24-Day Exposure Period for Platform Vote #7

24-Day Exposure Period for Platform Vote #7


Gennady Stolyarov II

For its upcoming seventh Platform vote, the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party (USTP) has received a large volume of suggestions from members. This exposure period is intended to encompass the most salient of these suggestions. The forthcoming Platform vote is intended to “catch up” on the processing of suggestions that could not be immediately addressed due to limited resources in the course of the 2019 Presidential Primary season. It is likely that additional Platform votes will follow in early 2020 to address remaining items of interest to the USTP membership.

A vote will be scheduled on some or all of these items once they have been exposed for at least 24 days. For each item, a 7-day voting period is expected to be opened at the earliest on Wednesday, December 25, 2019.

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 / Transhuman 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 U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party reserves the right to edit any proposed amendment for correctness of spelling and grammar. “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 U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman 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 E7-A. Opposition to Autonomous Weapons

Option E7-A-1. [Based on Suggestion by Mike DiVerde and Dan Elton] The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party opposes any development or deployment of weapons systems that are capable of killing or injuring human beings in the absence of an explicit command by a human being to take action in every specific instance. Autonomous drones, vehicles, or other combat systems may not be permitted to make life-or-death decisions on the basis of a program, algorithm, predictive model, or any other means other than a specific decision by a human being who is closely familiar with the circumstances surrounding any given military situation. Accordingly, the United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and other initiatives to abolish all autonomous weapons and preclude the development of such weapons.

Section E7-B. Ectogenesis

Option E7-B-1. The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports research into the process of ectogenesis, the ability of organisms to be incubated and to grow to the point of independent survival, within an artificial environment that provides such organisms with all the necessities of biological survival and development. Furthermore, the United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports the widespread deployment and use of the technology of ectogenesis once such technology becomes safe and practical. Ectogenesis has the potential to benefit humans and other species alike, restoring extinct species and bolstering the numbers of endangered species, as well as alleviating the burdens of human pregnancy and rendering the divisive debate over abortion obsolete by reconciling the right to life of a fetus with the freedom of a woman to choose not to carry that fetus.

Section E7-C. Elimination of Caps on Scientific Expenditures

Option E7-C-1. [Based on Suggestion by John Marlowe] The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports any relaxation or elimination on caps in the United States federal budget regarding spending on peaceful scientific and technological research, including research in medicine and public health. Funding for science that can improve the human condition should not be subject to the vagaries of partisan political standoffs over the federal budget. Accordingly, the United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports the Raise the Caps initiative and any other elimination of artificial restrictions of the allocations of funding to peaceful scientific and technological projects.

Section E7-D. Improved Reporting of Law-Enforcement Misconduct

Option E7-D-1. [Based on Suggestion by Martin van der Kroon]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports efforts to give citizens more accessible and safer ways to report misconduct, corruption, constitutional rights violations, international human rights violations, and other similar infractions by police, including local police departments, as well as by federal law-enforcement agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to an investigative organization, whether civilian in nature or a special investigative department within the judicial system.

Such efforts could, for example, involve having a mandate that every police department and federal law-enforcement agency website have a ‘banner’ on its website that allows citizens to report misbehavior by said police department or federal law-enforcement agency. Reporting of misbehavior would not inhibit any constitutional rights, such as filing a lawsuit.

If a valid complaint is found after investigation, this could result in a fine, a reduction of funding, or a reduction of salary for the responsible officials as a means of punishment. Said money would be allocated back to the relevant level of government to increase the well-being of citizens.

A periodical report of all reported missteps by law-enforcement agencies should be made publicly available, including breakdowns of valid and invalid claims, as well as reports per region, among other useful breakdowns.

Section E7-E. Requirement for Educational Institutions That Receive Federal Funding to Reduce Administrative Costs

Option E7-E-1. [Based on Suggestion by Martin van der Kroon]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports a requirement that any educational institution that receives federal funding must greatly reduce its expenditures on internal bureaucracy and administration, in part by eliminating the requirement for students to complete any hard-copy paperwork and by enabling ubiquitous free, electronic completion and submission of all required forms.

