21-Day Exposure Period for Platform Vote #4
Gennady Stolyarov II
For its upcoming fourth Platform vote, the U.S. Transhumanist Party has received many suggestions from members. This exposure period is intended to encompass as many of these suggestions as possible. A vote will be scheduled on some or all of these items once they have been exposed for at least 21 days. For each item, a 7-day voting period is expected to be opened at the earliest at 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, May 7, 2017.
During the exposure period, please post your comments on this thread. If you post comments intended to be considered in voting and/or amending any of these planks in any other electronic medium, please note that you thereby give your consent to have your comments reproduced with attribution or linked within this discussion thread, in order to direct members’ attention and consideration to them.
After the exposure period, a 7-day electronic voting period will occur. Instructions for electronic voting will be sent to members of the U.S. Transhumanist Party via e-mail at that time. All individuals who are members of the U.S. Transhumanist Party as of the end of the exposure period and who have expressed agreement with its three Core Ideals will be eligible to vote thereafter. You can still vote if you become a member during the exposure period, so please apply here if you are interested. During the 7-day electronic voting period, you will still be able to become a member – but you will only be able to vote in subsequent elections, since we seek for voting on any given issue to be done by those members who have had an opportunity to thoroughly consider that issue and be involved in deliberations regarding it.
Electronic voting will be conducted by a ranked-preference method if more than a single option is presented for the wording of a particular plank or segment of a plank. Members will be able to rank-order their preferred selections on each individual Platform Section. The original text of each Section will be available for selection, as well as any reasonable amendments proposed by any member. Leadership of the Transhumanist Party reserves the right to edit any proposed amendment for correctness of spelling and grammar only – but not with regard to the substance, unless the person proposing the amendment requests or consents to a substantive edit. “No Section of this sort” will also be a choice, and any Section where a majority of votes favors this option will be not be adopted. Members will also be able to abstain from voting on any given Section.
The ranked-preference method has the advantage of eliminating a “winner-take-all” or “first-past-the-post” mentality and preventing people from being channeled into voting for sub-optimal choices (in their view) just because they fear an even less palatable alternative prevailing. Within the ranked-preference methodology, if no option obtains a clear majority as voters’ first choice, the option having the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated from consideration, and all those who voted for that option will have their votes assigned to their second-choice options. This process of elimination continues until one particular option has a clear majority of votes.
The Transhumanist Party encourages all members to participate in this process and for other transhumanists to sign up for membership during the exposure period.
The Section titles below are provisional and will be replaced with official numbers for each plank that is adopted. The Section titles are informational only and will not be included in the adopted versions of the platform planks.
Section E4-A. Protection of Level 5 Sentient Entities.
Option E4-A-1. [Based on Proposal by Daniel Yeluashvili]
The United States Transhumanist Party stands for the rights of any sentient entities defined in the Preamble to the Transhumanist Bill of Rights as possessing Level 5 or more advanced information integration. Any such sentient entities, including new kinds of sentient entities that may be discovered or developed in the future, shall be considered to be autonomous beings with full rights, and shall not be made subservient to humans, unless they as individuals pose direct, empirically evident threats to the lives of others. The protections of full individual rights shall extend to Level 5 or higher-level artificial intelligences. However, Level 4 or lower-level entities – including domain-specific artificial intelligences that have not achieved sentience – may be utilized as part of the production systems of the future, in a similar manner to machines, algorithms, computer programs, and non-human animals today and based on similar ethical considerations.
Option E4-A-2. [Based on Proposal by Daniel Yeluashvili, with Caveat Regarding Intentional Creation of Level 5 AIs]
The United States Transhumanist Party stands for the rights of any sentient entities defined in the Preamble to the Transhumanist Bill of Rights as possessing Level 5 or more advanced information integration. Any such sentient entities, including new kinds of sentient entities that may be discovered or developed in the future, shall be considered to be autonomous beings with full rights, and shall not be made subservient to humans, unless they as individuals pose direct, empirically evident threats to the lives of others. The protections of full individual rights shall extend to Level 5 or higher-level artificial intelligences. However, Level 4 or lower-level entities – including domain-specific artificial intelligences that have not achieved sentience – may be utilized as part of the production systems of the future, in a similar manner to machines, algorithms, computer programs, and non-human animals today and based on similar ethical considerations. Furthermore, the intentional creation of Level 5 or higher-level artificial intelligences should be restricted due to their status as human-level beings rather than simple tools, unless responsible safeguards from protecting that status can be established and maintained.
