15-Day Exposure Period on Policy Proposals on Investigations and Emergency Declarations
The U.S. Transhumanist Party hereby opens a 15-day public exposure period on the proposals submitted by R. Nicholas Starr and Zach Richardson concerning investigations and emergency actions. The proposals are presented below, followed by initial feedback from USTP leadership. The public exposure period is intended to last until 12:01 a.m. U.S. Pacific Time on November 1, 2021.
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.
Given the nature of the proposals and depending on the input received regarding them, the U.S. Transhumanist Party reserves the right to put forward for a vote of the members either (1) the entirety of each proposal, (2) portions of each proposal, (3) some of the proposals but not others, or (4) none of the proposals. Also, the U.S. Transhumanist Party reserves the right to determine which document(s) of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, if any, would be open to amendment to include any of the contents of these proposals.
Proposals by R. Nicholas Starr
The following policy proposals seek to limit the power of USTP leadership during events of investigations and emergencies. I request these items are put to vote as soon as possible, after providing an appropriate exposure period for members to discuss, add, remove, or change things.
Proposal RNS-1. Guidelines for Investigations
As a data-driven political organization the United States Transhumanist Party (USTP), and its leadership acting on behalf of the USTP, must remain neutral in its official capacity during outside investigations into past, present, or future members until said investigations are complete and all facts are known and presented to USTP members. The USTP should also refrain from attempts to influence ongoing investigations or public perception while an investigation is taking place. Public statements of facts and acknowledgement of the situation is permissible, but statements must not stray into speculation. Once an investigation is complete the USTP can issue statements based solely on the facts and analysis thereof. This does NOT restrict an individual, regardless of their position in the USTP, from speaking out on an issue in their personal capacity, nor does it restrict a person from providing criticism of such personal statements in their own personal capacity.
The USTP can conduct its own investigations into matters affecting members on a case by case basis, as determined by a vote of the membership, and under the following limitations. Investigators must be impartial with no personal or professional connection to any of the parties involved in the investigation (accusers, the accused, or other individuals of interest sought for questioning in the investigation). Professional connections include but aren’t limited to current or former employees, advisors, board members, and interns for the person or organization under investigation as well as direct competitors of any party under investigation (you can’t investigate your competition). If an impartial investigator cannot be obtained, either from inside or outside our membership, then the investigation must be abandoned.
Internal investigations should not be intended to replace outside investigations and should be limited to how the incident under investigation impacts operation of the USTP. Consequences sought after the conclusion of the investigation shall be limited to administrative action available within the USTP. The USTP does not have the power to require action or consequences be made by outside organizations.
The purpose of the internal investigation shall be made known to the members with a summary of alleged offenses and what questions the investigation seeks to answer. This must be done in a professional manner, excluding personal opinion and potential bias.
Proposal RNS-2. Definitions and Restrictions on Emergency Actions
United States Transhumanist Party (USTP) leaders shall have the limited ability to declare, and act on, emergencies on behalf of its members. Such a declaration shall have no bearing on, or interfere with, applicable federal, state, and local laws.
When declaring an emergency the USTP leadership must publicly announce what the emergency is, why waiting to act would cause immediate increased harm, and the intended course of action sought by the USTP. This course of action must not deviate from, or spread beyond, the scope of the incident. Meaning any intended action must be clearly and directly related to the emergency.
An emergency shall be defined as an unexpected and immediate threat or active instance of the following, pending member further recommendations and approval by membership vote:
- Threat to life or public safety (threats to life extension shall NOT be included unless the emergency threatens an individual placed in preservation prior to the emergency, such as cryogenics)
- Natural disaster
- Humanitarian crisis
- Credible acts of violence
- Direct malicious attack, physical or digital, of USTP property
- Theft of USTP funds from an official account totaling over X% of the last known balance and more than $X. (Amounts to be decided based on current and future potential needs before vote)
It shall not include:
- Personal scandal
- Delays in research
- Matters of outside businesses or organizations
An emergency can only be declared in cases where delayed action would clearly cause increased harm based on the available evidence. If the emergency action is to take longer than 14 days, then it requires further approval by a vote of the membership.
Feedback on R. Nicholas Starr’s Proposals by USTP Leadership
The USTP Leadership offers a point-by-point analysis of Mr. Starr’s proposals below.
Proposal RNS-1. “As a data-driven political organization the United States Transhumanist Party (USTP), and its leadership acting on behalf of the USTP, must remain neutral in its official capacity during outside investigations into past, present, or future members until said investigations are complete and all facts are known and presented to USTP members.”
USTP Leadership Response: This appears to provide a blanket power to any “outside investigation”, however motivated and by whomever conducted. Just because an outside investigation is being conducted does not guarantee the objective or impartial nature of the investigator, particularly if the investigator is retained by a party with a preconceived interest in the outcome of the investigation. If the USTP leadership is unable to point out instances of obvious bias when they exist, this hampers objectivity and the search for truth. Moreover, if the rest of the world is free to comment and speculate on the subject of the investigation while the USTP’s ability to respond is muzzled, the USTP would necessarily be placed at a disadvantage relative to those who have no compunctions about making unsubstantiated claims.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP should also refrain from attempts to influence ongoing investigations or public perception while an investigation is taking place.”
USTP Leadership Response: Public perception often can be influenced far more rapidly than an official investigation can be conducted or concluded. The unfortunate truth is, in a social-media-dominated age, the court of public opinion has the power to affect an individual’s fate without utilizing any reasonable standard of evidence or waiting for the facts to come out. Sometimes the damage to a person’s reputation from unsubstantiated allegations in the court of public opinion can be immense. Without voices of reason being ready to counter unsubstantiated, character-assassinating allegations right away, good people’s future prospects may be damaged or destroyed because unscrupulous voices are the only ones which are allowed to be heard.
Proposal RNS-1. “Public statements of facts and acknowledgement of the situation is permissible, but statements must not stray into speculation.”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP does not favor unsubstantiated speculation, either, but must remain free to point out when others engage in such speculation and when such others accuse without evidence.
Proposal RNS-1. “Once an investigation is complete the USTP can issue statements based solely on the facts and analysis thereof. ”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, this places too much power into the hands of an outside investigator, often appointed by entities with no affiliation or connection with the USTP, to determine what constitutes “facts and analysis” that are within the permissible realm of discussion. An outside investigator can easily present a selective, skewed, or biased portrayal, and the USTP should not relinquish its ability to inquire into and comment on facts and analytical interpretations that, for whatever reason, an outside investigator did not include in a public-facing report.