Section E7-F. Requirement for Educational Institutions That Receive Federal Funding to Publish Research Free of Charge to the General Public

Option E7-F-1. The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports a requirement that any educational institution that receives federal funding must openly publish all even partially federally funded research produced by that institution in readily downloadable electronic format without any cost to the general public, including any paywalls or access fees from academic journals that feature such research. This requirement would not apply to research projects solely supported by private funds or which do not require funding altogether; in those circumstances, the direct authors of such research would retain copyright to it and the ability to publish it in the manner they see fit.

Section E7-G. Prohibition of Police from Carrying Military-Grade Hardware

Option E7-G-1. [Based on Suggestion by Martin van der Kroon]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports a prohibition against police being equipped with military-grade hardware, including assault weapons, military armored vehicles, or any other offensive equipment primarily designed for battlefield use.

Section E7-H. Requirement for Police to Use Rubber Bullets as Standard Ammunition

Option E7-H-1. [Based on Suggestion by Martin van der Kroon]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports a requirement for police to be equipped with rubber bullets as standard ammunition and only to use regular, lethal bullets in situations where there is an immediate and previously known threat to the safety of members of the general public. More generally, police should be trained to use every possible technique for non-lethal incapacitation of offenders, prior to any recourse to lethal force.

Section E7-I. Encouragement for Police to Use Electric Vehicles

Option E7-I-1. [Based on Suggestion by R. Nicholas Starr]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports efforts to encourage police departments to use electric vehicles. This would have the advantages of reducing emissions of pollutants into the air, as well as moving police forces away from militarized vehicles, which are less likely to be electrically powered.

Section E7-J. Tracking of Police Violations of Traffic Laws

Option E7-J-1. [Based on Suggestion by Martin van der Kroon]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports the installment of monitoring systems in police vehicles to track whether the police are violating traffic laws, with the exception of situations where speeding or other technical infractions may be necessary to apprehend other known or suspected violators or criminal offenders. The ability of police to violate traffic laws with impunity is damaging to public perception, as law enforcement should first and foremost set an example for society to follow. By holding law enforcement accountable for minor infractions such as traffic violations, it will be possible to develop a police force that serves as an example to the public.

Section E7-K. Path to Legalization of Current Immigrants

Option E7-K-1. [Based on Suggestion by Jennifer Huse]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports efforts to provide a path to legalization for all current undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States, free of restrictions based on country of origin, economic status, education, length of residency, or any other criteria, other than history of violent criminal activity.

Section E7-L. Elimination of Detention of Immigrants for Non-Violent Infractions

Option E7-L-1. [Based on Suggestion by Jennifer Huse]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports efforts to end detention of all migrants for immigration violations not related to violent crimes. All current people serving jail terms for immigration issues with no additional crimes involved with the arrest must be released, and the path to citizenship started immediately. Those for whom an additional charge was involved would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with serious infractions – such as any violent offenses – potentially justifying additional detainment.

Section E7-M. Streamlining of Immigration Process

Option E7-M-1. [Based on Suggestion by Jennifer Huse]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports measures to modernize and streamline the immigration process and eliminate the backlogs for those already in the queue. The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party advocates simplifying the documentation process, eliminating all requirements for filling out hard-copy paperwork, and utilizing technology to cut wait times and bureaucratic delays.

Section E7-N. Abolition of Private Prisons and Detention Facilities

Option E7-N-1. [Based on Suggestion by Jennifer Huse, with Expansions]

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports the immediate abolition of all private prison facilities and the termination of arrangements with private contractors for detention or immigration and border enforcement. Punishment for crimes, expect for situations of self-defense from the immediate commission of a crime, should be a function reserved for government alone and should never involve a profit motive, which creates incentives to artificially inflate the appearance of criminal behavior and the punishment of lesser infractions. In order to preserve the capacity for inmates and detainees to be housed in humane conditions, the United States Federal Government, as well as State and local governments, should have the prerogative to appropriate the facilities previously used by private prisons and private detention contractors, after providing appropriate one-time compensation for the property involved.