Section E4-B. Sousveillance
Language on Technologies to Monitor Police [Based on Proposal by Bart Davis]
Shall the following language be adopted as part of a new Section on the subject of sousveillance within the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform?
“The United States Transhumanist Party supports the use of technologies which increase monitoring of police action and policing activities, with expressed goals of increasing policing accountability.”
Select one of the following options.
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
☐ Abstain.
Language on Data Transmission Beyond Police Control [Based on Proposal by Steve Mann]
Shall the following language be adopted as part of a new Section on the subject of sousveillance within the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform?
“The United States Transhumanist Party advocates for a requirement that data pertaining to recordings of police action be transmitted and recorded beyond police control, so as to be protected from falsification, deletion, and selective curation by police.”
Select one of the following options.
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
☐ Abstain.
Language on Sousveillance Laws [Based on Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 2.0, Article XIV]
Shall the following language be adopted as part of a new Section on the subject of sousveillance within the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform?
“The United States Transhumanist Party holds that sousveillance laws should be enacted to ensure that all members of peaceful communities feel safe, to achieve governmental transparency, and to provide counter-balances to any surveillance state. For instance, law-enforcement officials, when interacting with the public, should be required to wear body cameras or similar devices continuously monitoring their activities.”
Select one of the following options.
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
☐ Abstain.
Section E4-C. Reduction of National Debt
Option E4-C-1. The United States Transhumanist Party considers it imperative to achieve reductions of the United States national debt in order to avoid calamitous scenarios of extreme inflation, default, and burdensome future tax increases on individuals. The United States Transhumanist Party supports the following measures to reduce the national debt:
[The question will allow members to select any, all, or none of the measures below, with any measure receiving a majority of the votes being included in the ultimately adopted plank.]Option E4-C-1-a. Elimination of wasteful federal spending on programs, goods, and services where equivalent positive results could be obtained through lower expenditures.
Option E4-C-1-b. Cessation of foreign military occupations and the return of American troops to be stationed exclusively on American territory.
Option E4-C-1-c. Replacement of all federal taxes with a single percentage-of-sales tax applicable only to purchases from large businesses, intended to be revenue-neutral but automatic in its operation and thereby compatible with seamless compliance and the elimination of the current extensive tax-compliance apparatus.
Option E4-C-1-d. Removal of barriers to technological innovation and technologically driven economic growth, such that a surge in such growth could increase federal revenues so as to generate increasing surpluses, as long as federal spending does not materially rise from current levels.
Option E4-C-1-e. Sales and leases of federally owned land, other than specific unique and distinguished landmarks, for residential, commercial, and philanthropic uses.
Option E4-C-1-f. Elimination of the current cumbersome system of federal contracting, which favors politically connected incumbent firms whose advantage consists of navigating the system, rather than performing the best possible work. Instead, all federal agencies should be empowered to purchase supplies and equipment and to requisition projects from any entity capable of satisfying an immediate need at a reasonable cost. Exclusive and preferential contracts for particular entities should be prohibited, and all payments by federal agencies for work by non-employees should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Option E4-C-1-g. Digitization of as many federal services and functions as possible – to eliminate the waste and expense of paperwork, physical queues, and legacy information technology systems.
Language on Mutually Appropriate Defense Treaties [Based on Proposal by Ryan Starr]
If Option E4-C-1-b is adopted, shall the following caveat be inserted?
“However, if a mutually appropriate defense treaty with another country requires the United States to station troops in that country, those troops would be allowed to remain there until the treaty obligations are fulfilled or reduced by mutual agreement with the affected country.”
Select one of the following options.
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
☐ Abstain.