Proposal RNS-1. “ This does NOT restrict an individual, regardless of their position in the USTP, from speaking out on an issue in their personal capacity, nor does it restrict a person from providing criticism of such personal statements in their own personal capacity.”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership agrees with the principle behind the statement above.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP can conduct its own investigations into matters affecting members on a case by case basis, as determined by a vote of the membership, and under the following limitations.”
USTP Leadership Response: Requiring a vote of the members before conducting an internal investigation may have several undesirable consequences. First, if there is an action whose damaging effect is swiftly forthcoming, then the procedural steps required for a vote to be conducted may well come about much later than the damage has already been done. Second, it is often possible to investigate certain matters discreetly without damage to the reputation of the person(s) being investigated. Once a pending investigation is publicly announced and put to a vote of the members, the members are placed in the position of (1) knowing that there is an alleged transgression or set of transgressions, and (2) deciding whether a given person or persons is sufficiently likely to be guilty of that alleged transgression or set of transgressions so as to be investigated. This in itself can damage the reputation of the person(s) being investigated, even if the investigation ultimately clears them of any wrongdoing. Having at least a preliminary private process of examining any actions within the USTP would be beneficial in enabling the vast majority of potential issues to be identified and resolved without such reputational damage, and any issues brought before the members would be of such an egregious nature that private means did not suffice to resolve them.
Proposal RNS-1. “Investigators must be impartial with no personal or professional connection to any of the parties involved in the investigation (accusers, the accused, or other individuals of interest sought for questioning in the investigation). Professional connections include but aren’t limited to current or former employees, advisors, board members, and interns for the person or organization under investigation as well as direct competitors of any party under investigation (you can’t investigate your competition). If an impartial investigator cannot be obtained, either from inside or outside our membership, then the investigation must be abandoned.”
USTP Leadership Response: The transhumanist community is small enough, and collaborations on projects by transhumanists are frequent enough, that it is difficult to find any person in the community who does not have a personal or professional connection of some sort with most others in the community. The proposal above also describes the possibility of an outside investigator; however, the outside investigator would likely need to be paid, and the USTP is an organization with extremely limited resources. Furthermore, the limitations above would create de facto immunity for someone who develops such extensive personal and/or professional connections that anyone who could possibly competently investigate that person would be precluded from doing so because of such connections.
Proposal RNS-1. “Internal investigations should not be intended to replace outside investigations and should be limited to how the incident under investigation impacts operation of the USTP. Consequences sought after the conclusion of the investigation shall be limited to administrative action available within the USTP.”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP already has a process for actions to be taken in response to violations of our Guidelines for Community Conduct. That process does not require an independent investigation, which generally would be too time-consuming to address the most typical kinds of violations, which are at once blatant, public, and quick to have their effects. Thus, if the only consequences are any “administrative action available within the USTP”, then the internal investigation becomes an unnecessary instrument.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP does not have the power to require action or consequences be made by outside organizations.”
USTP Leadership Response: While the USTP, as a practical matter, indeed cannot require another organization to take an action, the USTP does have the ability to express an opinion regarding the actions taken by any other organization and whether or not such actions align with the values and goals of the USTP, as well as whether or not such actions are beneficial to the transhumanist movement or are meritorious more generally. As an organization with definite views and definite outlooks on a large number of issues, projects, and people, the USTP is surely within its rights to express its points of view and, when needed, urge that certain courses of action be taken by other organizations and individuals. The USTP does not have the power to compel those courses of action, but expressing silence on matters that are likely to influence the future of the transhumanist movement is not advisable if by speaking out the USTP is able to make a difference in shaping public opinion.
Proposal RNS-1. “The purpose of the internal investigation shall be made known to the members with a summary of alleged offenses and what questions the investigation seeks to answer. This must be done in a professional manner, excluding personal opinion and potential bias.”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, doing this may actually create unduly unfavorable impressions of the person(s) being investigated before the investigation is complete. There could be many conceivable cases in which, if an investigation is undertaken, those being investigated would actually prefer that the investigation be done privately and discreetly, at least as an initial approach.
***
Proposal RNS-2. “When declaring an emergency the USTP leadership must publicly announce what the emergency is, why waiting to act would cause immediate increased harm, and the intended course of action sought by the USTP. ”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership does not oppose the practice of making such a public announcement and will endeavor to do so in the future.
Proposal RNS-2. “This course of action must not deviate from, or spread beyond, the scope of the incident. Meaning any intended action must be clearly and directly related to the emergency.”
USTP Leadership Response: It would seem to be common sense that actions to address an emergency should be related to that emergency. However, there are circumstances where it may be a matter of interpretation whether a particular action is “clearly and directly related to the emergency” or somehow “deviates from” or “spreads beyond” it. If questioned on a particular action, the USTP leadership should be able to provide an explanation of its relationship to the emergency, and that explanation should be given deference unless it is completely nonsensical by any reasonable person’s interpretation.
Proposal RNS-2. “An emergency shall be defined as an unexpected and immediate threat or active instance of the following, pending member further recommendations and approval by membership vote […]”
USTP Leadership Response: The process of arranging a member vote is generally too logistically intense and time-consuming to be feasibly undertaken in cases of a genuine emergency, where swift action is required. It is possible to take a member poll after the fact of a particular major action, to determine whether or not the active portion of the membership agrees with the action that was taken. This was done, for instance, in response to the U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement of Support for Aubrey de Grey, where a member poll shows, as of October 16, 2021, 42 of the 58 members voting (72.4%) expressing agreement with the statement, 10 (17.2%) expressing disagreement, and 6 (10.3%) expressing no opinion or a neutral position. However, in a genuine emergency, such member polling should be done only when there is sufficient reprieve from the pressing need to respond to events that the poll could be accommodated without compromising the ability to actually address the emergency.
Proposal RNS-2. “Threat to life or public safety (threats to life extension shall NOT be included unless the emergency threatens an individual placed in preservation prior to the emergency, such as cryogenics)“.