Section E7-O. Federal Land Dividend

Option E7-O-1.

The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party supports the establishment of a federal land dividend, whereby currently unused federal lands, with the exception of national parks and notable landmarks, will be leased to private corporations that agree to operate in an environmentally conscientious manner, with the proceeds of the lease funding a universal basic income for the United States population.

Proposed Amendments to Existing Planks

Members will be given the option to either retain existing language of a plank or to adopt any of the listed proposed amendments. Ranked-preference voting will be conducted for any Section for which more than one amendment has been proposed. Members will also be able to abstain from each vote.

1. Amendments to Section XVI on Universal Basic Income to Align with Version 3.0 of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights

Current Version of Section XVI. Given the inevitability of technology eventually replacing the need for the labor of sentient entities, the United States Transhumanist Party holds that all sentient entities should be the beneficiaries of an unconditional universal basic income, whereby the same minimum amount of money or other resources is provided irrespective of a sentient entity’s life circumstances, occupations, or other income sources, so as to provide a means for the basic requirements of existence and liberty to be met.

Amendment XVI-1. [Revision to Align with Article XIX Version 3.0 of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights]

Irrespective of whether or not technology will eventually replace the need for the labor of sentient entities, the United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party holds that all sentient entities should be the beneficiaries of an unconditional universal basic income, whereby the same minimum amount of money or other resources is provided irrespective of a sentient entity’s life circumstances, occupations, or other income sources, so as to provide a means for the basic requirements of existence and liberty to be met.

16 thoughts on “24-Day Exposure Period for Platform Vote #7

  1. A firearm is a firearm. “Rubber bullets” if use of force is warranted (which it needs to be CAREFULLY considered and in accordance with open rules of engagement) are folly for anyone who has ever done any sort of defensive training.

    Those who are facing the people doing the job will not be so constrained.

    I do not like our current culture of police violence, but I do not support hamstringing legitimate law enforcement operation or the individuals doing said work.

    Similar things can be said about most of the rest (“assault weapons” etc) – a firearm is a firearm. The issue is that the police should not be allowed any item that the populace is not allowed to possess since police power is derived from the people’s.

    If continuum of force calls for a rifle, a rifle is a rifle.

  2. I agree with Robert Furtkamp on the issue of rubber bullets. Personally, if the technology was available I would prefer police having energy weapons that have the option of stun or kill. I am kind of surprised though that Johannon Ben-Zion’s idea for legalizing sex workers is not up for a vote. This an excellent idea I think but whores/prostitutes should have to file for a state license and or federal license to take away the likelihood that the police would want to know if the person is actually being used by a pimp to prostitute. I believe that each human has the right to do with his or her body as he or she sees fit. With prostitution, it should be legalized and each prostitute should be licensed state or federal level. I think police body cameras should be on here and up for a vote. Police on duty and off duty should have them on at all times and should be held accountable what they do on or off duty. The video and audio should be controlled by an outside party that is not part of law enforcement or something like internal affairs to reduce possible corruption and tampering with the cameras and their content.

    1. Pertaining to the monitoring of police activity regarding body-cams, Section XXXIV of the USTP deals with this. 🙂

  3. 3 Points for this or another ballot:

    1: The abolishing of servitude (e.g. popularly said to be slavery) in the prison system. Incarcerated individuals should have the option to work/provide service, possibly positively motivated to do so.

    2: Incarcerated individuals could be motivated to work as part of rehabilitation into society, have part of their earnings placed into a fund accruing interest for the state, and partially for them as a means to help them reintegrate into society upon release by not being without financial means.
    Obviously it is not the intention to have incarcerated individuals accrue any significant wealth, but rather give them a means to restart their life and lower the recidivism rates.