Language on Reciprocity in the Stationing of Troops [Based on Proposal by Ryan Starr]
If Option E4-C-1-b is adopted, shall the following caveat be inserted?
“If the United States continues to station troops in any country due to mutually appropriate defense treaties, the United States Transhumanist Party supports greater reciprocity in allowing military personnel from that country to be stationed in the United States for purposes of training and information exchange.”
Select one of the following options.
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
☐ Abstain.
Section E4-D. Tax Reform and Simplification
Option E4-D-1. [Based on Section III of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform] The United States Transhumanist Party supports the elimination of graduated taxation and income taxation more generally. Instead, the United States Transhumanist Party advocates a flat percentage-of-sales tax applicable only to purchases from businesses whose combined nationwide revenues from all affiliates exceed a specified threshold. This tax should be built into the price of goods from such large businesses and should not impede transaction efficiency in any manner. Transactions pertaining to wages, salaries, gifts, donations, barter, employee benefits, and inheritances should remain completely untaxed, as should transactions involving solely individuals and/or small businesses, for whom the establishment of a tax-reporting infrastructure would be onerous. Furthermore, all taxes on land and property should be abolished.
Section E4-E. More Proportional Representation of Professions
Option E4-E-1. [Based on Section IX of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform] The United States Transhumanist Party supports more proportional representation of professions and occupations among legislative and executive government officials, instead of a system in which the plurality of political offices are held by attorneys. In particular, the United States Transhumanist Party holds that a greater proportion of politicians should possess training in mathematics, engineering, and the physical and biological sciences.
Section E4-F. Alternative Energy
Option E4-F-1. [Based on Section IX of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform] The United States Transhumanist Party supports emerging alternative energy sources and their technological implementations. However, the United States Transhumanist Party opposes government subsidies for any energy source – including fossil fuels. Instead, the United States Transhumanist Party holds that superior, cleaner, and more efficient energy sources will also tend to become less costly and more broadly adopted under a system of unfettered market competition and innovation.
Section E4-G. Transhumanist Olympics
Option E4-G-1. [Based on Section XVIII of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform] The United States Transhumanist Party supports the creation of a “Transhumanist Olympics” where augmentations and modifications of the human body would not disqualify persons from competing.
Option E4-G-2. [Based on Proposal by Daniel Yeluashvili] The United States Transhumanist Party supports the expansion of the Special Olympics to allow augmentations and modifications of the human body which would not disqualify persons from competing.
Section E4-H. Opposition to Secular Censorship
Option E4-H-1. [Based on Section XXVII of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform] In addition to its opposition to intolerant interpretations of religious doctrines, the United States Transhumanist Party is furthermore opposed to any interpretation of a secular, non-religious doctrine that results in the rejection of reason, censorship, violation of individual rights, suppression of technological advancement, and attempts to impose certain beliefs by force and/or by legal compulsion. Examples of such doctrines opposed by the United States Transhumanist Party include Stalinism, Maoism, Neo-Malthusianism or eco-primitivism, the death-acceptance movement, and the doctrine of censorship, now prevalent on many college campuses in the United States, in the name of “social justice”, combatting “triggers” or “microaggressions”, or avoiding subjectively perceived offense.
Section E4-I. Role of the U.S. President
Language on the Responsibility of the President [Based on Proposal by Martin van der Kroon]
Shall the following language be adopted as part of a new Section on the subject of the role of the U.S. President within the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform?
“The United States Transhumanist Party understands that the role of President comes with great power and responsibility towards all citizens equally, regardless of ethnicity, race, sex, gender, religious conviction or lack thereof, political position, or societal class. It is the United States Transhumanist Party’s view that the President, as an authority figure and head of state, should lead by example. The function of the President is to oversee and support the improvement of well-being for all United States citizens, and the welfare of the nation as a whole.”
Select one of the following options.
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
☐ Abstain.
Language on Reducing Executive Power
Shall the following language be adopted as part of a new Section on the subject of the role of the U.S. President within the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform?