USTP Leadership Response: Threats to the future and reputation of the life-extension movement and the prospect of attaining radical life extension within our lifetimes should indeed be considered grounds for declaring an emergency, particularly when such threats pertain to the possible derailment of the life-extension cause through hostile characterizations within the court of public opinion. The USTP leadership reminds members that the immutable Core Ideal 1 of the USTP is that “The Transhumanist Party supports significant life extension achieved through the progress of science and technology.” Any act, behavior, allegation, or decision which threatens the fulfillment of Core Ideal 1 and where the USTP has even a possibility of averting the threat through a swift and decisive response, should indeed be subject to potential treatment as an emergency.
Proposal RNS-2.
“Natural disaster
Humanitarian crisis
Credible acts of violence
Direct malicious attack, physical or digital, of USTP property”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership agrees that these would be valid reasons to declare an emergency.
Proposal RNS-2. “Theft of USTP funds from an official account totaling over X% of the last known balance and more than $X. (Amounts to be decided based on current and future potential needs before vote)”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP does not currently hold an official account for funds, so this is not a situation that can arise at this time. However, in the future, if any theft were undertaken, this would be grounds for declaring an emergency if necessary. It is not clear why a threshold for doing so is proposed here, as any misappropriation of funds should be able to be dealt with swiftly and effectively.
Proposal RNS-2. “It shall not include:
- Personal scandal
- Delays in research
- Matters of outside businesses or organizations“
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership considers these exclusions to essentially negate any power to declare an emergency. Manufactured personal scandal is one of the easiest tactics to use in today’s cultural and social-media environment in order to damage a person’s career, livelihood, and reputation, without having sufficient evidence to do so within the criteria of any formal legal system. Tying the USTP leadership’s hands in such situations only lends additional power to those who would seek to deploy such a reprehensible tactic with impunity. Delays in research that affects life extension could be a matter of life or death for many transhumanists, and also contravene Core Ideal 1 of the U.S. Transhumanist Party; the USTP leadership should have the authority to endeavor to overcome such delays through all efficacious means, particularly by shaping public opinion if the roadblocks to the research’s continuation are cultural and attitudinal. Furthermore, if “outside businesses or organizations” engage in conduct that materially affects the future of the transhumanist movement, including public perception of transhumanism and life extension, then removing the ability of the USTP to comment on such conduct would simply remove the USTP from the ability to influence such public perception, leaving such influence solely to others, including those hostile to our movement. The USTP leadership does not understand why our organization should intentionally handicap itself when our movement’s detractors intend to do no such thing and have only escalated their attacks as the movement has been reaching various milestones of success.
Proposal RNS-2. “An emergency can only be declared in cases where delayed action would clearly cause increased harm based on the available evidence. If the emergency action is to take longer than 14 days, then it requires further approval by a vote of the membership.”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, criteria such as “clearly cause increased harm based on the available evidence” would be subject to interpretation, and a member who disagrees with the USTP leadership’s judgment as to what is likely to cause harm may then invoke such a clause to assert a veto power over USTP leadership’s actions. The 14-day threshold for a membership vote is unreasonably short, as most membership votes have historically taken longer than 14 days if one considers the prior exposure period alone, but the vote itself should also be open for a reasonably long amount of time to give any member who wishes to vote the opportunity to do so. If this is followed in the circumstances of an emergency, chances are that the rapid events, to which the USTP would need to respond, would have already taken their toll in the form of the undesirable consequences that may occur in the absence of USTP action. Furthermore, the timing of the resolution of the emergency is contingent on a variety of external events and decisions over which the USTP leadership has no control; however, the USTP leadership can anticipate and has previously experienced situations where pressing situation can last far beyond 14 days, if, for instance, there is a standoff among the individuals and external organizations involved, or if the publication of information related to the matter in question is expected to be spread out over a longer time period (even as social-media commentary on the same matter and its consideration within the court of public opinion continue unabated).
Proposal by Zach Richardson
Proposal ZR-1.
Proposal in Support of Decisive Executive Action in Times of Emergency:
When executive action is required in the face of a serious threat, the Chairman must have the authority to act decisively.
This proposal reasserts the Chairman’s authority to act decisively in defense of individuals, groups, or organizations by expressing the delegated support of the Party for the individual, group, or organization under assault. The Chairman retains the authority to advocate for those individuals, groups, or organizations whose goals align with those of the Party. The Chairman is not required to seek the approval of a majority of the party membership to act on behalf of the party, nor does he have to provide justification for his support.
The authority of the Chairman to act on behalf of the party is not intended to supersede the authority of the Party to determine the Party’s position on a particular issue, nor is it intended to diminish the responsibility of the Party to take a position on a particular issue.
The Chairman will retain the authority to act on behalf of the Party, at his or her own discretion, to advocate on behalf of the Party and its members in the event of an emergency, defined as any event that may significantly impact the realization of the goals of the Party as outlined in the Platform.
The Party will seek to continuously empower the Chairman to act on behalf of its members by codifying his/her authority to do so in a manner that is consistent with the principles and standards of the Party, and is consistent with the existing authority of the Party to advocate on behalf of its members as a whole.
The Chairman is empowered to act as the Party’s representative, and to make statements on behalf of the Party, to the media and the public, to advocate on behalf of any individual, group or organization that supports the Party and its Platform, its members and the Party’s philosophy, goals and objectives, to promote the Party’s agenda, candidates and policies, and to respond to attacks on the Party, or on its members, allies or affiliates.
The Chairman has the ability to designate individuals and organizations as “allies” of the Party at his or her discretion, and to permit such “allies” to represent themselves to the public and the media as “allies” and “members” of the Party. Such “allies” are encouraged but not required to support the Platform.
Party members may not seek to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party or its allies, affiliates or members; nor may any Party member seek to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party or its allies, affiliates, or members by anyone who was so designated by the Chairman.
The Chairman and any of his designees shall ensure the following:
- The Party is adequately represented in all communications with the public and the media. In some cases, it may be appropriate to have two or more representatives from the Party speak on behalf of the Party.
- The Party is able to provide key information to the public and the media in a timely manner, through press releases, interviews, and particularly social media commentary.
- The Party is able to have a significant and positive impact on the outcome or resolution of the emergency.
- The Party is able to respond to attacks on the Party, or on any of its members, allies, or affiliates.
If any Party member seeks to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party, or its allies, affiliates or members, or any statement made on behalf of the Party by anyone who was designated an ally by the Chairman, the Chairman may assert that the member in question is acting in violation of the Party’s principles and its standards.