    3: Incarcerated individuals who are not deemed a threat, by professionals such as psychologists e.a., should be made possible to work a job outside the prison facility, with appropriate controls in place, such as ankle-monitors. The incarcerated individuals would work for reduced wages against the normal wage for a particular job. Incarcerated individuals will spend their non-working hours inside the prison facility. This work-outside-the-facility would function in part as the incarcerated individuals rehabilitation into society.

    Obviously these are roughly formulated suggestions for a very complex issue.
    (for reference, these suggestions are based on the German prison system model for rehabilitation)

  4. Dear Christ, who put forward the “rubber bullets” stupidity? Clearly someone who doesn’t have the first clue about what a firearm actually is or what its intended use cases are. It’s an utter embarrassment to see such ignorance in a group ostensibly made up of “smart” people.

    Nevermind the pointless autonomous weapons ban silliness. Autonomous weapons are the wave of the future, and every nation will be pursuing them. There’s no more stopping it than we can stop the continuing increases in computing power or the move towards extended lifespan.

    This is not something that should be added to a party platform, nor are some of the other items. The party should be focussed solely on what can be done to accelerate the technological changes needed to bring about the end goals of human enhancement that we strive for. Since when does letting illegal aliens out of jail qualify as anything resembling a meaningful step towards useful and meaningful goals?

    We’re supposed to be *different* than the other parties, not simply another “Oh, us too!” politcal cult.

    1. As you can see at the top of the proposal you’re referencing to, that would be me (Martin van der Kroon).
      You disagree with the proposal and that is excellent. You posit that I don’t know anything about firearms or their intended use cases. The way I read it, to me it seems you are more knowledgeable on this matter, and would very much appreciate if you could share your knowledge and perspective on what firearms are for, and their intended use cases.

      I’ll share my underlying thoughts here so you may agree, disagree or refute my perspective and or arguments.
      To the best of my knowledge a firearm is a device, generally able to be held by a person, that uses a small contained explosion to propel a small projectile at high velocity.
      As for intended uses: the most basic would be to hit a target. In case of hitting a living organism, it is to incapacitate, harm or kill the targeted living organism. Other use cases of firearms could be to fire warning shots to signal to an adversary to surrender under threat of following shots becoming targeted to inflict harm on said adversary. A more utilitarian use of firearm projectiles could be to damage or break an obstruction, such as glass to enter a car or building (for example to save someone who is trapped inside). Passively, the presence of a firearm can be a deterrent for a potential adversary to engage in conflict as the engagement could result in harm for the aggressor. Likewise for an aggressor, the presence of a firearms can deter other from engaging and hindering the aggressor.

      As for the reasoning of rubber bullets (or similar less likely lethal projectiles). These inflict harm with the ability to incapacitate an adversary, but are less likely to cause entry wounds, which lowers the chances of fatal injury, and of high-cost medical procedures such as surgery.
      Note that a provision is in this proposal that wouldn’t abolish or ban the use of more common/regular type bullets.

      Looking forward to your response.

      1. Let me see if I can bring some clarity on this issue, especially as it relates to the “rubber bullets” silliness.

        First off, it should be pointed out, since it seems it’s not already obvious, that most people, which includes most all politicians (certainly most all members of the Democratic Party, for example), scientists, doctors, researchers, ALL individuals who are members of or support gun control groups, and a good portion of law enforcement at all levels, have NO basic understanding of firearms or firearms technology. They have no real understanding of usage patterns, ownership habits or trends, the firearms industry, nor the broader firearms culture, in general, or in detail. They certainly have little understanding of the advocacy issue, those involved, and what functions they serve.

        So, starting from that point, I put forth this primary directive to those who would seek address the issue or put forward ideas – DON’T. For the same reason those of us who are not deeply involved in specific scientific fields don’t make suggestions or put forth decrees on what is or is not, or what should or shouldn’t be done.

        There’s a reason we all rolled our eyes at the Leon Kass’s of the world back in the early 2000’s; They clearly didn’t understand the science, and were applying outdated, outmoded and irrelevant concepts to the issues of biotechnology and human enhancement, and there’s little more frustrating than seeing people who believe they are making important points spew stupidity on issues of they clearly have no grasp. Worse still, those who would then attempt to inflict these failings on others by means of policy and legislation, all the while moralizing their own ignorance.