“The United States Transhumanist Party recognizes that the power of the Executive Branch of the federal government has expanded far beyond the originally conceived Constitutional framework, so as to predominate over the Legislative and Judicial Branches, as well as over the institutions of civil society and individuals. The United States Transhumanist Party supports greatly curtailing and restricting the role of the U.S. President so as to confine that role within parameters originally conceived by the framers of the U.S. Constitution – particularly with regard to eliminating the unacceptable current prerogatives to unilaterally launch nuclear strikes and conduct military attacks, and to imprison, spy on, and assassinate Americans and others without due process.”
Select one of the following options.
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
☐ Abstain.
Section E4-J. Conflicts of Interest for Government Officials
Option E4-J-1. [Based on Proposal by Martin van der Kroon] The United States Transhumanist Party supports efforts to minimize conflicts of interest for government officials created by private businesses, religious institutions, not-for-profit organizations, special interest groups, and certain individuals. Some of the aforementioned entities currently exert improper influence by means of directly or indirectly providing incentives considered to have monetary value, or by granting special status or privileges to government officials for the purpose of exerting such improper influence.
Option E4-J-2. The United States Transhumanist Party supports efforts to minimize conflicts of interest for government officials created by private businesses, religious institutions, not-for-profit organizations, special interest groups, and certain individuals. However, the United States Transhumanist Party recognizes that the best way to minimize such conflicts of interest is not to micromanage the conduct of government officials – which can prevent petty improprieties but is inherently unable to avert the most damaging conflicts of interest among the highest echelons of power. Rather, the most promising solution is to reduce the scope of special economic privileges and protections that any government official would be capable of granting, thereby greatly diminishing the incentives of various special interests to even attempt to influence government officials.
Section E4-K. Uses of Government Funds
Option E4-K-1. [Based on Proposal by Martin van der Kroon] The United States Transhumanist Party understands that a necessary function of government is to responsibly allocate publicly generated funds obtained via taxes to increase the welfare of the nation and well-being of its citizens. The United States Transhumanist Party strongly supports efforts to allocate funds towards publicly accessible utilities, services, and research that result in an increase of well-being for its citizens in the short, medium, and long terms, with the understanding that government exists to serve the people, and should allocate funds wisely with the intent of maximizing value per dollar for the purpose of citizens’ well-being and the nation’s welfare.
Option E4-K-2. Irrespective of the means by which a government obtains its funds – be it from taxation or from other sources – the United States Transhumanist Party understands that a necessary function of government is to responsibly allocate such funds to protect the rights and increase the well-being of its citizens and other individuals within its jurisdiction. If a government requires the public to contribute to its funding, then the services, utilities, and research produced by that government should be easily and freely accessible to members of the public who have contributed such funds. Any government expenditure should be premised on the goal of increasing the well-being of citizens and other individuals within the government’s jurisdiction in the short, medium, and long terms, with the understanding that government exists to serve the people, and should allocate funds wisely with the intent of maximizing value per dollar for the purpose of protecting individuals’ rights and promoting their well-being.
Section E4-L. Use of Scientific Research to Support Laws
Option E4-L-1. [Based on Proposal by Martin van der Kroon] The United States Transhumanist Party supports efforts to have proposed laws accompanied by projections of expected results, including short-term, medium-term, and long-term effects. Such analysis should be based on scientific research and evidence and supported by the scientific and/or academic community with relevant subject-matter expertise. The intent is to have laws proposed to be created for the present day, and for such laws to function or improve in the future.
Section E4-M. Appointments of Supreme Court Justices
Option E4-M-1. [Based on Proposal by Martin van der Kroon] The United States Transhumanist Party supports efforts to depoliticize the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, and to further incentivize their impartiality toward political viewpoints.
Section E4-N. Simplification of Law
Option E4-N-1. [Based on Proposal by Martin van der Kroon] The United States Transhumanist Party supports efforts to revisit, condense, and simplify the law, with a focus on resolving issues among conflicting laws and closing illogical loopholes within the law.