The Party pledges to empower the Chairman in a manner that is consistent with the principles and standards of the Party, and is consistent with the existing authority of the Party to advocate on behalf of its members and its Platform. The Party further pledges to make every effort to ensure that the Party, its members, and the Chairman are able to advocate for the Party and its members on a permanent and eternal basis.
It is in the interest of the Party to remain relevant, not only to the Party itself, but to the public, and it is in the spirit of that interest in which the Party empower the Chairman.
The Party therefore pledges to make a good-faith effort to ensure that the Chairman has the opportunity to respond to attacks on the Party, or on any of its members, allies, or affiliates, and finally to ensure that the Chairman is able to engage in the activities described in this proposal on a permanent and hopefully indefinite basis.
Feedback on Zach Richardson’s Proposals by USTP Leadership
The USTP leadership concurs with Proposal ZR-1 from Zach Richardson. Recent events have shown that the transhumanist movement is coming under increasing attack just as it is achieving new milestones in terms of publicity and acquisition of financial resources. We live in a make-or-break moment, not just for human civilization more generally, but for the transhumanist and life-extension movements in particular. It is essential for USTP leadership to have the authority to respond in defense of the values, people, and organizations which the USTP has always supported since its founding, even as those values, people, and organizations come under an unprecedented number of coordinated and insidious attacks. If we bind ourselves by excessive process, but our adversaries do not, then we set ourselves up to lose. If, however, we are able to act swiftly to resolve situations of emergency, this will afford more time to calmly and deliberatively approach most matters under the USTP’s purview, including the ability to organize more member votes on various matters if leadership’s attention is not continually occupied with how to address time-sensitive emergencies in the “procedurally correct” way. Our movement is under attack today, and we need to defend it today. In coming years and epochs, we will be thankful that we did.
20 thoughts on “15-Day Exposure Period on Policy Proposals on Investigations and Emergency Declarations”
Dear Fellow USTP members,
On part of empowering the Chair of the USTP to act decisively and as voice and with support from USTP leadership.
I understand the reasoning behind this, and I think for the time being this is a workable idea. This should, however, be open for change in the future when the USTP has a wider support network and a financial system in place.
Similarly, I understand that at this point in time the USTP does not have the financial ability to attract outside investigators for example, and hence such requirements look good on proverbial paper, but can practically not be made functional or workable at this time.
I would propose that any statement made by the USTP or the Chair regarding incidents, accusations, or alleged transgressions or offenses be formatted in such a way where it is clear which facts or claims are undisputed or proven, and which are disputed and/or still under investigation. This could then be followed by a personal/Party statement that supports or shows absence of support, including the reasoning why the Chair or Party thinks this to be. This part should clearly delineate that it pertains to thoughts, opinions, reasoning, and/or conclusions drawn by the Chair or Party.
This to make a clear distinction between known and disputed claims, as well as opinion.
It could further be added that the person(s) who wrote the statements disclose their relationship to the subject. (Much akin to journalists having to declare their possible conflicts of interest).
Note; this is not an attack on, or critique of how the USTP leadership handled the recent incident, but rather to provide an idea on what a procedure could be.
I might not be privileged to knowing everything on this topic, but to the best of my knowledge, this was a first time experience for the USTP with an issue of this kind.
Hence, this is a tough lesson. I have not been involved in, nor do I have a stance on the matter as I have not delved into the subject matter, nor do I know the people involved very well.
Regardless of all this, to fellow party-members; If someone is accused of an alleged offense or transgression, please do not blindly jump to conclusions. Although offenses are often painted as black and white within society, human interactions are more often than not complex. There could be harmful intent, but just as easily a disconnect between intention and perception, and in some cases an abuse of the use of the superior weight given by society to perception.
As for, hopefully not, future issues arising. I firmly believe in the edict; “innocent until proven otherwise”. However, to protect the integrity of the USTP, if a member were to have allegedly committed an offense or transgression, and has a formal allegation made (however that’s officially formulated… stuff in court with lawyers and stuff) against this individual, that individual should be given a leave of absence until a sufficient amount of evidence to prove or disprove that individuals innocence.
As for allegations made without the Justice system being involved, on social media for example, or personal letters or mail etc., an internal or external investigation is at the discretion of the USTP Leadership.
However, as the USTP grows, it might be prudent to consider setting up more permanent structures for this, such as an ethics board, or a confidential reporting system, or counselor with doctor-patient confidentiality and such. But that is still some way off for now probably.
Lastly, This is an important subject in and of itself. Unfortunately this garnered the attention due to recent events. I think it is important that we not only think ahead in terms of Transhumanism, but also for issues that might arise for the Party.
Does the USTP have scenarios for cases of fraud, allegations, transgressions, issues arising from the field of science (say… a Doctor Mengele going at it with tech and thus harming Transhumanism as a whole).
I think I’ve written too much, my apologies … but I hope it helps in the debate, or as a springboard for new/improved ideas. XD
The arena of politics is a venue that requires swift and decisive action. The United States Transhumanist Party must be agile to deal with issues and topics that emerge suddenly. The proposals by R. Nicholas Starr and Zach Richardson highlight two potential futures for the USTP: firstly, a courtroom out of a Kafka novel – moribund and ineffective and unable to counter our opponents – or, secondly, a vibrant leader of technofuturists.
The crippling restrictions proposed by R. Nicholas Starr must be opposed if the USTP is to remain a viable political entity.
The incisive proposal by Zach Richardson supports the very effective leadership of the USTP, and strengthens our resolve to lead humanity to the flourishing abundance of superlongevity, superintelligence, and superhappiness.
Please vote NO on Proposal RNS-1.
Please vote YES on Proposal ZR-1.
Hello,
I think all this discussion is far too technical. Transhumanist organizations (like most other organizations) are in my opinion using far too much energy for totally “bureaucratic”, “Kafkhaian” (not sure the word exists in English) debates, rules, discussions.
Actually, the only real question is “Was Gennady right in taking position concerning the (false) allegations concerning Aubrey de Grey?”
My answer is YES (because of the urgency). And we should vote only about this.
Didier
Very well worded and am in complete agreement with Didier Corurnelle.
Would like to add, THE ACCUSED, always should enjoy defending themselves in public and private communications.
NO on Proposal RNS-1.
YES on Proposal ZR-1
Most of what I read is nothingness. US Transhumanist Party is on the way to bog itself down with rules and regulations that will make going forward harder than what it should be.