        Now to address the issue related to rubber bullets. First off, what is a firearm? In layperson’s terms, it’s a device that propels a projectile by means of a chemical explosion. Next up, we have the “designed to kill” pearl clutching silliness, so let’s address that. A firearm, as stated above, is a device used to propel projectiles through the air. Not propel them through people, but air. Because, like any other tool, the purpose of a firearm is defined by the task to which it is being currently employed.

        Not all guns are weapons, per se. Some are certainly built with the understanding that they will be used as such as their primary purpose. But something does not automatically become “dangerous” or risky by that very fact. The hammer and chainsaw are also tools. They can both be very effectively employed as weapons. In fact, as the ultimate irony of this issue, hammers prove themselves to be more dangerous than the “much feared” AR-15, when comparing the number of deaths attributed to both devices each year. The content of your toolbox (and perhaps your medicine chest even more so) is far more dangerous to you than the content of your gun safe. And let’s not even get started on your automobile. Firearms seem to be inherently safer, as far as devices and tools go, than many other commonly owned objects and tools.

        So we come to the heart of the issue. When used in a defensive or law enforcement capacity, the firearm is, at that point, most certainly being employed as a weapon. And here is the fundamental, correct and indisputable fact of the use of a firearm in that capacity;

        The gun, when employed as a weapon, is deadly force.

        Not controlling force. Not persuasive force. Not compliance force. The gun is not a remote control. The gun is not a persuader. This issue is something well understood by those of us who practice Carry.

        I’ll repeat this again, because for all people seem to think they understand it, they generally do not;

        The gun, when employed as a weapon, is *deadly force*. Always, with no exceptions.

        The use of a gun in its capacity as a weapon carries with it real world implications, the primary one being the concept and reality of deadly force. What is this deadly force thing? It’s defined thusly (an actual sensible Wikipedia definition, who knew?);

        “Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person.”

        Any time a firearm is employed in defensive or offensive situations, its use comes with the understanding that “deadly force” is the defining characteristic it brings to the fight. It is the only correct, logical, rational, and appropriate understanding. Because that’s actually what it does, what it delivers.

        So when the concept of “less lethal” use of the firearm (which is technically what is being considered by your original concept) is put forth, we know have a very dangerous mismatch between what we’re seeking to achieve (which is the application of “less lethal” force) and the tool we are using to deliver it (a tool that provides “deadly force”).

        Now, here’s a somewhat obvious statement that yet seems surprisingly difficult to grasp – “If you wish to achieve non-lethal aims, do NOT use a lethal tool to achieve it.” Use the tool appropriate to a particular task. Be sure you have a well-defined understanding of the task, of course, and then apply the appropriate tools or technologies based on that understanding. A tool of deadly force is NOT suitable for less lethal tasks. You might call it a concept of “Separation of Duties”. Just as such a concept is used in business and elsewhere to prevent biases and unwitting favoritism from creeping into a process, there are real risks, both for the operator and the target, of not clearly demarcating the continuum of force in real world situations.

        Based on the velocity at which most firearms will generally propel a projectile, it is extremely difficult to design and employ any technology using that platform that does not inherently continue to provide a substantial risk of the infliction of deadly force. And the only thing worse than inflicting deadly force, is when deadly force is inflicted in cases where that *was not the intent*. There are several issues with attempting to shoehorn less lethal technologies in a deadly force platform;

