. While government is required to
uphold a large civilization against preditory elements, the
government should not itself be preditory. Forced transfer of
wealth for charitable purposes rewards behavior we'd rather have less
of, and punishes the productive.
Copyright and
'Intelectual Property'
'Intelectual Property' divides into
four areas, copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.
These areas are rightly exclusive, something covered in one area
having no protection in another. Excessive scope of these
'rights' is a government intrusion.
Sensable copyright would
be of limited term, require a declaration of copyright when the work
is made public, and be of narrow scope. The right to publish
(make and distrible copies) would be protected, and would cover close
derivities. Backups and format shifting would be legitimate
copies, legally tied to an authorized copy. Copyright would be
limited to creative works. Formats, protocols, and simple
congregations of data would be excluded.
Patents classically
are granded to methods and mechanisms which are novel, non-obvious,
and usefull. Being a government granted monopoly, it is proper
it be approved only where the invention would likely be unavailable
except for the inspiration and persperation of the inventor.
Patents on intangable methods (software, business methods) are a
tangled mess best avoided entirely.
Trademarks are identifying
marks for businesses and products. So long as the trademark is
used in a manner not likely to confuse, no infringement should be
considered to exist.
Trade Secrets may be protected by
contracts. Should a party not covered by such a contract
discover or reverse engineer the secret, nothing prevents them
from spreading the secret, except as might cover an unpublished
copyrightable work.
Lawsuit
Reform
One bane of modern american society is the preditary
lawsuit, which can cost thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on
up to defend against. Some of these suits are so silly that
even if everything alledged by the plaintiff were true they'd loose
the case. Reforms against this abuse must be ballanced against
the lawsuit as relief for legitimate grevience. In the right
direction:
Review case on filing, and dismiss if inactionable. The would be defendent is troubled by no more than a notice of case filed and dismissed.
On finding of frivolous case, the plaintiff would be liable for defence legal fees.
Penalize counsil for counciling clients against frivilous cases, thus wasting litigant and court time and money, possably including disbarment.
Enforce contempt of court/purjury for misrepresenting facts or dragging the case out beyond reason.
An election reform Proposal
The
voters shall be presented for each office under election a list of
candidates, and shall for each candidate have the choice to mark
approval or, by absence of mark, disapproval. Space shall be provided
for voters to make write in votes. A voter may mark approval for as
many or as few candidates as they wish. That candidate, or as
appropriate those candidates, with highest voted approval shall win
the election.
Arguments For
The
proposed change in voting procedure would:
allow voters to support minor candidates without distracting from the contest between major candidates.
defuse allegations in close races that a candidate won or lost because of the influence of a minor candidate.
provide a truer measure of the strength of minor parties, potentially allowing some to rise to major party status.
allow for clear resolution between three or more strong candidates. deal better with massive rosters of candidates.
As or Vs.
Instant Runoff:
This methods ability to deal with large
numbers of candidates, some of whom may attract shared supporters,
makes it usable where instant runoff is desired. It continues
to work properly where standard instant runoff systems become
unwieldly of limit the number of candidates a voter may express
support for.
Fiscal Impact:
Possible
minor costs associated with reconfiguration of voting equipment,
probably not beyond normal costs of election.
Legal scandals.
Recent 'Campaign
Finance Reform' law is an oppressive restriction of free speach,
specifically the right to criticise the misdeeds of goverment, during
the time before the election when such speach is most meanfull.
This was compounded when the supreme court upheld that constitutional
protections may be violated 'for public interest'. Far worse is
the recent decision extending eminant domain to the transfer of
property between private citizens for no greater public good than tax
revenues. It is vital for this nations future that the
apointments for fill current and upcoming court vacencies uphold the
constitution against such activision.