23 thoughts on “21-Day Exposure Period for Platform Vote #4”
Hello,
Under Section E4-J. Conflicts of Interest for Government Officials, Option E4-J-2; Would this include the ability to propose Bills being proposed that grant special economic privileges and protections? If a special interest would be approved, for example by it being hidden on page 78 (Easter egg reference to Monsanto), would it defacto be considered void?
Furthermore, I like this option a lot! Of course depending on how it is implemented, it could make the donation and lobby rules for Senate and House almost obsolete, and indeed it requires much less managing.
Greetings, Mr. van der Kroon.
Yes, it was indeed my intent with Option E4-J-2 to encompass any bills that would privilege special economic interests. If governments do not have the power (through legislation, special personal favors, or otherwise) to tilt the economic playing field in favor of some firms which might be closer to the decision-makers, then there would be less scope for corruption. This may ultimately require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Much like the First Amendment has stood in the ways on many potential laws that could have restricted freedom of speech, so would a prohibition on politically motivated special economic favors serve as an obstacle for the consideration of laws that create subsidies, barriers to competition, or guaranteed privileges for certain firms at the expense of the liberty of others.
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II,
Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
On the topic of sousvelleilance, I would like to see the language extended past law enforcement. I think it should include any government employee or elected official, to include the court room.
I agree. This ensures that we can verify claims of inappropriate interaction. I think such sousvelleilance should also be employed for members of government during negotiations and meetings between governments, and with companies, or other persons of interest as a show of transparency. I’m sure there would be some national security exceptions where it can’t be made public, but could still be recorded for review purposes in case of misconduct.
What do you think?
I’m a former intel (SIGINT) dude, so keep this in mind when reading. Keeping things secret for “national security” purposes is often used as an excuse just to not be transparent when they should. We label a ton of things as secret or higher when there really isn’t a need just because of HOW it was collected. Based on many of our current planks, it seems to me that our technology should be made publically known, so that data shouldn’t be classified solely based on collection platform.
On the other hand, recording any truly sensitive conversation leaves it accessible for hacking, no matter how secure you try to make it. This could be particularly dangerous for HUMINT sources.
I think there needs to be a broader discussion on what truly needs to be secure and what doesn’t. With that, we need to create detailed definitions and guidance. Perhaps a separate plank for HOW we determine what needs to be classified and what doesn’t.
I fully agree that the label “national security” is used way too broadly/ abused. I indeed intended sensitive conversations.
I also agree that this is a discussion that needs to happen. I’d be a proponent of ‘it’s open to the public unless specified otherwise’, where ‘specified’ would indeed need to follow some rules, rather than an unsubstantiated ‘It’s classified, but I can’t tell you why because that is also classified’ claim.
I think that with your background you might have some solid suggestions?
I could work on a separate plank, but I really want to see what others say on the openess of technology side.
Do you mean openness of technology itself, such as open-source, or the openness/transparency of government and the extent of this?
Transparency of what capabilities we have
That indeed is an interesting question. I think a deeper question underneath is; ‘How do we view other nations (and such), and how to we treat them?’
At the moment many countries seem to view others as frenemies mostly. I’m not intending here to conjure up some idealistic world, but rather question whether how we view the world guides our thoughts and actions, for example regarding secrecy.
What I would like to see is a new proposed plank regarding transparency of government deliberations and functions. The plank on sousveillance primarily pertains to creating a check on law-enforcement activities that can pose a risk of violent bodily harm and deprivation of basic human freedoms. Transparency for governments more broadly is intended to fulfill somewhat different purposes – for instance, minimizing possibilities for corruption and ensuring that decision-making is not covertly controlled by politically connected special interests through back-channels.
I would encourage Mr. Starr and Mr. van der Kroon to collaborate on potential plank wordings that would address governmental transparency and also the question Mr. Starr raised of what should and what should not be classified. I think there are at least two potential planks contained in those subject areas, which we could expose for our fifth exposure period later in May, if they are developed by that time.
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II,
Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
Thank you Mr. Stolyarov. I am happy to ponder on the governmental transparency planks, and I would be delighted to work together with Mr. Starr on this.
I will respond soon with some ideas.
I will post the ideas for more accountability and recording in the May Discussion post.
I think this section also needs a revision:
Option E4-C-1-b. Cessation of foreign military occupations and the return of American troops to be stationed exclusively on American territory.
This needs to address when another country has a mutually beneficial defense treaty that requires a foreign station.
Or a mutually appropriate defense treaty. I bring this up for situations like Japan. We are bound to protect them because of post ww2 demilitarization. No friend of China or North Korea, Japan requires a US military presence for self defense. Until they can establish a large enough defense force of their own.
One more option would be to allow foreign militaries on US soil in exchange.Our current ‘exchange officer’ program is by no means even handed.
I think this would still help cut military spending significantly (as passed in another Plank) while at the same time creating less of an image of ‘sticking our noses everywhere’ and instead showing willingness to cooperate on more equal terms. So from a foreign policy and image standpoint it could be beneficial too.
In response to the suggestions by Mr. Ryan Starr, I have added two potential qualifying wordings that members would be able to vote on:
Language on Mutually Appropriate Defense Treaties
If Option E4-C-1-b is adopted, shall the following caveat be inserted?
“However, if a mutually appropriate defense treaty with another country requires the United States to station troops in that country, those troops would be allowed to remain there until the treaty obligations are fulfilled or reduced by mutual agreement with the affected country.”
***
Language on Reciprocity in the Stationing of Troops
If Option E4-C-1-b is adopted, shall the following caveat be inserted?
“If the United States continues to station troops in any country due to mutually appropriate defense treaties, the United States Transhumanist Party supports greater reciprocity in allowing military personnel from that country to be stationed in the United States for purposes of training and information exchange.”
***
I am doubtful that stationing foreign troops in the United States would help alleviate excessive federal spending – but I will leave it to members to choose whether this would be a prudent policy position.
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II,
Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
Regarding Section E-4A, I would also add that the intentional creation of Level 5 AIs should be restricted due to their status as human-level beings rather than simple tools. Also, regarding E-4G, the concept of “Transhumanist Olympics” could also be consolidated into the Special Olympics.
Everything looks good; I’m looking forward to the vote.
In response to the suggestion by Mr. Daniel Yeluashvili, I have added Option E4-G-2, which would read as follows: “The United States Transhumanist Party supports the expansion of the Special Olympics to allow augmentations and modifications of the human body which would not disqualify persons from competing.”
The main difference is that Option E4-G-1 would advocate for the establishment of a new Transhumanist Olympics, whereas Option E4-G-2 would incorporate transhumanist augmentations into the existing Special Olympics.
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II,
Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
I have also added an Option E4-A-2, which includes the wording of Option E4-A-1, along with the caveat mentioned by Mr. Yeluashvili, phrased as follows:
“Furthermore, the intentional creation of Level 5 or higher-level artificial intelligences should be restricted due to their status as human-level beings rather than simple tools, unless responsible safeguards from protecting that status can be established and maintained.”
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II,
Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
Respectfully, I don’t see the point of this motion, as it seems redundant. Level 5 entities are already protected as parts of Articles I – V of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights V 2.0. The articles protect sentient entities and the preamble states: “Sentience is ranked as Level 5 information integration.”
Greetings, Daniel Fernandes.
The distinction here is that the Transhumanist Bill of Rights is an aspirational statement of the rights that would be recognized by a future transhumanist society – whereas the Platform contains the policy positions that it would be desirable to take on the way to that society, whether in the near term (as is the case for many of our planks) or at a more advanced stage of the transition (as would be the case if/when humankind develops the capability to create Level 5 sentient entities). I see the Transhumanist Bill of Rights as a vision of the future we seek to achieve, whereas the Platform is a more detailed roadmap of how we get from here to there.
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II,
Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
I have added the following language for potential inclusion within Section E4-B, as recommended by Mr. Steve Mann:
“The United States Transhumanist Party holds that sousveillance laws should be enacted to ensure that all members of peaceful communities feel safe, to achieve governmental transparency, and to provide counter-balances to any surveillance state. For instance, law-enforcement officials, when interacting with the public, should be required to wear body cameras or similar devices continuously monitoring their activities.”
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II,
Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party