Not all items are wrong but should be condensed to 1 page. You need to simplify what is going to be done in the future. Eventually, you will need actual lawyers just to read and understand the nothingness the lot of you are creating.
I vote, yes to proposal ZR-1
As the USTP leadership has taken the time to present its concerns point by point, I will respond to each individually below. But here is a TL;DR version. We need more objectivity, transparency, and accountability within the party. We should establish standards to guarantee that. I proposed voting as a means to create transparency and accountability on the issues. It’s also the best way to temper our decisions with reason before jumping into a volatile situation. I proposed that we take steps to prevent emotions and personal bias from becoming official party policy by refraining from speculation and remaining objective. If we wish to challenge the evidence presented to us, then we need to provide evidence ourselves. I proposed that we limit what an official emergency is because we don’t need to manufacture crisis over non urgent issues. Emergency actions should be limited to immediate and tangible threats to what exists now and not what could possibly be in the future. These aren’t radical ideas. They are practical standards to prevent abuse of power and give members a voice. We never got a chance to vote for our leadership, so voting on our course of action is the next best option. If there are better ways to achieve that, I’m all ears.
Proposal RNS-1. “As a data-driven political organization the United States Transhumanist Party (USTP), and its leadership acting on behalf of the USTP, must remain neutral in its official capacity during outside investigations into past, present, or future members until said investigations are complete and all facts are known and presented to USTP members.”
USTP Leadership Response: This appears to provide a blanket power to any “outside investigation”, however motivated and by whomever conducted. Just because an outside investigation is being conducted does not guarantee the objective or impartial nature of the investigator, particularly if the investigator is retained by a party with a preconceived interest in the outcome of the investigation. If the USTP leadership is unable to point out instances of obvious bias when they exist, this hampers objectivity and the search for truth. Moreover, if the rest of the world is free to comment and speculate on the subject of the investigation while the USTP’s ability to respond is muzzled, the USTP would necessarily be placed at a disadvantage relative to those who have no compunctions about making unsubstantiated claims.
My response- This section does not provide anything to outside organizations or the global community at large that are inherently outside of our control. This also doesn’t prohibit officially providing criticism after the fact, as long as evidence is provided. The purpose is to base statements on facts, findings, and the associated evidence. It’s inappropriate to address things in an official capacity without evidence to support the party’s position. I argue that without this provision, the goal of objectivity is unobtainable. You cannot be objective without evidence.
This doesn’t prevent members of the party or our leadership from engaging in ongoing discussion. But as an organization we should take the high ground and not engage in online flame wars. It’s a matter of credibility. Do we really want to set our standard by the lowest common denominator on the internet? I don’t view this as being muzzled and the whole notion of an organization being at a disadvantage over an individual on the internet is quite silly.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP should also refrain from attempts to influence ongoing investigations or public perception while an investigation is taking place.”
USTP Leadership Response: Public perception often can be influenced far more rapidly than an official investigation can be conducted or concluded. The unfortunate truth is, in a social-media-dominated age, the court of public opinion has the power to affect an individual’s fate without utilizing any reasonable standard of evidence or waiting for the facts to come out. Sometimes the damage to a person’s reputation from unsubstantiated allegations in the court of public opinion can be immense. Without voices of reason being ready to counter unsubstantiated, character-assassinating allegations right away, good people’s future prospects may be damaged or destroyed because unscrupulous voices are the only ones which are allowed to be heard.
My response- Throwing the whole party in an official capacity into an internet flame war is counterproductive. If we want to be the voice of reason then we need to stick to facts and evidence. Not engage in emotional bickering among those vocal on the internet.
Proposal RNS-1. “Public statements of facts and acknowledgement of the situation is permissible, but statements must not stray into speculation.”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP does not favor unsubstantiated speculation, either, but must remain free to point out when others engage in such speculation and when such others accuse without evidence.
My response- That’s great, but if we want to solve the problem of unsubstantiated speculation, then we need to present evidence. Recent statements have not met that standard.
Proposal RNS-1. “Once an investigation is complete the USTP can issue statements based solely on the facts and analysis thereof. ”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, this places too much power into the hands of an outside investigator, often appointed by entities with no affiliation or connection with the USTP, to determine what constitutes “facts and analysis” that are within the permissible realm of discussion. An outside investigator can easily present a selective, skewed, or biased portrayal, and the USTP should not relinquish its ability to inquire into and comment on facts and analytical interpretations that, for whatever reason, an outside investigator did not include in a public-facing report.
My response- Again, the party has no power over outside organizations, who they appoint to investigate an issue, or their results. If an investigator presents a report that the party believes is selective or biased report then the party should prove it with evidence. What isn’t acceptable is trying to assign cause or blame with no evidence.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP can conduct its own investigations into matters affecting members on a case by case basis, as determined by a vote of the membership, and under the following limitations.”
USTP Leadership Response: Requiring a vote of the members before conducting an internal investigation may have several undesirable consequences. First, if there is an action whose damaging effect is swiftly forthcoming, then the procedural steps required for a vote to be conducted may well come about much later than the damage has already been done. Second, it is often possible to investigate certain matters discreetly without damage to the reputation of the person(s) being investigated. Once a pending investigation is publicly announced and put to a vote of the members, the members are placed in the position of (1) knowing that there is an alleged transgression or set of transgressions, and (2) deciding whether a given person or persons is sufficiently likely to be guilty of that alleged transgression or set of transgressions so as to be investigated. This in itself can damage the reputation of the person(s) being investigated, even if the investigation ultimately clears them of any wrongdoing. Having at least a preliminary private process of examining any actions within the USTP would be beneficial in enabling the vast majority of potential issues to be identified and resolved without such reputational damage, and any issues brought before the members would be of such an egregious nature that private means did not suffice to resolve them.
My response- The purpose of a vote is to provide two key functions: transparency and accountability. Privately conducting investigation removes both of those things and creates an environment for potential abuse. We must also consider positions taken by USTP leadership to not only restrict behavior, but to change what those guidelines are unilaterally and suddenly. From the USTP Guidelines for Community Conduct: the leadership “reserves the right to amend these guidelines and to publish amended versions thereof at any future time and at its sole discretion.”
Simply put, our party needs a mechanism for accountability and transparency. Voting is the most democratic way to accomplish this. If there is another way to achieve these standards, I’d encourage someone to bring it forward. But we can’t ignore our responsibility as a political organization to maintain a level of transparency and accountability to our members and the global community.