        1) The abovementioned issue with designing such a system. Such systems have to satisfy several criteria, chief among them are;
        a) Actually be consistently less lethal, across a range of conditions – Is less lethal acceptable only 80% of the time? 90% of the time? There can be no absolute certainty, perhaps not even reasonable certainly – no guarantee that less lethal will remain so, for various reasons of physics which should be obvious.
        b) Retain effectiveness at range, the primary reason why a ballistic technology is employed – Will it do the job at 20 feet, but kill at 10? Is it possible to design it to do both? If not, you now have a system that cannot be relied upon in dynamic situations. It’s a deadly weapon when we don’t need it to be, and less than lethal when we don’t need it to be? A recipe for disaster.
        c) Be safe for the operator to employ, again across a range of conditions – Low light? High winds? Indoors? When lying prone? When struggling with an attacker? How many more can you think of?
        d) Be suitable for use, once again, across the range of conditions in which it will be deployed – Does it work as a tactical tool? Does it have proven, reliable real world application, or is it another pie-in-the-sky technology dreamed up by someone not qualified to comment on the issue, let alone attempt to design such a system? (Just like most all “smart” gun technology proposals).
        e) The violation of the “Separation of Duties” concept with regards to intended use of a particular technology platform.

        2) The presumption of a technology being less lethal force, which can be a big one, especially in these days of closer scrutiny of police action (no bad thing, it should be said). Handling and safety can get awfully sloppy when someone thinks “Well, it can’t kill you”, or where a technology has been marketed as such. Not to mention the increased likelihood of it being employed *because* it’s not considered to be a deadly force tool.

        3) The legal issues, which is a minefield of “but you deployed the device at 5 feet distance, you must have meant to kill the attacker”. “But I fired when he was at 12 feet, it’s not my fault he rushed towards me!” We can all dream up a dozen or more such scenarios, and there are countless more possible. Take a look at the Tueller Drill sometime. Intent is a life-or-death concept within the legal system, you do not want your misuse of the incorrect tool to sink you in a situation you would otherwise be exonerated. There are reasons why firing “warning shots” and “shoot to wound” or “shoot the gun out of his hand”, or the horrifying “fire two blasts” meet with appropriate and justified derision and sighs from those who actually know something about the issue, and employ this technology as part of their professions or lifestyle choices. (Looking at you, Joe Biden – The first sitting Vice President to direct citizens to not only break the law, but to handle firearms in an unsafe and irresponsible manner, all the while lecturing us on “gun safety”)

        The rational path is to ensure that, as far as is possible, a particular tool is employed only for its intended purpose in the scenarios in which it is intended to be used.

        That means using firearms as deadly force weapons, and ONLY as such, and using separate tools for less lethal and pain compliance purposes, as needed. There’s a reason we don’t hear a lot about rubber bullets for crowd control these days, and why such eccentricities as shotgun “bean-bag” rounds or other such fanciful concepts have fallen out of favor. It’s no small thing that the replacement of the venerable shotgun with the AR-15 in most law enforcement settings is almost complete at this point, given the AR-15’s superiority in ballistics, ease of use and reliability over the limited capacity, handling and ergonomic difficulties inherent with shotguns. Not even the diversity of various types of non lethal rounds could save the old smoothbore, and no one in law enforcement seems to be lamenting the change.

        So, keep lethal weapons for the appropriate tasks, and less lethal for theirs. DO NO attempt to meld the two – Disaster and tragedy is the all-too-frequent result. If anyone ever tries to sell you something that hybridizes the two – RUN AWAY.

        So I’m not disagreeing with your proposal. I’m telling you that it’s deeply ill-advised and dangerous.

        1. Police already use tazers. Rubber bullets are more practical. Rubber bullets can easily injure and would be an effective deterrent. Tazers, which generally only cause pain and not injury, already work as a deterrent. I wish more people would discuss rubber bullets solution to help reduce the current epidemic of police killings.

          The reasoning behind a ban on lethal autonomous weapons has been discussed on many media outlets. I suggest you look here: https://futureoflife.org/2019/04/02/fli-podcast-why-ban-lethal-autonomous-weapons/

  5. I agree with the general tenor put forth by every response so far. Force needs to be met with force, restricting our nation state’s use of weaponry is just hamstringing our defense apparatus, and opening up the borders is not the correct way to move forward.

    Section II of the USTHP’s call to condemn hostile discrimination or legal restriction of other races is supposed to apply to those *already in the US*, not to every person who wants to join.