Proposal RNS-1. “Investigators must be impartial with no personal or professional connection to any of the parties involved in the investigation (accusers, the accused, or other individuals of interest sought for questioning in the investigation). Professional connections include but aren’t limited to current or former employees, advisors, board members, and interns for the person or organization under investigation as well as direct competitors of any party under investigation (you can’t investigate your competition). If an impartial investigator cannot be obtained, either from inside or outside our membership, then the investigation must be abandoned.”
USTP Leadership Response: The transhumanist community is small enough, and collaborations on projects by transhumanists are frequent enough, that it is difficult to find any person in the community who does not have a personal or professional connection of some sort with most others in the community. The proposal above also describes the possibility of an outside investigator; however, the outside investigator would likely need to be paid, and the USTP is an organization with extremely limited resources. Furthermore, the limitations above would create de facto immunity for someone who develops such extensive personal and/or professional connections that anyone who could possibly competently investigate that person would be precluded from doing so because of such connections.
My response- I understand the the current limits of our party due to size and resources. But that doesn’t mean we should set lower standards of objectivity. I share the concern about de facto immunity. Certainly many members of the party, specifically our leadership, have made such connections and they should not be immune from investigation. But I don’t see that as a reason to abandon impartiality. It just means we need to set a standard and create a process to handle such issues. This is one of the goals of this proposal.
On the topic of money. Perhaps we should begin to raise money for the party. Not just to handle costs like hiring outside help on an issue, but to help advance our work and make a bigger impact as a party.
Proposal RNS-1. “Internal investigations should not be intended to replace outside investigations and should be limited to how the incident under investigation impacts operation of the USTP. Consequences sought after the conclusion of the investigation shall be limited to administrative action available within the USTP.”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP already has a process for actions to be taken in response to violations of our Guidelines for Community Conduct. That process does not require an independent investigation, which generally would be too time-consuming to address the most typical kinds of violations, which are at once blatant, public, and quick to have their effects. Thus, if the only consequences are any “administrative action available within the USTP”, then the internal investigation becomes an unnecessary instrument.
My response- The above guidelines are vulnerable to unilateral change and abuse.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP does not have the power to require action or consequences be made by outside organizations.”
USTP Leadership Response: While the USTP, as a practical matter, indeed cannot require another organization to take an action, the USTP does have the ability to express an opinion regarding the actions taken by any other organization and whether or not such actions align with the values and goals of the USTP, as well as whether or not such actions are beneficial to the transhumanist movement or are meritorious more generally. As an organization with definite views and definite outlooks on a large number of issues, projects, and people, the USTP is surely within its rights to express its points of view and, when needed, urge that certain courses of action be taken by other organizations and individuals. The USTP does not have the power to compel those courses of action, but expressing silence on matters that are likely to influence the future of the transhumanist movement is not advisable if by speaking out the USTP is able to make a difference in shaping public opinion.
My response- This is really an issue of wording. As a party, we should refrain from making inflammatory remarks or demands of outside organizations. We should approach things more diplomatically in our official capacity. Obviously speaking about our platform is important. That’s why it exists. We just need to be civil about it, and to be honest I think some of that civility was missing in recent statements.
Proposal RNS-1. “The purpose of the internal investigation shall be made known to the members with a summary of alleged offenses and what questions the investigation seeks to answer. This must be done in a professional manner, excluding personal opinion and potential bias.”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, doing this may actually create unduly unfavorable impressions of the person(s) being investigated before the investigation is complete. There could be many conceivable cases in which, if an investigation is undertaken, those being investigated would actually prefer that the investigation be done privately and discreetly, at least as an initial approach.
My response- Again, we need transparency and accountability from our leadership to prevent abuse of power.
Proposal RNS-2. “This course of action must not deviate from, or spread beyond, the scope of the incident. Meaning any intended action must be clearly and directly related to the emergency.”
USTP Leadership Response: It would seem to be common sense that actions to address an emergency should be related to that emergency. However, there are circumstances where it may be a matter of interpretation whether a particular action is “clearly and directly related to the emergency” or somehow “deviates from” or “spreads beyond” it. If questioned on a particular action, the USTP leadership should be able to provide an explanation of its relationship to the emergency, and that explanation should be given deference unless it is completely nonsensical by any reasonable person’s interpretation.
My response- The problem arises when USTP leadership acts unilaterally and fails provide an adequate explanation when questioned. USTP leadership is currently empowered to ignore such criticism and act as it sees fit. For example, waiting to publish these proposals for more than two months while currently engaging in the unilateral behavior this was intended to address.
Proposal RNS-2. “An emergency shall be defined as an unexpected and immediate threat or active instance of the following, pending member further recommendations and approval by membership vote […]”
USTP Leadership Response: The process of arranging a member vote is generally too logistically intense and time-consuming to be feasibly undertaken in cases of a genuine emergency, where swift action is required. It is possible to take a member poll after the fact of a particular major action, to determine whether or not the active portion of the membership agrees with the action that was taken. This was done, for instance, in response to the U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement of Support for Aubrey de Grey, where a member poll shows, as of October 16, 2021, 42 of the 58 members voting (72.4%) expressing agreement with the statement, 10 (17.2%) expressing disagreement, and 6 (10.3%) expressing no opinion or a neutral position. However, in a genuine emergency, such member polling should be done only when there is sufficient reprieve from the pressing need to respond to events that the poll could be accommodated without compromising the ability to actually address the emergency.
My response- A vote is a tool for transparency and accountability. Hosting a poll after the fact is just another way to avoid that until after the potential damage has been done.
Proposal RNS-2. “Threat to life or public safety (threats to life extension shall NOT be included unless the emergency threatens an individual placed in preservation prior to the emergency, such as cryogenics)“.
USTP Leadership Response: Threats to the future and reputation of the life-extension movement and the prospect of attaining radical life extension within our lifetimes should indeed be considered grounds for declaring an emergency, particularly when such threats pertain to the possible derailment of the life-extension cause through hostile characterizations within the court of public opinion. The USTP leadership reminds members that the immutable Core Ideal 1 of the USTP is that “The Transhumanist Party supports significant life extension achieved through the progress of science and technology.” Any act, behavior, allegation, or decision which threatens the fulfillment of Core Ideal 1 and where the USTP has even a possibility of averting the threat through a swift and decisive response, should indeed be subject to potential treatment as an emergency.
My response- While acknowledging the importance of life extension to our party platform, we need to prioritize existing life above that. Protecting what exists now is more important than protecting something that might exist in the future. Obstacles to research, like personnel issues, should be expected as the normal course of scientific endeavors. The field is robust enough to take a couple blows and continue its work. It’s nothing to create a crisis over.
Proposal RNS-2. “Theft of USTP funds from an official account totaling over X% of the last known balance and more than $X. (Amounts to be decided based on current and future potential needs before vote)”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP does not currently hold an official account for funds, so this is not a situation that can arise at this time. However, in the future, if any theft were undertaken, this would be grounds for declaring an emergency if necessary. It is not clear why a threshold for doing so is proposed here, as any misappropriation of funds should be able to be dealt with swiftly and effectively.
My response- The idea of setting a threshold is not to prevent action, but to limit what constitutes an emergency. For example, if the USTP has a balance of $10,000 and $5 is unaccounted for, that’s not an urgent issue that impacts our ability to function. It can be resolved at a reasonable pace without needing to declare an emergency.
Proposal RNS-2. “It shall not include:
* Personal scandal
* Delays in research
* Matters of outside businesses or organizations“
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership considers these exclusions to essentially negate any power to declare an emergency. Manufactured personal scandal is one of the easiest tactics to use in today’s cultural and social-media environment in order to damage a person’s career, livelihood, and reputation, without having sufficient evidence to do so within the criteria of any formal legal system. Tying the USTP leadership’s hands in such situations only lends additional power to those who would seek to deploy such a reprehensible tactic with impunity. Delays in research that affects life extension could be a matter of life or death for many transhumanists, and also contravene Core Ideal 1 of the U.S. Transhumanist Party; the USTP leadership should have the authority to endeavor to overcome such delays through all efficacious means, particularly by shaping public opinion if the roadblocks to the research’s continuation are cultural and attitudinal. Furthermore, if “outside businesses or organizations” engage in conduct that materially affects the future of the transhumanist movement, including public perception of transhumanism and life extension, then removing the ability of the USTP to comment on such conduct would simply remove the USTP from the ability to influence such public perception, leaving such influence solely to others, including those hostile to our movement. The USTP leadership does not understand why our organization should intentionally handicap itself when our movement’s detractors intend to do no such thing and have only escalated their attacks as the movement has been reaching various milestones of success.
My response- This is nonsense, as you have already identified other areas where emergency action is needed (acts of violence, natural disasters, etc). We do not need to grant emergency powers to personal or speculative issues. I’m not suggesting that we refrain from speaking on these issues, but simply pointing out that there is no need to make an emergency out of it. As obstacles happen in research they also happen in business, politics, and public perception. It is simply the nature of discourse, not an emergent threat. Claiming it to be one is nothing short of grandstanding and moralistic fallacy.
Proposal RNS-2. “An emergency can only be declared in cases where delayed action would clearly cause increased harm based on the available evidence. If the emergency action is to take longer than 14 days, then it requires further approval by a vote of the membership.”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, criteria such as “clearly cause increased harm based on the available evidence” would be subject to interpretation, and a member who disagrees with the USTP leadership’s judgment as to what is likely to cause harm may then invoke such a clause to assert a veto power over USTP leadership’s actions. The 14-day threshold for a membership vote is unreasonably short, as most membership votes have historically taken longer than 14 days if one considers the prior exposure period alone, but the vote itself should also be open for a reasonably long amount of time to give any member who wishes to vote the opportunity to do so. If this is followed in the circumstances of an emergency, chances are that the rapid events, to which the USTP would need to respond, would have already taken their toll in the form of the undesirable consequences that may occur in the absence of USTP action. Furthermore, the timing of the resolution of the emergency is contingent on a variety of external events and decisions over which the USTP leadership has no control; however, the USTP leadership can anticipate and has previously experienced situations where pressing situation can last far beyond 14 days, if, for instance, there is a standoff among the individuals and external organizations involved, or if the publication of information related to the matter in question is expected to be spread out over a longer time period (even as social-media commentary on the same matter and its consideration within the court of public opinion continue unabated).
My response- If an issue is subject to interpretation then I would encourage our leadership to provide evidence to support the claim before running headfirst into a volatile or potentially dangerous situation. A vote is there to create transparency and accountability. As for an exposure period, I’d say that public news of the emergency begins the clock for the exposure period, giving members two weeks from the start of the incident should be enough time to at least form some sort opinion. I think there can be a little wiggle room when establishing when such news began to spread in some cases, but no more than a couple days.
Nope.
I am posting below a comment on these proposals that was submitted via e-mail by Penny Hart.
***
I think the Chairman should be given the power to take whatever action he/she/they deem necessary to protect our community followed up by a vote of the members within a reasonable timeframe.
Penny Hart
Zachary Richardson’s proposal (ZR1) is a dangerous codification of unilateral action kept solely by the USTP Chairman. This would be done in a manner inconsistent with the USTP platform. Additionally, his plan is so narrow that it even excludes and prevents other official party leaders from expressing concern over statements and actions taken by the chairman. Mr. Richardson repeatedly grants sole power to the chairman over a wide variety of issues. But what is most troubling are the parts in which raising concerns is subject to punishment.
1- “Party members may not seek to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party or its allies, affiliates or members; nor may any Party member seek to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party or its allies, affiliates, or members by anyone who was so designated by the Chairman.”
2- “If any Party member seeks to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party, or its allies, affiliates or members, or any statement made on behalf of the Party by anyone who was designated an ally by the Chairman, the Chairman may assert that the member in question is acting in violation of the Party’s principles and its standards.”
These blatant attempts of censorship are counter to the very core of US democracy and the USTP. Preventing criticism of our leadership is a gilded invitation to dictatorship. We have every right, and should be encouraged, to question the decisions and statements of our party leaders as we would any other politician without fear of punishment or retribution. It is our most direct way to identify potential problems and call for accountability of our leadership’s actions. By removing our ability to voice concern we complete the move of the USTP becoming our chairman’s personal soap box. Additionally, by defining dissenting positions as a violation of the USTP standards, we make members vulnerable to unilateral punishment, including banishment from the party as described in the Guidelines for Community Conduct.
Mr. Richardson’s position also violates several sections of our policy platform. The most relevant violation comes from section XX which states the USTP “strongly opposes all censorship”. By establishing into party policy that speaking out against our chairman is a violation of the USTP’s principals and standards. It creates not only censorship, but contradiction within our own platform and the very goals we strive to achieve.
As a result I move to have the above sections, labeled 1 and 2, removed from this proposal as they violate existing policy.
Mr. Richardson’s proposal is a stunning attack of free speech and open political discourse. As a party that draws from multiple backgrounds and political viewpoints the USTP needs an open arena for discussing the issues to function, even when those viewpoints don’t align with our chairman, other leaders, or our membership. Limiting what can be discussed to only what is supported by our chairman is dangerously regressive and a great way to kill a budding political organization that seeks to create inclusivity. I would encourage everyone to vote NO on ZR1.
I suggest everyone read Sextion XX of our platform and then ask yourself if Zach’s policy can exist side by side with it:
Section XX [Adopted by a vote of the members during March 26 – April 1, 2017]: The United States Transhumanist Party strongly supports the freedom of peaceful speech; religious, non-religious, and anti-religious philosophical espousal; assembly; protest; petition; and expression of grievances. The United States Transhumanist Party therefore strongly opposes all censorship, including censorship that arises out of identity politics and the desire to avoid perceived offensive behavior.
All members are currently empowered to protest and express their grievances. All censorship is banned, even in cases of differing political views. Trying to force members to take a position and preventing them from voicing concern is a direct violation.
Oh man, what a horrible typo. My apologies
R Nicholas Starr – unsurprisingly, your critique is wildly out of context.
Look at the title of ZR-1:
“Proposal in Support of Decisive Executive Action in Times of Emergency:
When executive action is required in the face of a serious threat, the Chairman must have the authority to act decisively.”
You are conflating an event in which a rapid reaction is required – otherwise known as an emergency – with your everyday whining about how life ought to be.
Two completely different situations.
Try your best to keep this in mind when you discuss ZR-1.
Mike, you are intentionally ignoring the second half of Zach’s proposal. The parts in which Zach seeks to ban speaking out and calling for a statement to be rescinded. It is 100% censorship. Section XX spells out quite clearly that what Zach is trying to ban is protected speech.
You have a point about about last part, we need more clarity on what he means by “compel” because you are obviously correct, it should not be taken to mean normal rational discourse. However if it is taken to mean some form unusual undue influence, like blackmail or something just obviously uncool, then it makes more sense.
Thinking more about it, Whatever “Compel” is supposed to mean, you’re probably right we might be better off taking those out.
Nicholas i noticed that in your logic there were places where it is sort of put on the “victim/accused to have to “prove” the case to be able to defend themselves by speaking out. The burden of proof shouldn’t be on the “innocent until proven guilty” or The USTP. I understand how you feel about wanting to remain above the fray and neutral. I get it, It’s admirable and what we strive to be. Respectable like a group of judges, but we’re not a group of judges. Taking a stand on issues is politics and what a political party does. I don’t think we should assume that our natural starting state on issues be always neutral.
And to address the “authoritarianism” issue : Gennady just isn’t like that. One of the biggest reasons why i follow him is because of what he said when he accepted the role as chairman. If he can just put a system in place then he could step back from it. It’s the same thing i think of and why i do this too, to get a system in place. The reason I think we should put so much power in a chief executive here has a lot to do with group size and social network dynamics. With how many people are in our party right now i think Gennady would bring us consistently closer towards accuracy than the group average. If everyone in our group were only average people then it would be different, but when you have someone exceptionally accurate out of a small group…. group and social network dynamics change though, the key is to be agile and change in ways that continue to bring the group towards accuracy. We might wanna look at the data over time and try to predict when and how those dynamics will change.
So bottom line I trust Gennady the most accurate and I’m impressed with how open he is to new ways of doing things and new tech,
As far as the “Transparency” Issue There isn’t a lot in private chat but i do think it would be a good idea to let our active members into the officers chat. You were correct and i recognize your point about diversity is better for accuracy in a group and about having discussion and votes so by all means yes we should encourage ways to include those members would actively participate. What mike meant was our message as it is presented to the public not internal stuff. Those who want in and transparency let in, but i really wouldn’t want complete transparency to the public and like on stage 24/7.
So to wrap up I’m a yes on ZR-1 but i may support your motion to strike those 2 paragraphs entirely.
Then there is a fundamental disagreement. I don’t trust Gennady. Nor would I trust our next leader, if that ever actually happens. No political leader should be trusted. Their actions must be under scrutiny to ensure there is zero abuse.
Also, people change. People in power change. And who is in power also (eventually, maybe) changes. We can’t consider a policy based on who is in power and whether you like then. It has to be based on what is best for the party, not just the people running it.
This paragraph should also be removed due to concerns over section XX. No member should be forced by policy to pledge anything
“ The Party therefore pledges to make a good-faith effort to ensure that the Chairman has the opportunity to respond to attacks on the Party, or on any of its members, allies, or affiliates, and finally to ensure that the Chairman is able to engage in the activities described in this proposal on a permanent and hopefully indefinite basis.”
R. Nicholas Starr, I understand your concern about corruption. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. So i get that. I wonder if it’s that you just don’t trust Gennady or that you wouldn’t trust anyone. I’m reminded though, that the office of president was kind of designed around George Washington as far as i know. I understand being worried about “authoritarianism” especially after the last 4 years, and i see the irony here but I want to assure you, I’m not in support of that in any way.
About the concerns over section XX, i’m guessing you mean this section? : ” Section XX [Adopted by a vote of the members during March 26 – April 1, 2017]: The United States Transhumanist Party strongly supports the freedom of peaceful speech; religious, non-religious, and anti-religious philosophical espousal; assembly; protest; petition; and expression of grievances. The United States Transhumanist Party therefore strongly opposes all censorship, including censorship that arises out of identity politics and the desire to avoid perceived offensive behavior.”
1. I’m not sure that really says that “no member should be forced by policy to pledge anything” In fact I think we’re all required to pledge our support for the 3 core values in order to be a member.
2. It says “ The Party therefore pledges” and not individual members. I know that’s kinda splitting hairs though.
However i do agree that the last part : “on a permanent and hopefully indefinite basis.” should be stricken or possibly replaced with a finite length of time.
I don’t think these powers should be granted “indefinitely” and this policy should be revisited periodically to decide whether it should be renewed.