    I am opposed to every suggestion put forth by Jennifer Huse. If we are going to concede to the State the ability to redistribute resources, which I still believe may not be a necessary evil, we absolutely cannot allow ourselves to be inundated with extra stress on our already far-overstretched federal entitlements system.

    I am on board with everything else, particularly ectogenesis, which seems a rather eloquent solution to a quite tiresome and divisive issue.

  6. Regarding: Section E7-D. Improved Reporting of Law-Enforcement Misconduct

    Does that include national reporting, so thuggish cops don’t just keep switching jurisdictions?

    1. Yeah, that was the idea I had, that it would be national reporting database and separate from police type agency. This indeed, also to prevent jurisdiction hopping.

  7. Having read over this, I support as worded sections B, F, I, M, N, and the modification of amendment XVI.

    For section C, I feel it is necessary to remove the qualifier that caps only be lifted on “peaceful” technologies as it is a vague term that can be twisted to exclude many potentially beneficial technologies.

    Section O also needs wording adjusted, as the national forests should also remain excluded from potential exploitation.

    I cannot in good conscious support sections G or H. The language used in both is imprecise, literally any firearm can be considered a weapon of war, as all calibers have been used at one point or another. If the intent is to convey that police should not have automatic weapons, the average police officer does not. Specially trained SWAT teams do, and they are a necessary component of the force distribution. While I do agree that the local county sheriff shouldn’t need an armored personnel carrier, the decision by the military to sell outdated and worn out hardware to domestic law enforcement was driven by american public opinion that we needed to stop selling old equipment to less developed countries.

    One thing that the party platform should support, but does not formally, is Right-to-Repair and the limitation of EULAs. Allowing manufacturers to maintain a stranglehold over repairing physical devices encourages a monopoly atmosphere and limits accessibility.

    I agree with James Corbally on the need for the party to remain focused on the necessity of keep the party focus rather narrow.

  8. As for rubber bullets, I believe this is misguided. The point of police officers having firearms is so that they can resort to lethal force. Mandatory police body cameras, rigorous outside investigations of officer involved shootings, reform and oversight of police procedure, and vigorous prosecution of officers shown to have violated procedure in the discharge of firearms on duty is the better answer to curbing the use of unnecessary use of lethal force. Most police departments already issue tasers and other less-than-lethal options to officers as standard carry. Instead of removing a tool that is unfortunately necessary in some cases, heavy scrutiny should be placed on an individual officer’s choice of tools in specific cases. In the United States routine traffic stops for innocuous offenses such as speeding or expired tags can and do suddenly turn into deadly confrontations for police. I don’t want any part of a scenario where an officer thinking he’s going to write a traffic citation is suddenly having to rely on rubber bullets to stop a panicked felon armed with an assault rifle. Policing in the United States is a serious and complex issue. “Rubber bullets” is a sugar pill answer.

    1. I concur with what you’ve added here, Monty. I also posted a response to give some more background on the issue, but it’s reassuring to see that some people here such as yourself have an understanding of the issue and the dangers of such uninformed proposals.

  9. Gennady Stolyarov, I give my consent to have my comments reproduced anywhere without attribution.

    Human life is precious. A machine should never have the power to decide who should die.

    Conventional war is fought today with machines that are controlled by humans. However, a new class of weapons is being developed that can be sent onto the battlefield, and then this Killer Robot decides who to hunt down and kill. If your computer has ever broken down or failed or lost its weblink or given you the wrong answer, then for just a moment imagine such a Killer Robot malfunctioning and killing innocent civilians.

    It is not too late to prevent this from ever happening. The world can still decide that using this type of weapon is a war crime. The world has already decided that certain types of weapons should not be used in war. There are various limitations on chemical, biological, radiological, and conventional weapons in war. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is attempting to add lethal autonomous weapons to this list.

    The USTP has an opportunity to support The Campaign To Stop Killer Robots. Starting December 25th, members of the USTP can vote to endorse this world effort to promote peace.

    Please vote YES for Section E7-A Opposition to Autonomous Weapons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *