Browsed by
Tag: Gennady Stolyarov II

Nevada Senate Bill 292 and the Democratic Party’s Anti-Democratic Hypocrisy on Voter Rights – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

Nevada Senate Bill 292 and the Democratic Party’s Anti-Democratic Hypocrisy on Voter Rights – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


While the Democratic Party often postures as championing voter rights and opposing voter suppression, it frequently engages in voter-suppression tactics of its own, particularly aimed at restricting voters’ ability to choose minor political parties on the ballot. Senate Bill 292, advanced by prominent Democratic Legislators despite overwhelming public opposition, is a case in point.

SB292 is sponsored by former Nevada Democratic Party Chair, now Senator, Roberta Lange. Many have already identified the flaws with SB292’s attempt to implement “straight-party-ticket” voting – an option that discourages thoughtful consideration of individual candidates on their merits. But the largely overlooked Section 2 of SB292 would be much more insidiously damaging in shutting minor political parties out of realistic ballot access by imposing a requirement that petition signatures gathered by minor parties seeking ballot access be “equally apportioned” among the four Congressional districts in Nevada.

The number of petition signatures required in Nevada is already immensely high; one percent of the voters for U.S. Representative at the last general election must sign a minor party’s petition for the party to qualify for ballot access. No party has been able to meet this onerous threshold since 2011. Yet, even if a party is able to surpass it through herculean efforts, the requirement of equal apportionment would mean that the Democratic Party could challenge the minor party’s petition if just one more signature comes from one district than from another. For example, even if a minor party were spectacularly successful and somehow gathered signatures from all the registered voters in Nevada’s most populous 3rd Congressional District, the Democrats could attempt to disqualify that petition on the technicality that an “equal” number of signatures from the other, less populous districts were not attained. SB292’s Section 2 would empower Democrats to thwart every minor party’s petition forever.

Because of the additional coordination required to even attempt to gather petition signatures “equally” by petition district, rather than simply trying to gather as many signatures as possible, one would expect the petitioning effort to be more time-consuming than previously. However, Section 2 of SB292 reduces the time available to a minor party, moving the compliance deadline from the third Friday in June to June 1, thereby further lowering the probability of meeting all requirements. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada in 1992 already struck down a slightly less burdensome deadline of June 10 in the case of Lenora B. Fulani et al. v. Cheryl A. Lau, Secretary of State. A June 1 deadline could be challenged on the same grounds, but the proponents of SB292 wish to impose it regardless.

In Nevada, prominent Democratic Party Legislators seem determined to limit voters’ options at the ballot box. The Green Party, whose nominee finished fourth in the past three U.S. Presidential elections, failed to qualify for ballot access in Nevada in 2012, 2016, and 2020, because of the unreasonable existing petition threshold and significant Democratic Party efforts to disqualify petition signatures in 2016. Nevada is also one of only five states that lack a write-in option, further reinforcing the imperative to relax ballot-access requirements instead of imposing additional ones. At present, minor political parties without access to vast funds, such as the all-volunteer Transhumanist Party, are shut out by intentional barriers to entry imposed at the behest of the major parties.

Do Democrats in power only wish to improve the ease of voting for Democrats, while excluding other options by establishing insurmountable barriers to ballot access? Or will enough Democrats take a stand for their stated principles, support genuine voter choice, and thwart anti-democratic legislation such as SB292?

Senate Bill 292 will be heard at 4 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday, May 25, 2021, at the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. This will be our last chance at direct input to the Legislators regarding this bill. Follow the link above and click on the button to “Participate” in order to register for call-in information. You can also e-mail your written comments to . Be civil and respectful but firm in your opposition to this attempt to severely limit voter choice!

Gennady Stolyarov II is the Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party and the Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party.

U.S. Transhumanist Party Second Letter in Opposition to Nevada Senate Bill 292 – Sent to the Senate Committee on Finance – May 4, 2021

U.S. Transhumanist Party Second Letter in Opposition to Nevada Senate Bill 292 – Sent to the Senate Committee on Finance – May 4, 2021

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


Note: Senate Bill 292 (SB292), which would make it essentially impossible for minor political parties to compete at the ballot box or even attempt ballot access, continues to be rapidly advanced in Nevada. It was authored by a former Democratic Party Chair who would like to require the number of signatures to be impossibly “equally apportioned” by petitioning district, move the deadline for submitting petitions to an earlier June 1 date, and institute straight-line party-ticket voting that shuts out other options and discourages individualized decision-making.

After SB292 passed on a party-line vote (3 Democrats in favor, 2 Republicans opposed) out of the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, I drafted a letter to the Senate Committee on Finance, where the bill is headed next, in opposition to SB292. The text of this letter appears below. 

I urge all Nevadans and Transhumanist Party members, as well as those who are sympathetic to other minor political parties, to submit their opinions in opposition to SB292 here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/81st2021/Be sure to reference the amended, “April 16, 2021” version as the bill you are opposing – so as to signal that even the recently amended bill continues to pose serious problems. If you would like your comments to be published, you can also submit them via e-mail to SenFIN@sen.state.nv.us

The Senate Committee on Finance will meet this Wednesday, May 5, at 6:30 p.m. Pacific Time to hold a public hearing on this bill. Meeting information will be updated on this page: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bill/7895/Meetings. If you can dial in during the time period for public testimony and lend your voice in opposition, that would be greatly appreciated. Focus your testimony on the adverse fiscal impacts of this bill, as that is what the Committee will be primarily considering. Please feel free to reference any of my arguments below for inspiration. Remember to be civil and respectful but firm in your opposition!

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, May 4, 2021


May 4, 2021

Re: Opposition to Amended Senate Bill 292 (First Reprint)

Dear Chairman Brooks and honorable members of the Senate Committee on Finance:

As Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party and Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party, I strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill 292, which would deprive all minor political parties in Nevada of the opportunity to fairly compete at the ballot box or to even viably attempt such competition.

My comments today will focus on the adverse impacts of Section 2 of the amended (First Reprint) Senate Bill 292, especially the adverse financial impacts to the State of Nevada which are germane to the purview of this Committee.

At a time of great fiscal strain to the State of Nevada, which is just beginning to recover from the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic, and immense economic hardship for the people of this State, it is highly imprudent to impose additional costs upon the State or any of its agencies for the doubly imprudent and entirely deleterious purpose of raising the barriers to ballot access for minor political parties.

While the amended bill no longer raises the petition-signature threshold from 1% to 2% of the Nevada voters who voted in the last election, it does still, via Section 2, Subsection 2, Paragraph (c), seek to impose an impossible “equal apportionment” requirement for the petition signatures and would also move the deadline for submitting petition signatures from the current third Friday in June to June 1.

The “equal apportionment” requirement renders it essentially impossible for a minor political party to qualify via the petition process and also unnecessarily burdens the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office.

Currently, to verify the validity of a petition signature, the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office simply needs to consider an individual petition signature and whether it belongs to a registered voter in the State of Nevada. With Section 2 of SB292, the Secretary of State’s Office would have the additional burden of verifying that the signatures are “equally apportioned” among the four petition districts in Nevada. This could lead to a significant expenditure of time and resources beyond what can be formally budgeted for – because the added workload would be sporadic, punctuated, and inherently unpredictable given the difficulty in anticipating when (i.e., during what election season) a minor party would seek to qualify for ballot access, as well as how many minor parties would seek to qualify. The potential for significant additional costs to the State of Nevada will be illustrated below via a discussion of how the bill would burden the State by encouraging a multitude of major-party challenges to any minor-party petitions that are submitted.

Nevada has four petition districts, corresponding to the U.S. Congressional Districts. The 3rd Congressional District is the most populous, with a population of 857,197 as of 2019. All three of the other Congressional Districts have populations below 800,000. Suppose that a minor political party were spectacularly successful in gathering petition signatures and managed to collect them from the entire population of registered voters in the 3rd Congressional District. (For this example, I assume that the proportion of registered voters to the general population is the same in each Congressional District.) The very fact that this minor political party could accomplish such a feat would ironically render it impossible for that party to qualify for ballot access, because the other petition districts simply do not have enough registered voters to match the number of signatures gathered from the 3rd Congressional District in that case.

Moreover, the “equal apportionment” requirement renders it almost effortless for a major party to initiate challenges to petitions submitted by minor parties, simply by counting the signatures from each district and noting any difference whatsoever in the numbers of signatures, even if the difference is literally one signature! Even if the total number of signatures is well above 1 percent of the registered voters statewide, if the number of signatures gathered in one petition district were 10,000, and the number of signatures gathered in another petition district were 10,001, that also, by itself, would be sufficient to technically fall out of compliance with the requirement of “equal apportionment”. Note that the text of the amended NRS 293.1715(2)(c) would not allow any room for deviation from a strictly “equal” apportionment. There is no mention of a possibility for the apportionment to be made “approximately equal” or “reasonably equal” or “equal within a tolerance of X%”; the text would mandate strict equality of petition signatures by district, and it appears to enable major parties to seek to disqualify any minor party’s petition on a technicality. Given that different circulators of petitions are likely to operate in different petition districts, it is virtually certain that different numbers of signatures will be gathered by each team of circulators. This is so because the precise coordination at the level that would be needed to achieve exactly equal numbers of signatures among all four districts and to stop gathering signatures in a perfectly choreographed fashion once such equal numbers were attained, would be essentially impossible to achieve.

While it would be easy for major political parties to challenge a minor party’s petition under these circumstances, the experience would be made more difficult for the Secretary of State’s Office and the judicial system of the State of Nevada, because more challenges could be expected to be initiated than otherwise. Responding to a contested matter always involves an added, indeterminate, potentially immense expenditure which, I reiterate, has no compelling public benefit behind it.

Moving the deadline for petitions to June 1 would both unduly burden minor political parties and expose the State of Nevada to additional costs from potential legal challenges.

Because of the additional coordination required to even attempt to gather petition signatures “equally” by petition district, as contrasted with simply trying to gather as many signatures as possible, one would expect that the petitioning effort would be more time-consuming than previously. However, Section 2 of SB292 reduces the available time for a minor party to comply with the added burdens, thereby further lowering the probability of successfully meeting all of the requirements. This disenfranchises the citizens of Nevada who would like to see more options at the ballot box.

Moreover, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada already struck down an even somewhat less burdensome deadline of June 10; this occurred when the Judge in the case of Lenora B. Fulani et al. v. Cheryl A. Lau, Secretary of State (“Fulani v. Lau” – Case CV-N-92-535-ECR) issued a preliminary injunction on October 1, 1992, to require the State of Nevada to include Lenora Fulani and other independent and minor-party candidates on the ballot despite those candidates not having been able to gather the required number of signatures by June 10 of that year. In issuing the preliminary injunction (which effectively decided the case, since the election took place in November of the same year), the Judge wrote “that plaintiffs have shown likely success on the merits, that the balance of hardships tips in their favor and that they will suffer irreparable injury if their names are not put on the 1992 ballot” (Fulani v. Lau, p. 14). The Judge explained that

The character and magnitude of plaintiffs[‘] injury caused by the June 10 filing deadline shows a burden on their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The deadline burdens the rights of nonmajor parties[‘] candidates by excluding late[-]forming parties and forcing candidates to circulate petitions before most of the voting population has thought about the elections. Although this date is not as early as others which have been struck down as unconstitutional, most other states require the petitions be submitted several months later. Also, no evidence suggests that candidates who lack an established national affiliation are easily able to access the ballot. (Fulani v. Lau, p. 11)

If the United States District Court found that a June 10 petition-filing deadline is burdensome to non-major parties’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, then, logically, a June 1 deadline would be even more burdensome. Such a deadline would indeed serve to thwart any but the most amply funded minor political parties, if those parties choose to begin gathering the signatures extremely early in the year, whereas new minor parties, as well as minor parties that rely largely or exclusively on volunteer efforts and grass-roots organizing, would find themselves hobbled by lack of time. SB292 is seeking to institute in Nevada law a deadline more stringent than the one which the District Court has already overturned. SB292 would also entrench the role of money in politics and cost money to the State in doing so.

If SB292 is enacted with the June 1 deadline, then any number of parties adversely affected by that deadline could file a legal challenge with Fulani v. Lau as a precedent. The State of Nevada could be exposed to the costs of a legal proceeding, along with associated attorneys’ fees. The costs of responding to such a legal challenge are again indeterminate but potentially immense. Comments submitted separately to this Committee by Mr. Richard Winger discuss situations in other States where such early petition deadlines were struck down and those States were left with the expenses of the associated proceedings. To emphasize, this is not an outcome that I would wish for the State to experience in any manner; as a citizen of this State, I, too, would be adversely affected by continued needless expenditures on legal contests at a time when the State needs to devote all available resources to the economic recovery and to the genuine well-being of its residents.  This is why I urge this Committee and the Legislature more generally to refrain from proceeding with SB292 and to avert such an outcome.

Senate Bill 292 is bad policy, counterproductive in all respects, and the fiscal burdens and risks it imposes upon the State have no offsetting benefits. Indeed, Senate Bill 292 exacerbates a highly polarized political situation to the detriment even of major-party officeholders.

Senate Bill 292 would achieve the opposite of establishing a fair, level playing field for political candidates and parties.  Unfortunately, Senate Bill 292, if enacted, will only serve to exacerbate today’s political trench warfare by solidifying the bifurcation of the contemporary American body politic into two blocs that have each become increasingly monolithic and radicalized internally, and increasingly hostile toward the other, with no room between them to pursue unconventional and innovative solutions that can bridge partisan divides. This anticipated effect of SB292 is likely not anyone’s intention; however, the two-party system in the United States has a built-in downward spiral of incivility, hostility, and division which has, over the past year, crossed the line from mere acrimony into deadly riots and insurrections from extreme exponents of both sides of the partisan gulf. Any Legislator interested in stable and sensible governance should seek to avert an intensification of this scenario, and there is a vital role for a vibrant minor-party ecosystem in helping to prevent it.

How does Senate Bill 292 exacerbate political polarization? It does so by making it effectively impossible for minor political parties to even attain ballot access – in the ways described above. This bill would make it clear to voters that minor parties are not just long-shot participants but are effectively shut out of the process altogether. Thus, many people who would have otherwise given a minor party a chance would be shunted into one of the major political parties that is barely more aligned with their views than the other major political party. This would reinforce the bifurcation of America into two distinct blocs which are engaged in an ever-intensifying struggle with one another, to the detriment of any actual progress on policy and any actual solutions to the many pressing problems (including fiscal problems) facing our State, country, and world. Bifurcation of the American body politic creates an “us-versus-them” dynamic, where anyone who is not part of one’s own bloc is automatically considered to be “the enemy” and whose ideas are automatically disregarded. The record increase in independent and nonpartisan voters already shows many Americans to be disillusioned by the toxicity and acrimony that characterize the electoral tactics of the major parties and their most vocal adherents. Without minor parties for them to seek alternatives in, these Americans will either be reluctantly dragged into the deleterious fray they have always wished to avoid, or try to refrain from political participation altogether – in which case the fray will still find them, as extremists from the major parties have increasingly been demonizing conscientiously apolitical Americans as well.

The antidote to polarization is hyper-pluralism, which is precisely what a vibrant minor-party scene would facilitate. In a hyper-pluralistic body politic, there is no clear “enemy” for any constituent, because different smaller parties will align with one another on different issues; one’s adversary on one issue could be an ally on another, and so it is worthwhile to remain on at least respectful terms with everyone. It is for this reason that parliamentary democracies, which allow for proportional representation and numerous political parties competing on each ballot, are generally far less roiled by partisan strife than America’s uniquely contentious two-party system. But Nevada does not even need to adopt a parliamentary system to achieve a similar outcome; it just needs to allow minor political parties to compete on the ballots. Note that we are not even asking for the minor parties to win (which would still be difficult enough on its own), but merely to be allowed to compete!

Allowing quick, easy ballot access for minor political parties is the low-cost ­option to the State of Nevada as well. The less time and effort need to be spent validating petition signatures or enforcing restrictions, the more savings result for the State of Nevada.

Even the possibility of competition motivates both incumbent officeholders and major-party candidates to be more responsive to the needs of their constituents. Furthermore, minor parties can be fruitful repositories of ideas for major-party politicians to draw upon; the Transhumanist Party would be delighted to have any of its platform reflected in legislation advanced by major-party lawmakers. Ideas from minor parties tend to sufficiently depart from the prevailing major-party packages that they avoid triggering contentious and mutually intransigent debates about “wedge” issues and so may actually lead to solutions that most major-party policymakers are willing to entertain. Incumbents and major-party candidates can even derive much valuable campaign intelligence from election results involving minor political parties. A strong showing for a minor party indicates a set of issues that voters are interested in and that the incumbent or major-party candidate would do well to address while in office or on the campaign trail. Having a wealth of ideas from minor parties to draw upon will also improve the State of Nevada’s fiscal situation, since minor parties – which, out of necessity, have significant experience running low-budget or no-budget operations – will often develop creative ways to reduce expenditures without compromising the quality of service and benefits that the State provides to its residents.

By shutting minor parties out of viable political participation, Senate Bill 292 would only accomplish the illusion of stability for leading figures of a major political party. In reality, one cannot have a stable or tranquil political experience in a general environment marred by ideological polarization and all of its attendant ills. Depriving people of legitimate alternatives will only alienate them further and feed into the undercurrents of frustration and perceived disenfranchisement that permeate American politics today. Minor political parties are a major safety valve of American politics and can act to effectively channel dissent and discontentment into constructive avenues of mutual improvement and enhanced justice.  In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison, at the onset of the American Republic, noted that the advantage of a large representative republic is precisely in “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest”. The American Founders, who feared precisely the scenario of two dominant factions vying for power at the citizens’ and the Republic’s expense, saw the “greater variety of parties” as an important safeguard against such an outcome. The Transhumanist Party echoes the Founders’ wisdom and would urge the Legislature to consider reforms in the opposite direction from those proposed in SB292 – namely, the elimination of all ballot-access requirements and the ability of any candidate or political party to compete fairly for office on the same terms as any other. After all, if a minor-party candidate is unpersuasive to the voters and the major-party candidates remain more popular, what is there truly for a major party to fear from allowing participation for all? But in the absence of such truly progressive reforms, we urge that the Legislature at least refrain from taking steps that would further limit electoral competition.

Removing ballot-access restrictions, rather than maximizing them, is the fiscally prudent, the consequentially best, and the morally just option. Please reject Senate Bill 292.

Sincerely,

Mr. Gennady Stolyarov II

Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

Chief Executive, Nevada Transhumanist Party

https://transhumanist-party.org

Amended Nevada Senate Bill 292 Continues to Place Impossible Burdens on Minor Political Parties – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

Amended Nevada Senate Bill 292 Continues to Place Impossible Burdens on Minor Political Parties – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


The anti-minor-party Nevada Senate Bill 292 has advanced out of the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections on a party-line vote (3 Democrats in favor, 2 Republicans opposed). An amendment from the bill sponsor was included in the bill; Amendment No. 230 is an incremental improvement but maintains essentially insurmountable barriers for minor political parties. While the amended bill no longer raises the petition-signature threshold from 1% to 2% of the Nevada voters who voted in the last election, it does still seek to impose an impossible “equal distribution” requirement for the petition signatures and also moves the deadline for submitting petition signatures from the current third Friday in June to June 1.

Section 2 of SB292 is the most onerous for minor political parties. The provisions further limiting ballot access, relative to the already significant requirements, are found in the new language that the bill sponsor, Nevada Senator and former Nevada Democratic Party Chair Roberta Lange, wishes to insert in NRS 293.1715(2)(c), stating that to qualify for ballot access, a minor political party must:

(New proposed wording above is in bold blue italics, wording proposed to be deleted is in red strikethrough.)

While various other problems exist with SB292, particularly with the concept of straight-ticket, party-line voting – which aims to absolve voters of the essential responsibility to study individual candidates and their stances on the issues – the present commentary will focus on the most egregious flaws with Section 2 of the bill: requiring that the petition signatures be “apportioned equally among the petition districts” and moving the deadline for submitting petition signatures to June 1 preceding the general election.

The bill sponsor appears to be of the impression that removing the previously proposed doubling of the number of petition signatures required would alleviate the most visible added burden on minor political parties. Yet the remaining requirement of equal apportionment is actually far more burdensome and more insidiously so. It requires several more steps in one’s thought process to discern the burden – hence, the bill proponents may believe it to be a viable option to insert such a provision without significant portions of the public noticing or voicing their objections. Therefore, it is important to elucidate the immense problems with the “equal apportionment” criterion.

Nevada has four petition districts, corresponding to the U.S. Congressional Districts. The 3rd Congressional District is the most populous, with a population of 857,197 as of 2019. All three of the other Congressional Districts have populations below 800,000. Suppose that a minor political party were spectacularly successful in gathering petition signatures and managed to collect them from the entire population of registered voters in the 3rd Congressional District. (For this example, we will assume that the proportion of registered voters to the general population is the same in each Congressional District.) The very fact that this minor political party could accomplish such a feat would render it impossible for that party to qualify for ballot access, because the other petition districts simply do not have enough registered voters to match the number of signatures gathered from the 3rd Congressional District in that case.

Moreover, the “equal apportionment” requirement renders it almost effortless for a major party to challenge petitions submitted by minor parties, simply by counting the signatures from each district and noting any difference whatsoever in the numbers of signatures, even if the difference is literally one signature! Even if the total number of signatures is well above 1 percent of the registered voters statewide, if the number of signatures gathered in one petition district were 10,000, and the number of signatures gathered in another petition district were 10,001, that also, by itself, would be sufficient to technically fall out of compliance with the requirement of “equal apportionment”. Note that the text of the amended NRS 293.1715(2)(c) would not allow any room for deviation from a strictly “equal” apportionment. There is no mention of a possibility for the apportionment to be made “approximately equal” or “reasonably equal” or “equal within a tolerance of X%”; the text would mandate strict equality of petition signatures by district, and it appears to me that the Democratic Party proponents of the bill did this intentionally to be able to disqualify any minor party’s petition on a technicality. Given that different circulators of petitions are likely to operate in different petition districts, it is virtually certain that different numbers of signatures will be gathered by each team of circulators. This is so because precise coordination at the level that would be needed to achieve exactly equal numbers of signatures among all four districts and to stop gathering signatures in a perfectly choreographed fashion once such equal numbers were attained, would be essentially impossible to achieve.

Moreover, suppose a minor political party represented a set of positions that resonated to a greater extent with a particular segment of the Nevada population – for instance, young urban professionals, ranchers, miners, university students, residents of rural areas. Each petition district has considerably different proportions of these demographics than the other. For instance, the 1st Congressional District is 99.90% urban, so a hypothetical party that focused on representing the interests of ranchers or rural residents would find quite limited support there.  Some city dwellers might, of course, sign a petition for such a party’s ballot access on principle, because they support inclusion of all political parties on the ballot; however, from a sheer probabilistic standpoint, the number of such people would be fewer than the number of people in rural areas who would be willing to sign that party’s petition. Even if the hypothetical party representing rural interests only intended to run candidates in rural areas, it would still need to receive an equal number of signatures from each urban-heavy petition district in order to qualify for the ballot. Therefore, regional parties or parties representing specific constituencies would essentially be permanently barred from ballot access by the “equal apportionment” requirement.

Because of the additional coordination required to even attempt to gather petition signatures “equally” by petition district, as contrasted with simply trying to gather as many signatures as possible, one would expect that the petitioning effort would be more time-consuming than previously. However, Section 2 of SB292 reduces the available time for a minor party to comply with the added burdens, thereby further lowering the probability of successfully meeting all of the requirements.

Moreover, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada already struck down an even less burdensome deadline of June 10; this occurred when the Judge in the case of Lenora B. Fulani et al. v. Cheryl A. Lau, Secretary of State (“Fulani v. Lau” – Case CV-N-92-535-ECR) issued a preliminary injunction on October 1, 1992, to require the State of Nevada to include Lenora Fulani and other independent and minor-party candidates on the ballot despite those candidates not having been able to gather the required number of signatures by June 10 of that year. In issuing the preliminary injunction (which effectively decided the case, since  the election took place in November of the same year), the Judge wrote “that plaintiffs have shown likely success on the merits, that the balance of hardships tips in their favor and that they will suffer irreparable injury if their names are not put on the 1992 ballot” (Fulani v. Lau, p. 14). The Judge explained that

The character and magnitude of plaintiffs[‘] injury caused by the June 10 filing deadline shows a burden on their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The deadline burdens the rights of nonmajor parties[‘] candidates by excluding late[-]forming parties and forcing candidates to circulate petitions before most of the voting population has thought about the elections. Although this date is not as early as others which have been struck down as unconstitutional, most other states require the petitions be submitted several months later. Also, no evidence suggests that candidates who lack an established national affiliation are easily able to access the ballot. (Fulani v. Lau, p. 11)

If the United States District Court found that a June 10 petition-filing deadline is burdensome to non-major parties’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, then, logically, a June 1 deadline would be even more burdensome. Such a deadline would indeed serve to thwart any but the most amply funded minor political parties, if those parties choose to begin gathering the signatures extremely early in the year, whereas new minor parties, as well as minor parties that rely largely or exclusively on volunteer efforts and grass-roots organizing, would find themselves hobbled by lack of time. SB292 is seeking to institute in Nevada law a deadline more stringent than the one which the District Court has already overturned.

There is still time to express opposition to Senate Bill 292, particularly to the requirement that petition signatures be equally apportioned and the earlier June 1 deadline for submitting such signatures. SB292 is already one of the most actively commented on and least popular bills of the 2021 Legislative Session, with 209 public opinions expressed in opposition and only 4 in favor.  You can submit your opinion in opposition to SB292 here and also e-mail the Senate Committee on Finance, where SB292 will be headed next, at SenFIN@sen.state.nv.us, as well as e-mail the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections at AsmLOE@asm.state.nv.us. The Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections would be the committee where SB292 would be heard if it were to pass in the Senate. Please express your concerns civilly and politely but make it clear that you do not agree with any attempts to further limit minor-party ballot access. Also, please spread this article to as many constituencies as possible! People of nearly all political persuasions should be able to agree on the importance of voter choice and to abhor the injustice of intentionally restricting candidates and parties from even being available for voters to consider.

Even the current ballot-access thresholds in Nevada are unduly stringent; the last time a minor political party qualified for the ballot through petitioning in Nevada was in 2011, when the Americans Elect organization was able to submit the required number of signatures. It is time to pursue reforms in the opposite direction from Section 2 of SB292; it is time to repeal all petitioning requirements for ballot access and allow voters the choice of any candidate or party whom they wish to support. At minimum, it is essential to oppose the placement of any further obstacles along the path to ballot access. All provisions of SB292 related to minor political parties should be amended out of the bill upon further revision. Please add your voice to this important effort to preserve electoral choice and to oppose one major party’s efforts to monopolize Nevada elections.

Gennady Stolyarov II is the Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party. 

A Summary of the USTP’s FDA Reform Panel – Article by Dan Elton

A Summary of the USTP’s FDA Reform Panel – Article by Dan Elton

Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.


The U.S. Transhumanist Party livestreams special Enlightenment Salon events every Sunday at 4 p.m. on YouTube. Two weeks ago, on April 4. 2021, the USTP organized a special Enlightenment Salon panel event on FDA reform. In addition to myself, the following people participated on the panel, which was moderated by USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II:

  • Prof. Alex Tabarrok, Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics, George Mason University
  • Dr. Max More, President Emeritus, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
  • Jim O’Neill, CEO, SENS Research Foundation
  • Dr. Edward Hudgins, Founder, Human Achievement Alliance
  • Prof. Garett Jones, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
  • Willy Chertman, Medical Student and Blogger

The entire panel was probably the most information-dense event the USTP has done. I kicked things off by giving a short presentation, which I managed to blaze through in 15 minutes. (The slides can be viewed here.) The presentation set the stage for a very informative and productive discussion.

My only regret was that we didn’t have any women on the panel. However, during the course of researching my presentation, I found out about the work of Dr. Mary J. Ruwart. Dr. Ruwart estimated the number of people who die every year from FDA delays to be around 150,000 per year in her book Death by RegulationSo, I am happy to announce that Sunday, April 25th, from 4 – 6 p.m. Eastern Time, 1-3 p.m. Pacific Time, the USTP will be doing a special Virtual Enlightenment Salon with her.

Here is the recording of the FDA reform event. At 00:05:00 my presentation kicks off:

I’ve written a summary of the major points each of the panelists (and two others) made during approximately the first hour of the session. These are heavily paraphrased. (Instead of providing direct quotes, I shortened what was said in most cases while maintaining the core meaning of what was communicated.) I have put my own comments in italics.

Prof. Alex Tabarrok:

  • The FDA can approve a bad drug (Type I) or fail to approve a good drug (Type II). If they approve a bad drug, people who were affected will go on Oprah, and there will be huge backlash. If they don’t approve a good drug, there is no backlash. The invisible graveyard is a statistical reality, but it’s hard to see. This can be seen easily by asking people to name a time when the FDA approved a bad drug (or a drug with unexpected side effects). Lots of people can think of something. Many point to Thalidomide, which is actually a drug that was approved in Europe and caused birth defects. Thalidomide, incidentally, has many important applications but was not approved by the FDA until 1998.
  • When you have a Type I error, you learn something — we learn about the harms of a drug, and we change our behavior. With a Type II error we never learn anything. We can’t see the consequences of a failure to approve, and even worse, we can’t see the many drugs that never even made it to FDA-mandated trials in the first place because they were deemed too risky to justify the cost.
  • Reciprocity is a sensible reform that is one of the most feasible.
  • The FDA likes to think they are the “gold standard” for drug approval. Yet, people in other countries don’t worry about whether drugs are FDA-approved. For food safety we already have reciprocity with Canada.
  • The FDA has been working for 40 years on new standards for approving sunscreens. So Europeans have much more advanced sunscreen than the US.
  • If aspirin were invented today, it probably wouldn’t be approved.
  • One thing U.S. policymakers have done already, which is probably the smartest thing they have done in a while, is PEDUFA (Prescription Drug User Fee Act). The drug developers pay an extra tax as long as approvals are sped up. The FDA was happy because they got to expand their bureaucracy, and drug companies were happy because they could get to market faster.
  • In the EU the EMA “farms out” reviews to private companies. (So the EMA is more like “an approver of approvers”). Private companies can do a good job – for instance, look at Underwriters Laboratories in the realm of electrical devices. (If you look at many electrical devices, you may see a “UL” seal.) Many major companies like Amazon won’t carry devices unless they are UL-approved.
  • There is no formal process whereby where if a disease is more deadly, then the standards should be lowered to speed approvals. For instance, for pancreatic cancer, which often kills within 6 months, the standards should be lower (and more risk should be tolerated), since patients have less to lose. For something like acne treatment, the standards can be much higher. The FDA recognizes this to some extent in practice, but it’s totally informal – technically it’s not supposed to happen. However they could do this formally and adjust the required statistical significance levels. They could use Bayesian statistical techniques as well.
  • There’s no route to approve a drug for anti-aging. If a company wants to do R&D on anti-aging therapeutics, there is not a clear route for approval.

Dr. Max More:

  • We should keep in mind full abolition of the agency as a long-term goal. [My response: I am against full abolition, but I agree with this. Everyone should at least consider abolition, and if they are against it, explain in some detail why the government needs to be involved versus using private-sector companies and tort law. Going back to first principles regarding the role of government is healthy, especially in places like Washington, D.C., where government institutions are taken for granted and not questioned as much as they could be.]
  • We should keep in mind Milton Friedman’s statement that expecting the FDA to behave differently than it does is like expecting a cat to bark (Note: He said this in a 1973 Newsweek column.) We can’t just say, “We want the FDA to do X”; we have to make sure incentives are in place so people actually do the things we want. Legal mandates can help, but it’s easy for people to skirt around them if the proper incentives don’t exist.
  • We are facing an enormous cultural barrier when it comes to reforming the FDA and CDC. We don’t have a proactionary culture anymore; we have a very fear-based culture, and a simple solution to it does not exist. However, we have a good opportunity right now just like the AIDS activists had a good opportunity in the 1980s.
  • The proactionary principle is a “grab-bag” of tools based on a certain value perspective which basically says that progress is fundamentally good. We aren’t omniscient, so we have to learn by doing. As Alex Tabarrok said, you can’t really learn things without making mistakes. It’s impossible to make progress, like some rationalists believed, by just sitting in chairs and thinking carefully. We have to become empirical. You can “look before leaping”, but you also have “look while leaping” and adjust how you land, to use a crude metaphor.
  • Cost-benefit analysis is a basic approach that is used in many organizations but doesn’t seem to be used as much in government agencies. It shouldn’t be controversial. Mandating cost-benefit analyses would be a step towards using ideas from the proactionary principle.
  • We should institutionalize the Devil’s Advocate procedure and institutionalize respectful disagreement. Instead of having the most powerful person in the room getting what they want railroaded through, we should require debate and motivate decision makers to ponder both sides. Other approaches could help, such as reference class forecasting, structured argumentation techniques, auditing procedures, and auditing review panels.
  • Reciprocity seems like a no-brainer that is relatively easy to achieve, and would greatly reduce costs.
  • Besides getting out these great ideas, we need to figure out how to get people to follow those ideas. Laws can help, but people can choose to not follow them. How do we put “bite” into laws? I think an annual audit on the FDA’s decision making would be a good idea. Importantly, the auditor’s report should be made public. The auditors should come from a variety of institutions, for instance a variety of think tanks from different sides of the political spectrum.

Gennady Stolyarov II:

  • The USTP agrees that abolishing the FDA should not be out of the question. In our Platform, Section CXVIII states:

Section CXVIII [Adopted by a vote of the members during March 25-28, 2020]: Given the extreme delays, bottlenecks, and expenses created by the mandatory approval processes on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Transhumanist Party supports abolishing the FDA and replacing it with a Radical Life Extension Administration (RLEA), whose mandate would be to prioritize the rapid development of potential disease cures, treatments, and vaccines – including any possible cures or vaccines for COVID-19, as well as treatments to mitigate and reverse the disease of biological aging, the major risk factor for COVID-19. The RLEA would allow the marketing and collection of patient data on any potential cure, treatment, or vaccine which has passed affordable safety testing at a reasonably acceptable threshold.

Jim O’Neil:

  • I’ve had the pleasure of working with the FDA quite a bit, and in my experience most of the people there are very smart, and they actually believe in approving things, contrary to what it may look like from the outside.
  • The problem is that incentives matter, and the FDA is a central point of failure.
  • When someone has a severe side effect from a drug, the FDA Commissioner gets hauled in front of several Congressional Committees and is interrogated. When someone dies because something wasn’t approved, there’s total silence in Washington. We should blame Congress, not the FDA, for that incentive being in place.
  • Individuals respond to the institutional incentives, but they also have personal incentives. A lot of people want to be the next whistle-blower who finds the next thalidomide and calls a halt to it. Both of these are pretty severe and would affect even the most principled person in ways they couldn’t even detect.
  • I disagree with Alex that “FDA not recognizing aging as a disease is a major problem.” In order for the FDA to reasonably measure success of any therapy, there must be metrics and biomarkers. It’s not the FDA’s job to do all the scientific work to develop biomarkers for aging. That’s the job of the science community and the NIH to some extent. There are epigenetic clocks, but we need a lot more work on those. Those clocks can then be run through the FDA’s biomarker approval program.
  • The second thing I disagree with is Dan’s idea of making the FDA independent from HHS. I think that would make things worse.
  • My favorite approval ideas fall under the category of “progressive approval” or what Dan calls “tiered approval”. Contrary to what the FDA often thinks, doctors and patients are capable of processing information and making risk-benefit calculations using their knowledge about the specific situation they are in. The more information provided and the more transparency, the better. The FDA should focus back on their original mission of safety and purity. I absolutely support repealing the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments.

Prof. Garett Jones:

  • I come at this as an macroeconomist. I think we can learn from what economists have learned about central banks around the world. The FDA should be as independent of congress and the president as central banks are or as judges are.
  • The Federal Reserve is a panel. That’s how we run the SEC, the FEC, the Federal Reserve, and the Supreme Court. There seems to be some magic to having a panel — it’s probably giving us a bit of the Law of Large Numbers in decision-making.
  • Another aspect of these panels is they have long terms. They are probably going to be serving under a few different Presidents. As I say in my book 10% Less Democracy, “short terms make short-term thinking”. Political independence can lead to decision-making independence, and we have evidence that’s a good thing.
  • Discussions in institutional reform have “high marginal product” right now, as an economist would say. Congress moves slowly, but Congresspersons tend to look for big opportunities for reform a couple years after a crisis. The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 but was born out of the Panic of 1907. Six years was how long it took between a huge financial crisis and Congress getting around to making some reforms. We saw something similar after the global financial crisis – it took about 2-3 years. The ideas that people are discussing now will be part of the information ecology of the next few years in Washington, D.C.
  • These ideas of long terms, independence, and panels are a good path for decision making. I am an unreformed Tabarrokian, so I agree with everything Alex Tabarrok has written about FDA reform (chuckle). What I want to push here is institutional reforms that seem to work in a wide variety of settings. A little more financial and legal independence will lead to a situation where Congress is less of a source of fear for FDA officials.
  • A lot of people on social media have told me that the President is in charge of the FDA. These people have never actually talked to anyone who worked on Capitol Hill — agencies live in fear of their Congressional overlords. They live in fear of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, who have power over their budgets. They also know that if they make a mistake, they can be hauled up before Congress and fired ignominiously.
  • There is a risk that a more independent agency may misuse its freedom. However, in practice, if we look at the data, independent agencies with long terms have high benefits and low costs.
  • It’s fun to complain about the FDA, but it’s wise to complain about Congress.

Dr. Ed Hudgins

  • We’ve been talking about how FDA regulators are always in fear of Congress. What I want to see are FDA regulators in fear of patients who want to get access to medications at less cost and quicker.
  • One of the most egregious examples of defining efficacy was when the FDA decided that 23andme could not offer advice on whether someone was prone to breast cancer. Essentially they thought that women were too stupid to understand the information and would rush out to get a double mastectomy without getting a second opinion.
  • Another example is in 1989-1990 when they wanted to classify a urine sample cup as a “class A medical device”, in the same category as a heart valve.
  • In April 2019, the FDA stated that it wants to regulate artificial intelligence as a medical device.
  • There are many consultants now, whose entire job is to help companies get through the FDA bureaucracy. So there’s a whole industry now just to help people get through the FDA — and that’s part of the problem now, too.
  • The “Free to Choose Medicine” idea should be at the top. Something like this was created around 1992 during AIDS crisis. Congress stepped in and put pressure on the FDA to do something. What they did was create a parallel track where sufferers could access a particular medication for AIDS during the three years it was being tested. 12,000 people took advantage of that, so there are 12,000 people who are not in the invisible graveyard as a result.
  • The idea of a parallel track has been put forward by Bart Madden. Data from people on that track would be put into a public real-world database.
  • There are alternatives to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). If observational data is put into a public database, then doctors can look at that data and make informed recommendations. Drugs would be able to fail quicker, too.
  • In the case of AIDS, it was patient groups that besieged the FDA’s buildings. In light of COVID-19, and people seeing that the system isn’t working for them, we have an opportunity now to push for change.
  • There’s momentum for FDA reform building off of the right-to-try legislation that has been passed in many states. In Texas and North Carolina there are strong pushes to broaden right-to-try to people like patients with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Willy Chertman

  • The AIDS-FDA story is a little more nuanced than was described by Ed Hudgins and Max More. We all know about the militant groups like ACT-UP which pressured the FDA in the 1980s. However in the mid-1990s there developed a few counter-movements against that. One group was called Treatment Action Group, and they pressured the FDA to move slower because they felt the FDA was approving HIV/AIDS treatments that didn’t actually have much benefit.
  • A good book is Malignant by Vinay Prasad. It documents how, over the last twenty years or so, the FDA has lowered the standards for many cancer drugs. They often are approving drugs based on surrogate endpoints and biomarkers, and then the drugs don’t go through follow-up studies to show if they have actual clinical benefit. So there has been a natural experiment where we tried to lower the standards for cancer drugs, and it doesn’t seem to have worked very well. Of course, I’m not an economist, so there might be a way of adding up the costs and benefits where the marginal benefits have outweighed the costs.
  • The FDA had many failures during COVID-19. The first big one was with testing, both with the FDA and the CDC. Others were the decision to delay the approval of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (by about 4-6 weeks), and the decision not to approve the AstraZeneca vaccine, which hasn’t had any transparency. Finally, there was a complete lack of experimentation with human challenge trials. What all of these share is there has been very little transparency and not much good reporting on these issues. There have not been any thorough investigations from journalists, and we don’t really know what’s going on. Before attempting reform we need to first go and find out what went wrong during COVID-19. We need a non-partisan investigation of all of these issues. We need to utilize Freedom of Information Act requests. We need to find out how Trump was involved, why approvals took the amount of time they did, etc.

Dr. Natasha Vita-More

  • Cosmetics does not need FDA approval pre-marketing. It only needs post-market approval if the company says something in their marketing materials that could be misleading. There are many doctors pushing crack cosmetic treatments and behaving in a very “loosey goose-y”. I have a hard time understanding how they get away with these things, unless there are big-monied interests behind them.
  • We all know about Theranos. In 2015 they got FDA approval for one of their tests. There’s clearly an imbalance here – many life-saving treatments struggle to get approval, but a company which is completely fraudulent like Theranos was able to get approval. [My response: This is a great point! Theranos did receive approval, but only for their Herpes test. If I recall correctly, this test was done with conventional laboratory equipment rather then their special “minilab” device, a fact which Theranos hid from investors. Theranos also utilized a loophole to sell tests without FDA approval.]

Dan Elton, Ph. D., is Director of Scholarship for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.  You can find him on Twitter at @moreisdifferent, where he accepts direct messages. If you like his content, check out his website and subscribe to his newsletter on Substack. 

Review of Rykon Volta’s “Arondite” – A Fascinating Exploration of a Hypothetical Future History, With Relevance to Our World – by Gennady Stolyarov II

Review of Rykon Volta’s “Arondite” – A Fascinating Exploration of a Hypothetical Future History, With Relevance to Our World – by Gennady Stolyarov II

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


 

Arondite by Rykon Volta offers a fascinating exploration of a hypothetical trajectory of humankind’s future history, in which Hugo de Garis’s dire predictions of an “Artilect War” had come to pass. As in de Garis’s narrative, so in Volta’s, the anti-technological reactionary Terran faction initiates that war to assail emergent sentient artificial general intelligences and their philosophical allies, the pro-innovation Cosmists. Rather than allow such artificial general intelligences to develop, the Terran General Vantus destroys the entirety of the Earth in the year 2071 and binds the remnants of humanity to an Artilect Protocol, which imposes the harshest punishments on any humans who experiment with genetic modification, cybernetic implants, or artificial intelligence.

The story of Arondite takes place 500 years later, in 2571-2572. Humanity has, over the course of five centuries, risen slowly from the ashes of the Artilect War, and multiple competing societies and governments have taken hold in the Solar System – particularly the Martian Republic and the Jovian Empire, who are now on the edge of major war. The historical narratives at the beginning of each chapter are among the most intriguing aspects of Arondite and serve to add great depth to the world in which the events of the plot transpire. Indeed, the historical scenario presented by Volta is reminiscent of two epochs already experienced by humankind: the emergence of Classical Antiquity after a gradual recovery from the Late Bronze Age Collapse, and the rise of Medieval and then Renaissance societies after the Dark Ages following the fall of the Roman Empire. Every such recovery of civilization is a testament to human ingenuity in the face of immense adversity, and in the world depicted by Volta, the hardships of outer space certainly magnify those constraints for the remnants of humanity. Yet by developing extensive settlements both on multiple planets and in space, as well as advanced spacefaring vessels on which much of the book’s plot takes place, humans demonstrate irrepressible innovation by advancing in practically the only directions available to them. Still, the harsh boundaries imposed by the Artilect Protocol are beginning to fray, and indeed, would need to be overcome in order for further progress in the Solar System to be possible.

The protagonists of Arondite are a group of space pirates – Peron, Ashlyn, and Carlile, as well as their various and situationally shifting allies – who are quickly drawn into matters far weightier and more perilous than they could have expected, as they unwittingly find themselves at the epicenter of the struggle by multiple major powers for the Arondite Chip – a map to one of the few artilects rumored to remain. Without revealing the specific details, the plot features numerous rapid developments in this struggle – filled with shifting allegiances, sudden changes of fortune, and revelations of hidden motives which diverge from surface appearances. The reader is kept wondering throughout as to who will gain possession of the Arondite Chip – the pro-artilect Acliate Brotherhood, the Martian Republic, the Jovian Empire, the tense and ever-precarious alliance of the protagonists who must resist pressures from each of these forces, or perhaps someone else entirely. Characters from every faction, however, are united in their recognition of the vast transformational power of an artificial general intelligence; some fear it and wish to destroy it, whereas others wish to harness it for their own objectives. But will the protagonists be not only capable enough to locate this artilect, but wise enough to truly understand its capabilities and nature – and respect its autonomy?

The events of Arondite are driven strongly by all-too-familiar flaws of human character – from irrational fear to the desire for the subjugation of others to the perception of existence as a zero-sum struggle of all against all. Because of the prohibitions of the Artilect Protocol, these flaws have persisted and become endemic within the societies of 2571; after all, no fundamental improvements upon human nature had been made available via technological pathways. Thus, for all of humankind’s spacefaring progress, the aforementioned deleterious vestiges of the suboptimal evolution of the human mind had not been corrected; another major war looms on the horizon and threatens to undo centuries of hard-earned advancement. However, the rediscovery of the artilects might just open an entirely different and more hopeful set of possibilities for the future of civilization.  One can only hope that, in our own civilization, that set of possibilities can be opened much sooner and with major conflicts averted.

Through the plot of Arondite, Volta illustrates the futility of attempting to impose restrictions on technological progress – restrictions which only serve to mire humankind in an escalating war of all against all. The protagonists are thrust into such an all-encompassing struggle, but because of their relative naiveté (despite being space pirates) are able to keep their minds open to alternative possibilities and thus have a chance to bypass the numerous hostile forces and machinations standing in their way. There is a broader message contained in this kind of narrative – the ability of an earnest individual, who is not altogether experienced with “the way things are done” in a given field, to significantly influence that field and overcome institutional barriers that had hitherto prevented progress past a certain point. Both in the world of Arondite and in our world, Volta shows that the philosophy of transhumanism, with its openness to technologies that can radically transform the human condition to remedy age-old flaws, is the way forward, transcending the destructive power struggles which needlessly stunted the advancement of humanity in the past.

Gennady Stolyarov II is the Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party. 

Arondite is available on Amazon in hard-copy and Kindle formats here

Watch the U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon of  July 19, 2020, when Rykon Volta was the guest of honor and discussed Arondite and the ideas surrounding it with the U.S. Transhumanist Party Officers.

 

U.S. Transhumanist Party Letter in Opposition to Nevada Senate Bill 292

U.S. Transhumanist Party Letter in Opposition to Nevada Senate Bill 292

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


Note: Senate Bill 292, which would make it essentially impossible for minor political parties to compete at the ballot box or even attempt ballot access, is being rapidly advanced in Nevada. It was authored by a former Democratic Party Chair who would like to double the petition-signature requirement for ballot access, require the number of signatures to be impossibly “equally apportioned” by petitioning district, and institute straight-line party-ticket voting that shuts out other options and discourages individualized decision-making.

In an urgent, almost last-minute action, I drafted a letter to the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections in opposition to that bill. The letter, as submitted to the Committee, can be found here

I urge all Nevadans and Transhumanist Party members, as well as those who are sympathetic to other minor political parties, to submit their opinions in opposition to SB292 here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/81st2021/

The Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections will meet this Thursday, April 1, at 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time to hold a public hearing on this bill. Meeting information will be updated on this page: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bill/7895/Meetings. If you can dial in during the time period for public testimony and lend your voice in opposition, that would be greatly appreciated.

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, March 31, 2021


March 31, 2021

Re: Opposition to Senate Bill 292

Dear Chairman Ohrenschall and honorable members of the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections:

As Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party and Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party, I strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill 292, which would deprive all minor political parties in Nevada of the opportunity to fairly compete at the ballot box or to even viably attempt such competition.

The Transhumanist Party is an alliance of over 3300 members who advocate for transcending the flaws and limitations of the human condition through technology and for putting science, health, and technology at the forefront of American politics. We advocate initiatives and reforms that will improve the human condition for as many people as possible, with as much beneficial impact as possible – and without regard for scoring political points or defeating “the other side”. In the realm of electoral policy, we advocate for such measures as ranked-preference voting, electronic voting, proportional representation, all-inclusive debates, elimination of ballot-access requirements, and limitation of lobbying by politically connected special interests, while increasing the influence of advocacy by intelligent laypersons. We hold that all contemporary societal, political, and material problems can be solved if we look away from the political trench warfare of today and up toward a far brighter future.

The Transhumanist Party is resolutely opposed to Section 2 of SB292, which would double the number of required petition signatures from 1 percent to 2 percent of the voters who voted in Nevada in the last preceding general election. The 1-percent threshold would already be exorbitantly costly to parties with small or non-existent budgets, at a typical cost of $4 or more per petition signature. A 2-percent threshold would be essentially unattainable. Even more onerous is the requirement in Section 2 that the petition signatures “must be apportioned equally among the petition districts” – which is essentially impossible to fulfill. If a minor party gathers one more signature, or perhaps two fewer signatures, from one petition district than from another, does that make the apportionment of signatures unequal and thus disqualify the entire petition? Moreover, if a minor political party represents constituents who are predominantly located in one part of the State, is this party to be permanently barred from ballot access just because its constituents are not evenly spread throughout the petition districts? All residents of Nevada have legitimate political interests and a need for representation, no matter whether those interests are geographically localized or dispersed. Clearly, the requirement for equal apportionment is an artificial hurdle that is designed to be essentially impossible for minor parties to surmount. With such a requirement in place, it would become easy for a major political party to challenge and disqualify any number of petition signatures gathered by a minor political party after great expenditures of time, effort, and resources. Major parties could therefore suppress minor-party participation through tactics of attrition. To add to the burdens, Section 2 would reduce by about three weeks the time available to gather the doubly high, equally apportioned petition signatures. How impossible is it possible to make ballot access? And is that the question that good public policy should really be striving to answer? There is no compelling benefit to the people of the State of Nevada from being deprived of options to consider at the ballot box; indeed, limiting their choices only makes an illusion out of claims that our electoral system is democratic or representative.

The Nevada Transhumanist Party has been registered with the Secretary of State since August 31, 2015, and has maintained compliance with all requirements for a minor political party without ballot access. In early 2020 the Nevada Transhumanist Party was engaged in significant internal deliberations about attempting a petitioning effort to achieve ballot access; while the current threshold pursuant to NRS 293.1715 (1 percent of the total number of votes cast at the preceding general election for the offices of Representative in Congress) appeared to be quite daunting to a small, all-volunteer organization which refuses all special-interest funding on principle, we were nonetheless willing to give it an earnest attempt. Then COVID-19 arrived, and the resulting lockdown measures essentially prohibited petitioning for ballot access, even as the petitioning requirement itself was not lifted. This effectively prevented any minor political party from safely attempting to qualify for ballot access, and thus entrenched the ability of incumbent major political parties to operate without available alternatives. We thought the 1-percent signature requirement was onerous, but potentially attainable with immense effort. A 2-percent signature requirement, on the other hand, would be impossible for any political party except those with immense budgets funded by large donors. Whatever happened to limiting the influence of money in politics?

The Transhumanist Party also opposes the provisions of Sections 1 and 4 of SB292, which would establish straight-ticket party voting in Nevada. While the straight-ticket voting would technically apply to both major and minor political parties, the overwhelming benefit would accrue to major political parties, who are more likely to have candidates in the vast majority of races. Moreover, straight-ticket voting would discourage voters who are normally inclined toward one political party from even considering minor-party, independent, or nonpartisan candidates in individual races where those candidates might more strongly align with those voters’ views. Every voter is an individual and does not always adhere to the entire package of ideas in a major-party platform. This individuality and diversity of opinions should be respected, and each voter should accordingly be motivated and encouraged to research all of the individual candidates and issues and make an informed decision, rather than just delegating his or her nuanced preferences to a monolithic party line.

Straight-ticket voting is even disadvantageous for many candidates of major political parties, and I urge members of the Legislature to oppose it even if solely on the grounds of their personal self-interest. Consider this: if you are a Legislator from either major political party who nonetheless wishes to reach out to constituents from the other major political party – to build bridges and find common ground – straight-ticket voting will act to your detriment, because it will encourage voters who typically align with the other major political party to vote for that party’s candidate no matter what – even if you are a bridge-builder and the other candidate is an extremist who alienates much of his or her own constituency.

The Transhumanist Party also opposes Section 3 of SB292, because it would limit by more than three weeks the time available for a minor party to respond to a challenge of its qualification to place the names of candidates on the ballot. If, by some fantastical confluence of effort and luck, the minor party does manage to gather the newly required number of signatures, the amount of time available to defend them from the inevitable major-party challenge would be further narrowed to often render such a defense untenable.

Senate Bill 292 would achieve the opposite of establishing a fair, level playing field for political candidates and parties.  Unfortunately, Senate Bill 292, if enacted, will only serve to exacerbate today’s political trench warfare by solidifying the bifurcation of the contemporary American body politic into two blocs that have each become increasingly monolithic and radicalized internally, and increasingly hostile toward the other, with no room between them to pursue unconventional and innovative solutions that can bridge partisan divides. This anticipated effect of SB292 is likely not anyone’s intention; however, the two-party system in the United States has a built-in downward spiral of incivility, hostility, and division which has, over the past year, crossed the line from mere acrimony into deadly riots and insurrections from extreme exponents of both sides of the partisan gulf. Any Legislator interested in stable and sensible governance should seek to avert an intensification of this scenario, and there is a vital role for a vibrant minor-party ecosystem in helping to prevent it.

How does Senate Bill 292 exacerbate political polarization? It does so by making it effectively impossible for minor political parties to even attain ballot access – in the numerous ways described above. This bill would make it clear to voters that minor parties are not just long-shot participants but are effectively shut out of the process altogether. Thus, many people who would have otherwise given a minor party a chance would be shunted into one of the major political parties that is barely more aligned with their views than the other major political party. This would reinforce the bifurcation of America into two distinct blocs which are engaged in an ever-intensifying struggle with one another, to the detriment of any actual progress on policy and any actual solutions to the many pressing problems facing our State, country, and world. Bifurcation of the American body politic creates an “us-versus-them” dynamic, where anyone who is not part of one’s own bloc is automatically considered to be “the enemy” and whose ideas are automatically disregarded. The record increase in independent and nonpartisan voters already shows many Americans to be disillusioned by the toxicity and acrimony that characterize the electoral tactics of the major parties and their most vocal adherents. Without minor parties for them to seek alternatives in, these Americans will either be reluctantly dragged into the deleterious fray they have always wished to avoid, or try to refrain from political participation altogether – in which case the fray will still find them, as extremists from the major parties have increasingly been demonizing conscientiously apolitical Americans as well.

The antidote to polarization is hyper-pluralism, which is precisely what a vibrant minor-party scene would facilitate. In a hyper-pluralistic body politic, there is no clear “enemy” for any constituent, because different smaller parties will align with one another on different issues; one’s adversary on one issue could be an ally on another, and so it is worthwhile to remain on at least respectful terms with everyone. It is for this reason that parliamentary democracies, which allow for proportional representation and numerous political parties competing on each ballot, are generally far less roiled by partisan strife than America’s uniquely contentious two-party system. But Nevada does not even need to adopt a parliamentary system to achieve a similar outcome; it just needs to allow minor political parties to compete on the ballots. Note that we are not even asking for the minor parties to win (which would still be difficult enough on its own), but merely to be allowed to compete! Even the possibility of competition motivates both incumbent officeholders and major-party candidates to be more responsive to the needs of their constituents. Furthermore, minor parties can be fruitful repositories of ideas for major-party politicians to draw upon; the Transhumanist Party would be delighted to have any of its platform reflected in legislation advanced by major-party lawmakers. Ideas from minor parties tend to sufficiently depart from the prevailing major-party packages that they avoid triggering contentious and mutually intransigent debates about “wedge” issues and so may actually lead to solutions that most major-party policymakers are willing to entertain. Incumbents and major-party candidates can even derive much valuable campaign intelligence from election results involving minor political parties. A strong showing for a minor party indicates a set of issues that voters are interested in and that the incumbent or major-party candidate would do well to address while in office or on the campaign trail.

By shutting minor parties out of viable political participation, Senate Bill 292 would only accomplish the illusion of stability for leading figures of a major political party. In reality, one cannot have a stable or tranquil political experience in a general environment marred by ideological polarization and all of its attendant ills. Depriving people of legitimate alternatives will only alienate them further and feed into the undercurrents of frustration and perceived disenfranchisement that permeate American politics today. Minor political parties are a major safety valve of American politics and can act to effectively channel dissent and discontentment into constructive avenues of mutual improvement and enhanced justice.  In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison, at the onset of the American Republic, noted that the advantage of a large representative republic is precisely in “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest”. The American Founders, who feared precisely the scenario of two dominant factions vying for power at the citizens’ and the Republic’s expense, saw the “greater variety of parties” as an important safeguard against such an outcome. The Transhumanist Party echoes the Founders’ wisdom and would urge the Legislature to consider reforms in the opposite direction from those proposed in SB292 – namely, the elimination of all ballot-access requirements and the ability of any candidate or political party to compete fairly for office on the same terms as any other. After all, if a minor-party candidate is unpersuasive to the voters and the major-party candidates remain more popular, what is there truly for a major party to fear from allowing participation for all? But in the absence of such truly progressive reforms, we urge that the Legislature at least refrain from taking steps that would further limit electoral competition. Please reject Senate Bill 292.

Sincerely,

Mr. Gennady Stolyarov II, FSA, ACAS, MAAA, CPCU, ARe, ARC, API, AIS, AIE, AIAF

Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

Chief Executive, Nevada Transhumanist Party

Reject the Deadly Precautionary Principle: Approve All COVID-19 Vaccines Immediately! – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

Reject the Deadly Precautionary Principle: Approve All COVID-19 Vaccines Immediately! – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


It should be a mild relief that vaccination efforts against COVID-19 are finally beginning in the United States, but they are beginning eleven months too late, while the pandemic surrounds us and most of us must wait months longer to receive vaccinations. Over 300,000 Americans have already died needlessly and preventably from COVID-19; hundreds of thousands more are likely to die in the coming months, even though the exact same vaccine from Moderna that is even today still undergoing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review already existed in its current form by January 13, 2020. As David Wallace-Wells writes in New York Magzine, in an article entitled “We Had the Vaccine the Whole Time” (dated December 7, 2020):

You may be surprised to learn that of the trio of long-awaited coronavirus vaccines, the most promising, Moderna’s mRNA-1273, which reported a 94.5 percent efficacy rate on November 16, had been designed by January 13. This was just two days after the genetic sequence had been made public in an act of scientific and humanitarian generosity that resulted in China’s Yong-Zhen Zhang’s being temporarily forced out of his lab. In Massachusetts, the Moderna vaccine design took all of one weekend. It was completed before China had even acknowledged that the disease could be transmitted from human to human, more than a week before the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States. By the time the first American death was announced a month later, the vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health for the beginning of its Phase I clinical trial. This is — as the country and the world are rightly celebrating — the fastest timeline of development in the history of vaccines. It also means that for the entire span of the pandemic in this country, which has already killed more than 250,000 Americans, we had the tools we needed to prevent it.

As has been demonstrated time and again during this pandemic, scientists and doctors have been the true heroes in their rapid and immensely creative responses, whereas institutions and their processes have failed massively, and our egregiously broken society and culture have precipitated abysmal mass-scale reactions and behaviors as well. But the major reason why now almost 300,000 Americans died who did not need to die at all, is the Precautionary Principle – a cornerstone of contemporary “bioethics” which is, in fact, deeply unethical. The Precautionary Principle is the fundamental reason why new medical treatments, including vaccines, are required in the United States to undergo extensive safety and efficacy testing before they are allowed to be provided to patients, even willing patients who may knowingly accept the risks of experimental medicines. Essentially, unless safety and efficacy can be rigorously demonstrated first, along with a sufficient lack of adverse consequences, adherents of the Precautionary Principle believe that no action should be taken to implement an innovation. Those who espouse the Precautionary Principle completely ignore, of course, the costs and risks of inaction – which, in the case of a global pandemic, can be measured in more than 1.62 million lives worldwide, but which have also resulted in far greater numbers of deaths from more “routine” otherwise terminal illnesses, whose victims might have been saved by new treatments whose approval the FDA delayed, sometimes for a decade or more while billions of dollars were spent on hyper-expensive efficacy testing.

While laudable efforts were made in the United States to greatly accelerate the review timeframe for COVID-19 vaccines – hence the now well-known “Operation Warp Speed” – those efforts did not come in time for the hundreds of thousands who died and the hundreds of millions who now live in fear of death every day as the pandemic’s spread has become all-encompassing. Cutting the approval timeline from the typical unconscionable 4-5 years to 9 months is an improvement, but not nearly enough. Much more should have been done right away. Approval for the vaccines should have been granted as soon as they were developed, and instead of putting review roadblocks in the way, governments should have actively aided in vaccine production and distribution of all serious candidate vaccines from day one.

While New York Magazine’s David Wallace-Wells made the seemingly obligatory (during this tragically precautionary era) disclaimer that “To be clear, I don’t want to suggest that Moderna should have been allowed to roll out its vaccine in February or even in May, when interim results from its Phase I trial demonstrated its basic safety” (and Wallace-Wells still faced considerable vitriol for the quite modest observations he sought to make) – I do want to suggest exactly that. Indeed, I would go further and insist that it was a moral imperative to approve and facilitate the mass production and distribution of vaccines such as Moderna’s mRNA-1273 to willing members of the general population as soon as those vaccines were available.

Transhumanists reject the Precautionary Principle and instead follow the Proactionary Principle, which, per the description of Max More (Extropy Institute, 2004), “urges all parties to actively take into account all the consequences of an activity – good as well as bad – while apportioning precautionary measures to the real threats we face, in the context of an appreciation of the crucial role played by technological innovation and humanity’s evolving ability to adapt to and remedy any undesirable side-effects.” The Proactionary Principle does not ignore the potential for adverse consequences of an activity, but recognizes that there are situations when the benefits can greatly outweigh any potential adverse effects.

Imagine how, in an alternate history, a Transhumanist administration would have dealt with the COVID-19 crisis. Suppose, for instance, that Zoltan Istvan had been elected President in 2016 and thus was the President who faced the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Or suppose that Charlie Kam, the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP) Presidential nominee in 2020, had held the country’s highest executive office. The U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform contains 21 sections specifically addressing COVID-19 responses – proposals that were adopted by USTP members in late March 2020, and would have saved most of the lives of the COVID-19 victims had they been expeditiously implemented by governments. These proposals, indeed, are applications of the Proactionary Principle to the COVID-19 pandemic. Section CIII of the USTP Platform specifically states that “The United States Transhumanist Party supports the rapid research into effective cures and vaccines for COVID-19 and the harnessing of synergies from this research to also develop a cure for the common cold and more effective vaccination against influenza. Such research should proceed with no barriers, subject to the researchers’ expression of ethical intentions, and any regulations or processes that would delay the progress of such research should be immediately waived or repealed. In the effort to accelerate progress in this field, the United States Transhumanist Party advocates for an immediate $100 billion funding package for the rapid development of a COVID-19 vaccine, with all volunteers being accepted into human trials as soon as practicable.”

This is exactly what would have been done by a Transhumanist administration with the Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and any other vaccines, including do-it-yourself experiments such as that undertaken by Josiah Zayner. The Transhumanist administration would have asked the vaccine developer one question: “Do you intend to apply this candidate vaccine in an ethical manner when offering it to the general public?” After giving an affirmative answer to that question, the vaccine developer would have the full legal right to test, give away, or sell its product to any volunteers capable of giving informed consent – provided that the recipients understood that the vaccine was experimental and had not passed the typical safety and/or efficacy tests. Receiving any vaccine would always remain entirely voluntary. Individuals who were uncertain or concerned about side effects – or even motivated by pseudoscientific, anti-scientific, or religious objections – would maintain the right not to get vaccinated. However, those who chose to get vaccinated would be shown clearly and quickly to have far lower incidence of COVID-19, and the statistical disparity in infection rates between the vaccinated and the un-vaccinated would grow too large in just a few months for reasonable people to ignore. Those who become vaccinated would be free to lead their everyday lives and participate in economic activities as usual, and massive disruptions to the economy and to people’s livelihoods would have been completely avoidable. The multifaceted advantages of vaccination under this approach would become abundantly clear in a relatively short time.

Testing would not be eliminated by the Transhumanist administration. Indeed, it would be accelerated and fully funded via the $100 billion emergency package (and likely via other resources as well), so that vaccine developers would need to pay absolutely nothing out of pocket for any compliance with testing protocols. However, testing would occur in parallel with mass distribution of the vaccines, and as much data as possible would be collected from vaccine recipients in the general population, to greatly augment the samples of tested patients. If any specific side effects manifested themselves in a statistically significant portion of the population, protocols for administering the vaccine would be adjusted in real time. For example, if a specific group of people were found to be particularly vulnerable to certain side effects, members of that group would quickly receive additional disclosures and warnings and would be able to make informed decisions in light of this information.

Could there conceivably be adverse side effects or even deaths of certain patients under this approach of mass distribution in parallel with testing? Of course, that is a possibility. However, the scale of such side effects and deaths would surely be orders of magnitude less than the all-encompassing devastation that the current sequential review-and-approval process has allowed to happen. So far nobody has died specifically from any COVID-19 vaccine. At least 1.62 million people in the world have died from COVID-19. Numerous others have died because of the fallout of the restrictive measures taken to contain the spread of COVID-19. Even if the vaccines had been far more dangerous than they actually are, it is absolutely impossible for them to have caused anywhere near the death toll inflicted by the disease itself and the societal havoc that it and responses to it have wreaked. This basic insight, whose evidence is all around us, is precisely what the Precautionary Principle misses. By placing all of the burden of proof on the innovation, the Precautionary Principle gives a free pass to the wantonly murderous status quo. Inaction is not safety. Inaction is quite frequently the greatest danger – and at no time is that truer than during a global pandemic. If we do nothing, any of a vast array of perils will befall us rather quickly.

The United States has already lost more people to COVID-19 than it had to all but one of its historical wars. The novel coronavirus is the enemy here to be sure, but the Precautionary Principle is an even more pernicious and insidious foe. The Precautionary Principle is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of American dead just as much as the novel coronavirus itself, since it prevented an implementation of an existing off-the-shelf solution that could have saved the vast majority of their lives. Every war in history has resulted in unacceptable death tolls because of fundamentally flawed premises – ideas and practices that brought about the war because people accepted them as commonplace and justified. Slavery, religious intolerance, jingoistic nationalism, and totalitarianism have all stemmed from deep moral errors that caused colossal loss of life – and fortunately most of humanity has recognized the great evil that these notions entail and has resoundingly rejected them. The Precautionary Principle, when implemented in institutions that have the power to make life-or-death decisions, is in that same league of moral errors; it will be remembered decades and centuries hence as the greatest destroyer of lives in our epoch.

How much senseless loss of life needs to occur before we recognize that our institutions, based on the Precautionary Principle, are wantonly negligent in allowing our fellow humans to die and are still withholding life-saving solutions from them? It is time to reject the Precautionary Principle once and for all and to institute the truly humane policy of allowing all rationally capable individuals to assess the risks and benefits of emerging medical treatments for themselves. This would not only save colossal numbers of lives in the immediate term, but also greatly accelerate medical discovery and technological progress – since innovators would be able to obtain data rapidly and iterate upon their approaches. The arrival of cures for cancer, dementia, diabetes, and biological aging itself will depend on how free medical innovators are to offer their treatments and how free patients are to accept them. Extensive and expensive pre-distribution review processes kill many more people than they save. End them now!

Gennady Stolyarov II is the Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party. 

U.S. Transhumanist Party Reform Summit – Public Session – November 29, 2020

U.S. Transhumanist Party Reform Summit – Public Session – November 29, 2020

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II
David Shumaker
Charlie Kam
Dan Elton
Pavel Ilin
Art Ramon Garcia, Jr.
David Wood
Chris Monteiro
Edward Hudgins
Alexandria Black
Jason Geringer
Osinakachi Akuma Kalu


On Sunday, November 29, 2020, at 1 p.m. U.S. Pacific Time, the U.S. Transhumanist Party held the Public Session of its Reform Summit as its Virtual Enlightenment Salon for that week. During the Reform Summit, USTP Officers and several trusted members discussed some of the outcomes of a previous closed Executive Session and potential ideas to put forward before the membership. Member input was also solicited via the YouTube chat on the following issues:

1. Community Resilience / Preventing Troublemakers
2. Organization / Structure
3. Financial Matters (if Any)

The USTP Reform Summit was highly productive, and important reforms to the U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution are expected to be proposed during December 2020 based on the input provided by USTP Officers and members in the course of the conversations.

Read USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II’s Fourth Anniversary Message.

Join the USTP for free, no matter where you reside.

Become a Foreign Ambassador for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman’s Fourth Anniversary Message

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman’s Fourth Anniversary Message

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

The fourth year of my Chairmanship of the U.S. Transhumanist Party has been a test of leadership unlike any I expected to face. Working to advance a small but determined transpartisan organization during a deadly global pandemic and a time of unprecedented (for the modern era) political division and toxicity is not an undertaking for the faint of heart. Indeed, the worst is still not behind us, despite science and technology again coming to the rescue with the rapid development of safe, effective vaccines for COVID-19 in a timeframe unmatched in all of human history by its rapidity. This is clearly an achievement for contemporary biomedical research, and it illustrates again the aspects of human endeavor that will hopefully extricate ourselves from humankind’s dire crisis within a few months’ time. Other aspects of this crisis – the immense and utterly counterproductive societal rifts that it has created, the economic and psychological strain it has imposed upon people, the material disruptions to our civilization that will take heroic efforts to mend – may be longer-lasting. The tension of these influences has made crafting this Chairman’s Message my most difficult effort by far compared to prior years – as it was necessary to both acknowledge the dire predicament that humankind is currently mired in, and to outline possible ways out through our direct actions. However, I hope that this message, which I began to write on November 17, 2020, the actual four-year anniversary of my selection as USTP Chairman, will clearly outline the various dimensions of my thinking regarding the present situation and future prospects.

This pandemic fortified my confidence in science and technology while greatly diminishing it with regard to contemporary human societies and American society especially. As I explained in my presentation at the Vanguard Scientific Instruments in Management (VSIM) 2020 virtual conference on July 29, 2020 (video recording forthcoming), the great crisis of 2020 is essentially manmade. While COVID-19 results from a naturally occurring virus and is highly dangerous, systemic human failures transformed the pandemic into a major worldwide crisis. These human failures exposed the severe vulnerabilities in contemporary societies against relatively simple threats. Societies have turned inward, degenerating into tribal, factional conflict, instead of fighting the common enemies of death and disease. Science has become politicized in a deleterious, tribal way, and the politicized versions have anything but the hallmarks of true science – traits such as openness to empirical evidence, systematic testing of hypotheses, willingness to acknowledge evidence that challenges a prior hypothesis and to refine one’s hypotheses accordingly. Neither the “red tribe” nor the “blue tribe” are logically consistent or open to evidence, instead choosing to cherry-pick tidbits from science that happen to support their preconceived agendas. Because of American influence throughout the globe, the entire world suffers from American political toxicity. Worse, the material and psychological stresses of the pandemic are pushing some people over the brink into destructive madness. Mainstream propaganda with ulterior motives amplifies this tendency, prompting unstable personalities toward violence. Although the scientific means to overcome this pandemic are already here with us, persistent cultural, attitudinal, and institutional failures may lead to delayed application of the remedies and thus the needless deaths of tens of thousands more Americans – and certainly the needless suffering of millions.

It is no surprise that, given the pervasiveness of American societal failure in 2020, aspects of the toxic tendencies involved attempted to seep even into the organization which has sought to be a small but bold and high-minded bastion of resistance to these ills. Much time and energy has unfortunately been expended to fend off the destructive behaviors of a small number of detractors who sought, despite my staunch resistance, to import the rancorousness of mainstream politics into the USTP. And yet, in spite of this, while the USTP has needed to pivot and adjust in multiple respects, the creative output of this organization has been phenomenal despite an environment of ubiquitous world crisis. My initial – rather unrealized – strategic inclination in the midst of this pandemic had been to chart a course of careful maintenance of what was and a more relaxed and deliberative pace of activity to enable us all to focus on immediate needs in adjusting to the pandemic. Similarly to how I personally resolved to avoid major life changes while the pandemic raged, my aim for the USTP had been primarily one of preservation – and yet these times require one to keep adjusting. The ultimate result has, notwithstanding my initial inclination, been major acceleration of activity in many areas – often too rapid to even systematically publish updates about. While we have recently exceeded 3,000 members and are still working to integrate all of the members from our merger with the Longevity Party United States in February 2020, we have consistently produced output on a scale worthy of an organization with several orders of magnitude more resources at its disposal. This could not have been done successfully without the dedicated core of Officers, Advisors, and members who have maintained a steadfast commitment to the USTP during these troubled times. These individuals have always greatly outnumbered the troublemakers, and it is for them primarily that the USTP exists and persists no matter what obstacles it faces.

The Virtual Enlightenment Salons, of which we have already held 30 every Sunday since May 2020, have been an immense feat of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, brought about by our Officers’ rapid adaptation to the circumstances of the pandemic and the opportunities created by the consequent higher level of utilization of videoconferencing and streaming technologies. Whereas the logistics for our USTP Primary debates in 2019 were complex and cumbersome, the Virtual Enlightenment Salons are able to be carried out far more reliably and with superior production quality. The audience of these gatherings is dedicated, vibrant, and insightful, as the comments accompanying the Virtual Enlightenment Salon videos illustrate. Special thanks are due to David Shumaker, the USTP Director of Applied Innovation, for hosting the Zoom sessions for the panelists, and to Pavel Ilin, USTP Secretary, and Art Ramon Garcia, Jr., USTP Director of Visual Art, for their work on streaming the salons to YouTube – and also to Art Ramon Garcia for his polished graphics that convey both the dignity and the mindsets of exploration, expansion, and discovery that characterize the Virtual Enlightenment Salons. If anyone had told me a year ago that I would be involved in not a mere handful, but thirty Enlightenment Salons in 2020, I would have been hard-pressed to believe this – and yet this is an illustration of how technological progress and, more importantly, technological utilization, can enable exponential and not just linear growth in valuable output.

In addition, the U.S. Transhumanist Party has been at the forefront of developing constructive policy options for addressing the ongoing pandemic. Shortly after the disruption from the pandemic set in, the members of the USTP got to work, developing 21 Platform sections, outlining a comprehensive, multifaceted approach toward defeating COVID-19, preventing future pandemics, and prioritizing medical innovation – particularly in anti-aging research – to greatly lower the toll of infectious diseases even in those who contract them. If only these ideas had been taken into account by mainstream politicians and implemented in early April 2020, likely tens of thousands of American lives would have been saved – through rapid construction of hospitals, training of a rapid-response corps of medical personnel, removal of barriers to vaccine deployment, improved general education on pandemics, and the rapid, decentralized production of supplies of every sort needed to assist people in their protective efforts. Many of these 21 proposals can still be implemented today to great effect and could help accelerate the arrival of our victory against COVID-19. The USTP encourages all of its members and others among the general public to advocate for these measures.

Out of all of the priorities I had set forth in my Third Anniversary Message one year ago, the goal of building alliances with like-minded organization has been the most successfully realized. This has been a year of forging ties with other future-oriented organizations throughout the world, including the Transdisciplinary Agora for Future Discussions (TAFFD’s), whose Future Africa Conference in April 2020 was highly attended by USTP members and Officers; the World Talent Economy Forum (WTEF), which has hosted numerous interviews with USTP representatives and candidates; the Human Achievement Alliance, which espouses the same essential broadly techno-optimistic vision that the USTP seeks to advance; the Ogba Educational Clinic, which aims to bring knowledge of programming and artificial intelligence to students in Nigeria, Steele Archer’s Debt Nation and Archer Report programs, and many others. The hundreds of conversations, interviews, meetings, forums, and posts exchanged among our organizations are truly enabling a distributed, worldwide network of transhumanist and futurist thought to emerge. The resulting proliferation of rational discourse and innovation is greater than any one organization can contain – and indeed, ideally, can transform humankind as a whole significantly for the better.

Of course, no analysis of 2020 can be complete without commentary on the election season in the United States and its outcomes. While the 2020 election has shown that American politics has a long way to go in order to climb out of its abyss, it also featured several noteworthy accomplishments and reasons for hope.

Vote Results – 2020 Elections

Kam-Parrish 2020 Presidential Campaign

Thus far we are aware of 51 write-in votes having been cast for Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish. Preliminary member-reported totals are found here and will be updated as additional information is received, including when any state which counts write-in votes publishes its results. We are pleased by the dedication of our members who chose to vote their consciences in the states that allowed write-ins, and who moreover proactively reported those votes to us per our request. Anyone who still has not done so can contact us at ustranshumanistparty@protonmail.com in order to be counted as having voted for Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish. We want every write-in vote for our candidates to be recognized!

Considering the turn of events that led Charlie Kam to become our candidate in June 2020, at quite a late stage in the election season, the U.S. Transhumanist Party appreciates what has been achieved in the subsequent 4.5 months. Despite the detailed ballot-access plan that the USTP developed internally in January 2020, the ravages and risks of the COVID-19 pandemic made any petitioning for ballot access and in-person campaigning impractical (we are life-extensionists, after all, and preservation of healthy longevity is our foremost priority). Notwithstanding this pandemic-imposed constraint, both Charlie Kam and his Vice-Presidential running mate, Liz Parrish, served as outstanding ambassadors for the USTP and were indeed our best candidates yet. In the course of many external interviews as well as appearances at the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s weekly Virtual Enlightenment Salons, Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish illustrated a new approach to politics – one based on substantive discussion of issues and policies, a focus on the need for technological innovation to improve the lives of all, and an appeal to the aspirations that unite us rather than the mainstream politicians’ focus on division. As we have emphasized time and again, the primary purpose of Transhumanist campaigns at this stage of our evolution is one of educating the public about the ideas and goals of transhumanism. In this regard, the Kam-Parrish 2020 campaign succeeded, and I am proud to have contributed my time and support to its activities. Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish will remain prominent and eloquent ambassadors for the USTP, and we hope that our future candidates will be able to live up to the examples that they set of high-mindedness, civility, integrity, techno-optimism, and dedication to longevity advocacy.

For a wonderful illustration of the tone of the Kam-Parrish 2020 campaign and the hopeful outlook with which it concluded, watch the final joint interview of Charlie Kam, Liz Parrish, and myself by our ally in Malaysia, Sharif Uddin Ahmed Rana of the World Talent Economy Forum, conducted on November 2, 2020, the day before the U.S. general election.

A glimpse into a parallel universe, courtesy of Charlie Kam
A glimpse into a wondrous parallel universe, courtesy of Charlie Kam

Local Campaigns

Daniel Twedt – City Council, Thousand Oaks, California

U.S. Transhumanist Party member Dan Twedt ran for City Council in Thousand Oaks, California, and gained 3.437 votes, or 3% of the total. During his campaign, he spread awareness of the U.S. Transhumanist Party in local newspapers. An excerpt from the Acorn Newspaper in Thousand Oaks characterized Mr. Twedt as “a member of the Transhumanist Party” with “a platform tied to technology and the environment.” Mr. Twedt was cited as expressing the view that “government needs be way more open-source, way more transparent”. Mr. Twedt plans to run again in 2022, and we encourage his continued activities within the USTP, such as his regular participation in our weekly Virtual Enlightenment Salons, and his public outreach when campaigning.

Gennady Stolyarov II – Board of Trustees, Indian Hills General Improvement District, Douglas County, Nevada

My second attempt to run for the Board of Trustees of the Indian Hills General Improvement District was unfortunately thwarted by the occurrence of a primary in June 2020, in the midst of a pandemic. Because of physical-distancing restrictions as well as general concern for health and safety, I decided to campaign using solely virtual means, including holding a Virtual Town Hall via Zoom on May 9, 2020. Nonetheless, there remains a technological gap in the area, and it appears that many residents simply do not get their local news or gain awareness of candidates and issues via electronic means. Moreover, a wave of anti-development sentiment has unfortunately swept Douglas County, resulting in the election of three anti-growth Republican County Commissioners who have vowed to put limits on new construction and residential housing in the name of “keeping Douglas County rural” – which essentially means keeping it unaffordable for those who did not purchase homes there a long time ago. Perhaps these sentiments also translated into voters’ choices for the Board of Trustees of the General Improvement District, and my open and unabashed advocacy of more residential development and more technological utilization certainly clashed with this reactionary mentality. However, I will never apologize for standing on principle and supporting progress in material standards of living, even if it clashes with some people’s attempts to freeze a particular status quo in place. I also remain hopeful that ongoing new construction in the area will continue and help reduce the cost of housing and improve the quality of the infrastructure despite the anti-development partisans’ objections.

The presence of five candidates on the ballot triggered the primary, and one of the candidates who advanced finished with only 17 votes ahead of me (270 votes to my 253). Subsequently, that candidate indicated that he would not accept the office of Board Member if he were elected, effectively leaving three candidates to compete in the general election. This turn of events underscores the importance of candidates being committed to the responsibilities involved in the offices for which they run. Candidates should run only if they are determined to follow through all the way and carry out the duties of the office if they are elected to it. Had the aforementioned candidate decided against running for office to begin with, given his uncertainty about accepting it, then there would not have been a primary, and I would have had about 4.5 additional months to campaign and communicate a rational, transpartisan, and future-friendly approach to the residents.  Still, receiving 253 votes out of 1216 ballots cast during a low-turnout primary means that I have successfully reached 20.8% or more than one-fifth of the voting residents. The challenge for future campaigns will be to determine by what channels information spreads in these local elections. There had not been any significant media coverage of the other candidates, and extremely little information was discoverable about them online prior to the primary. Therefore, how were they able to gain recognition and votes during a pandemic in which physical distancing was mandated for the vast majority of the campaign season? Discovering how information can effectively propagate through “offline” channels may lead to insights regarding how more generally to communicate awareness of transhumanist ideas to the broader public.

Ballot Initiatives in Nevada and California – Outcomes as Compared to USTP Recommendations

In Nevada, the recommendations of the USTP and Nevada Transhumanist Party (NTP) prevailed among voters on Ballot Question 2, the Marriage Regardless of Gender Amendment, which passed with a vote of 62.4% in favor, and Ballot Question 3, the State Board of Pardons Commissioners Amendment, which passed with a vote of 61.2% in favor. However, Nevada voters also chose to adopt the two ballot questions that were opposed by the USTP and NTP – Ballot Question 4 (64.1% of voters in favor), which would enshrine in the Nevada Constitution a list of voter rights based on the current, soon-to-be-obsolete paper-based voting system, and Ballot Question 5 – the Renewable Energy Standards Initiative (57.9% of voters in favor). Although the USTP and NTP hope that more than 50 percent of energy sold to consumers could indeed come from renewable sources by 2030, the USTP and NTP wish for this to be achieved through voluntary methods of technical progress and increasing affordability of renewable energy, not through mandates that (if they supersede the pace of technological advancement) would simply raise energy costs for ordinary consumers. Still, the USTP and NTP do not consider the passage of Ballot Questions 4 and 5 to be significant obstacles to the progress of transhumanism and emerging technologies as such; we would have preferred different outcomes, but our efforts will not be materially affected by the results of these votes.

In California, the outcome of the ballot propositions was even more aligned with the USTP’s recommendations, illustrating that on many issues, the USTP has tapped into the outlooks and priorities of many voters who do not strictly adhere to partisan ideologies. On eight out of ten or 80% of ballot propositions on which the USTP made a recommendation in a particular direction, the majority of California voters also favored that course of action.

California Proposition 14 – Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Passed with 51.09% in favor

The passage of California Proposition 14 is perhaps the most significant victory for transhumanists, as it makes available $5.5 billion in new funds for potentially life-saving stem-cell research initiatives.

California Proposition 15 – Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 51.97% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP on the undesirability of further increases of property taxes – one of the least equitable and least convenient forms of taxation.

California Proposition 16 – Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 57.19% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP that the imposition of racial preferences in public employment and education is inherently unjust and anathema to a society that values individual rights and individual attributes of character over people’s circumstances of birth.

California Proposition 17 – Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Passed with 58.57% in favor

Most California voters agreed with the USTP that there is no reason to deprive the essential right to vote from individuals who have completed their prison sentences.

California Proposition 18 – Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Failed with 56.01% in opposition

This was an issue on which the majority of California voters differed from the USTP’s recommendations. Perhaps the attitudinal climate has not yet matured to the point of accepting that a person’s individual understanding of the political system and the issues involved should be the determinant of eligibility to vote – rather than an arbitrary dividing line such as that of age. However, there will be opportunities to continue articulating these principles in the years to come.

California Proposition 20 – Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 61.73% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP regarding the undesirability of measures that would significantly increase the population in prison for relatively minor criminal offenses, such as petty thefts and various nonviolent crimes. Such crimes are better addressed through restitution than through imprisonment.

California Proposition 21 – Local Rent Control Initiative

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 59.84% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP in rejecting rent control. In the absence of new construction, rent control creates undesirable incentives that harm tenants of rent-controlled buildings directly and indirectly. Everyone should hope that California will instead loosen the many onerous restrictions on new housing development, which have contributed to a dire shortage of available housing and an essentially complete lack of housing affordability in that state.

California Proposition 22 – App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Passed with 58.59% in favor

The USTP is relieved that most California voters supported saving the ridesharing business model on transportation network companies by rejecting the presumptive classification of their drivers as employees – a classification that the drivers themselves would find onerous and restrictive. As the USTP stated in its analysis, “It is clear that classifying ridesharing services’ drivers as employees is intended as protectionism for legacy taxicab companies, whose business model has often resulted in sub-optimal treatment of consumers and thus led to widespread consumer frustration. On the other hand, most consumers have expressed overwhelming satisfaction with ridesharing services. California Ballot Proposition 22 restores the more reasonable classification of ridesharing services’ drivers as independent contractors while affording them basic protections regarding their earnings, healthcare, and vehicle insurance.”

California Proposition 23 – Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 63.45% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP in opposing the requirement for at least one licensed physician be on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics. Voters recognized that, because of the dire shortage of available physicians, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, this requirement would mean that many dialysis clinics would be unable to operate or offer life-serving services to patients who require dialysis.

California Proposition 25 – Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum          

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Failed with 56.40% in opposition

This was another issue on which the majority of California voters differed from the USTP recommendation. The failure of Ballot Proposition 25 likely means that California will keep its previous system of cash bail instead of abolishing the requirement of cash bail and replacing it with a system of risk assessments for each accused individual. Per the USTP’s position statement, “A person who goes to trial and is exonerated for the alleged offense should not be made any poorer as a result, yet the system of cash bail channels many people in already precarious financial situations into arrangements which lead exactly to such impoverishment.” Unfortunately, it appears that the cash bail system will still persist in California for some time. Nonetheless, this situation is not expected to pose a material obstacle to the attainment of the vast majority of transhumanist goals.

Future Initiatives

With the 2020 election behind us, the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s focus will be on effectively scaling up its operations, maintaining broad unity of purpose and constructive conduct within the transhumanist movement, and participating in wider public discourse on the issues where science and technology can positively affect outcomes.

Working Groups: The USTP is beginning to set up small, focused, project-oriented working groups, each of which will produce a particular set of deliverables – be it a white paper on a policy topic, a computer game on life extension, a survey of members, upgrades to the USTP’s voting system, new graphical assets, or a variety of other possibilities. Some working groups may have an ongoing role, such as providing responses to current events or emerging issues within the transhumanist community. In particular, it will be important to form a working group on legislative tracking and advocacy in order to be able to effectively monitor and respond to proposed legislation at both state and federal levels. Volunteers for future working groups will be welcomed and actively solicited, as long as they exhibit integrity and sincerity of intention.

Member Education and Tiered Membership: The USTP continues to seek ways to reward its most dedicated and knowledgeable members, who should have a stronger influence over the outcomes of our votes. Membership of a more prestigious tier could be the result of passing a future set of online learning units on the USTP Platform, Transhumanist Bill of Rights, and other key documents.

Candidate Education and Eligibility Criteria: The USTP will endeavor to enhance the respectability and transhumanist alignment of the candidates who seek its endorsement by creating more extensive upfront candidate eligibility criteria which will focus on respectability of conduct, a history of dedication to transhumanist ideas, and a spirit of ambassadorship from the candidates, instead of ulterior non-transhumanist motives or personal political ambition. Candidates should be willing to use their pre-existing personal merits and position to promote the ideas of transhumanism, rather than seeing the USTP as a vessel for any alternative, non-transhumanist agenda or personal motive.

Candidates for Non-Presidential Offices: The USTP continues to seek out promising candidates for local and state-level offices and has already identified several promising individuals who may be able to effectively promote the ideas of transhumanism during the next midterm elections in 2022 or possibly even earlier.  One question that the USTP will place before its members for consideration is the matter of whether or not affiliations with other political parties should restrict the USTP from endorsing a particular candidate if that candidate explicitly expresses support for transhumanism and/or life extension. The USTP welcomes diverse member perspectives regarding where the boundary should be drawn so that we preserve our distinctive organizational identity while recognizing any techno-positive efforts that advance our vision in the U.S. political arena.

Focus on Ballot Initiatives: One of the USTP’s great strengths is the analytical talent present within it. Almost every state places several questions on the ballot for voters to decide upon directly. The impact of these ballot initiatives is often more significant and more accurately foreseeable than the outcomes arising from the identity of a given elected official. If the USTP can provide recommendations on every ballot initiative in a given election, this will greatly enhance its credibility as a source of reliable policy analysis for large numbers of people. Many of our views are already aligned with large populations of independent voters; they just have to discover us and have ample content from the USTP that they could rely upon in regard to policy questions of interest to them.

Ballot-Access Collaboration with Other Political Parties: Lowering barriers to entry in elections at every level is a common aim shared by the USTP and other political parties with the exception of the Democrats and Republicans. As evidenced by our highly constructive Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Spike Cohen on September 13, 2020, there is an opportunity for concerted efforts among representatives of multiple political parties to assist one another in advocating for greatly lowered ballot-access thresholds and perhaps even coordinate the circulation of petitions once the present pandemic is behind us.

Anti-Troll Campaign: The USTP has not forgotten the importance of effectively responding to trolls and detractors within the transhumanist community who inflict a greater toll upon it than any external critic or adversary. We encourage our members to contribute resources to the anti-troll campaigns, such as tasteful images that can be posted to counter comments and crude “memes” that trolls sometimes deploy. Be both creative and dignified! It is possible to do so and also to amuse and entertain well-intentioned audiences. Show that we can be better than the trolls even in their media of choice!

The above-listed areas are not exhaustive of the endeavors that the USTP intends to pursue. Indeed, our Virtual Enlightenment Salon this coming Sunday, November 29, 2020, will be the Public Session of our U.S. Transhumanist Party Reform Summit, where additional ideas will be both presented to and solicited from our members.

Conclusion

As I have often expressed this year, the future can be bright indeed, if only we can overcome the extreme predicament of the present. No set of ideas prevails automatically or inexorably. The key to success is perseverance, even and especially in the face of adversity and doubt from some. Those who waver and continually change course will never reach any particular desirable destination. While this pandemic has been a strenuous period for all – including perhaps the majority of us in the transhumanist movement – it has only fortified my determination to make the U.S. Transhumanist Party a lasting and ever-expanding success. Since becoming Chairman of the USTP more than four years ago, I have come to recognize clearly the indispensability of this organization to the advancement of transhumanism more broadly, as the USTP has become the nexus of conversations, collaborations, and meetings of great minds who might otherwise never have come into contact. Moreover, the USTP openly and proudly embraces transhumanism without downplaying it or giving lip service to techno-pessimist criticisms. Of course, the success of the transhumanist vision is crucial to the success of humanity as a whole – making a key difference in which path our species takes. Do we reach toward the stars, toward indefinite longevity, toward sustainable superabundance – or do we allow the cascade of present crises to plunge us into the abyss of a new Dark Age? These are outcomes over which we can have control, and the locus of control begins with the transhumanist movement itself. This year more than ever, I urge unity and steadfastness of purpose. Do not allow petty personality conflicts, lack of self-control, and factionalism derail potentially the most pivotal ideas, aspirations, and projects in human history. Support the people who build and uplift, rather than those who destroy and tear down. All those who earnestly seek to advance the well-being of humans through the progress of science and technology – and who are willing to behave civilly while doing so – are welcome to contribute to the endeavors of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and help take our organization to the next level.

U.S. Transhumanist Party Condemns Unjustified Shootings and Crowd Violence in Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., Calls for Unity for a Brighter Future

U.S. Transhumanist Party Condemns Unjustified Shootings and Crowd Violence in Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., Calls for Unity for a Brighter Future

logo_bg


August 29, 2020 – The United States Transhumanist Party (USTP) expressed alarm at the troubling and saddening events in Kenosha, Wisconsin, which began with the tragic and unjustified shooting on August 23 by police of Jacob Blake, an unarmed black man, multiple times in the back. Violence was escalated in subsequent days by looters who robbed and destroyed numerous peaceful businesses, and also by a lone individual who killed two protesters. During the night of August 27, 2020, while returning from the Republican National Convention in Washington, D.C., Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a long-time advocate critic of police shootings and advocate of police reform, was violently assaulted along with his wife, by a crowd of about 100 protesters who threatened his life and attempted to push through the police who were escorting him and to violently lunge at him.

Opposition to racism and other circumstantial discrimination, as well as the unequivocal condemnation of violence resulting from such attitudes, has been a cornerstone of the USTP Platform since its inception. Section II of the USTP Platform, adopted by its members during the first USTP Platform vote held on January 15-21, 2017, and subsequently amended during November 11-17, 2017, reads, “The United States Transhumanist Party supports all acceptance, tolerance, and inclusivity of individuals and groups of all races, genders, classes, religions, creeds, and ideologies. Accordingly, the United States Transhumanist Party condemns any hostile discrimination or legal restrictions on the basis of national origin, skin color, birthplace, ancestry, gender identity, or any manner of circumstantial attribute tied to a person’s lineage or accident of birth. Furthermore, the United States Transhumanist Party strongly opposes any efforts to enforce said restrictions regardless of cause or motivation thereof. Additionally, any institution that uses violence, suppression of free speech, or other unconstitutional or otherwise illegal methods will be disavowed and condemned by the United States Transhumanist Party, with an efficient, non-violent alternative to said institution being offered to achieve its goals if they align with the Party’s interests.”

The USTP has also long stood against police brutality and excessive use of force. During a vote held during March 26 – April 1, 2017, the USTP members adopted Section XXI of the USTP Platform, which reads, “The United States Transhumanist Party supports a concerted effort by governments and by public opinion to eradicate police brutality against peaceful citizens, such that violent force is only utilized against individuals who actually pose an imminent threat to human lives.”

The text of Section XXI was originally authored in 2015 by USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II, who remarked, “Police brutality has long been a personal issue for me. In June 2009, I was peacefully exercising in the fitness center of my apartment complex at the time, when two police officers barged in with guns pointed at me, in response to an alarm triggered by an unknown individual, which summoned them automatically. This situation was the closest I had ever come to death and thus was the moment in my life where I as a transhumanist faced the greatest threat and the greatest injustice. I managed to successfully narrate my every move to the police and de-escalate the situation over the course of a minute during which guns were pointed at me. But I sometimes wonder what my fate would have been had I lacked the presence of mind to cooperate, or had I looked different or been less readily able to prove that I had a key to the facility. The next day I learned from the assistant manager of the apartment complex that the police had treated him the same way. It became apparent to me that threatening and deploying lethal force against unarmed individuals has become a default modus operandi for American police – a practice that verges dangerously close to a bias for shooting first, asking questions later. We can also expect that every organization will have its ‘bad apples’ – individuals without moral restraint, who are also often prone to racial stereotyping. Combining violence-prone training with violence-prone mentalities of the few but still highly damaging racially biased police officers leads to a situation where many black Americans have suffered disproportionately from these unjust killings – but many Americans of all backgrounds have paid this heavy toll as well. No unarmed, non-violent, or non-lethally-violent person – of any skin color – should ever be killed, injured, or threatened with such undeserved punishments by police.  No other country with even a quasi-representative form of government has anywhere near the rate of police killings that are widespread in the United States. It is evident that police training and protocols regarding the use of force need urgent reform, and far less violent options that are routinely practiced in Europe, Canada, and Japan should be implemented in the United States.”

“It is evident that police training and protocols regarding the use of force need urgent reform, and far less violent options that are routinely practiced in Europe, Canada, and Japan should be implemented in the United States.”
~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

The USTP Platform advocates for numerous other measures to quell police brutality, including Section XXXIV (sousveillance / body cameras), Section LXXXIX (prohibition against police being equipped with military-grade hardware), Section XC (requirement for police to be equipped with and mostly use rubber bullets), Section LIX (requirement for outside investigations of police misconduct), Section LX (prohibition of collusion among law-enforcement entities to cover up police misbehavior), Section LXXXVI (improved reporting of police misconduct), and various additional approaches to achieve police accountability. Had these measures and others – such as banning no-knock raids, banning chokeholds, implementing mandatory de-escalation protocols and interventions by police officers who observe wrongdoing by their colleagues, and ending qualified immunity for police officers accused of misconduct – been implemented in the United States, many victims of police killings – including Tamir Rice, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and USTP member Duncan Socrates Lemp, who was killed by a SWAT team during a no-knock raid in Potomac, Maryland, on March 12, 2020 – would likely have been alive today.

Moreover, Section VI of the USTP Platform champions morphological freedom, defined as “the right to do with one’s physical attributes or intelligence whatever one wants so long as it does not directly harm others” and entailing “the duty to treat all sapients as individuals instead of categorizing them into arbitrary subgroups or demographics”. Discussing the implications of morphological freedom, Art Ramon Garcia, Jr., the USTP Director of Visual Art, articulated the hope that it will “make white supremacy irrelevant” and likewise obliterate the remnants of every other form of irrational prejudice based on a person’s origins, “morphological freedom in an age of genetic engineering […] will allow anyone to become anything.”

“Morphological freedom will make white supremacy irrelevant. Morphological freedom in an age of genetic engineering will allow anyone to become anything.”      ~ Art Ramon Garcia, Jr., Director of Visual Art, United States  Transhumanist Party

Tom Ross, the USTP Director of Sentient Rights Advocacy, condemned the violence in Kenosha and explained that “These [shootings] are racist. A white man walked right by cops with an assault rifle strapped to him and Jacob Blake was simply walking away.” Mr. Ross pointed to two of the USTP’s three Core Ideals being in conflict with these violent events.

The USTP’s Core Ideal 2 states, “The Transhumanist Party supports a cultural, societal, and political atmosphere informed and animated by reason, science, and secular values.”

Mr. Ross remarked regarding the police shooting of Mr. Blake, “The actions of the police are not reasonable. They are fueled by systemic racism which the U.S. has been mired in for two plus centuries. We also recognize that the current Executive Branch of the government is fomenting this violence by ignoring the overwhelming call for tolerance and equal justice for African-Americans and other minorities. We recognize that this current President is desperate to stay in office by whatever means necessary to avoid charges and possible imprisonment if defeated. He is attempting to do so by fanning the flames of civil unrest and emboldening racist actions in our Law Enforcement. The USTP absolutely recognizes that these actions and personalities are the exception that proves the rule, and we do not promote defunding the Police entirely; rather we think Police Departments are overburdened by activities that other civil social operations should handle, and funding should be redirected. But let’s call it what it is, racism and an abuse of power.”

The USTP’s Core Ideal 3 states, “The Transhumanist Party supports efforts to use science, technology, and rational discourse to reduce and eliminate various existential risks to the human species.”

Mr. Ross pointed to how the downward spiral of violence can endanger the prospects of humanity. “One of the clear existential threats to our species is the sensationalization of such violence. Today’s media technology is used too often to share discord, and our news services understand that sensational stories with ‘graphic content’ are ways to increase ‘likes’ and ‘views’, which directly affects their ratings and revenue. Media plays on the basest instincts in humanity and profits on this greatly. The ‘Human Condition’ has been made to be a negative attribute because of this machine of sensationalism. ‘If it bleeds it leads’ is the principle on which this machine operates. Although we recognize that this ship will not be easily turned, the USTP strives to find trimtabs in our society that can make the small and necessary changes in their own communities to right the ship of state.”

 

“One of the clear existential threats to our species is the sensationalization of such violence. Today’s media technology is used too often to share discord, and our news services understand that sensational stories with ‘graphic content’ are ways to increase ‘likes’ and ‘views’, which directly affects their ratings and revenue. Media plays on the basest instincts in humanity and profits on this greatly.” ~ Tom Ross, Director of Sentient Rights Advocacy, United States Transhumanist Party

At the same time, the USTP emphasized that more violence is never the answer to the problem of unjustified violence. “The businesses in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and the many peaceful civilians whose lives have been disrupted and who have been met with threats and injury, had no involvement in the tragic shooting of Jacob Blake or the many other victims of police misconduct,” Chairman Stolyarov stated. “Efforts should be focused toward reforming unjust protocols and institutions, not lashing out against innocent third parties who might quite likely have been potential allies in the task of reform. The path offered by the U.S. Transhumanist Party is to deliberate about how science, technology, and rational discourse – and their ethical and effective implementation through well-thought-out policies – can right these wrongs in a lasting manner, enabling racism, police brutality, and opportunistic looting alike to all become relegated to the dustbin of history by a society whose members come to know better. We express our support for those who, through peaceful and constructive action, are seeking solutions to this feedback loop of recurring and mutually escalating tragedies. All persons of conscience who wish to improve the situation must desist from initiating violence in any form and must turn their attention toward building instead of destroying.”

Tom Ross also criticized the violent attacks on Senator Rand Paul by the crowd in Washington D.C., “Regardless of our personal political bents or positions on this issue, our central motive must be to stand against all forms of violence. As a Transhumanist, I consider physical violence to be a primitive action that is motivated by fear and perpetuates a mob mentality. To protest police brutality with brutality is not only counterproductive but gives bad actors more justification for it. This is not a binary issue between Democrats and Republicans, Right and Left; it is a nuanced and multifaceted issue that requires a holistic approach. Senator Rand Paul is a proponent of criminal-justice reform, and so the protesters who attacked him have, well, lunged at Peter to scare Paul.”

Chairman Stolyarov concurred. He remarked, “A mob of people threatened the life of a Senator who, by all reasonable understandings, has been a leading proponent of curbing police brutality and eliminating abuse from the criminal-justice system. If we are to stand against the unjust violence perpetrated against Jacob Blake and others, then we must also stand against this purely counterproductive conduct. Injustice does not give license to perpetrate further injustice. Two wrongs – or thousands of wrongs – cannot ever make a right. Only de-escalation and a return to rational discourse, focusing on systemic and technologically powered reforms, can chart a way out of the present crisis.”

Pavel Ilin, Secretary of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, emphasized the need to refocus the conversation toward shared goals that include everyone. “As transhumanists we are trying to overcome a built-in brutal evolutionary heritage by building an environment of inclusion and dialogue. We try to transcend division between ‘us’ and ‘them’ by creating a larger concept of WE in which every sentient form of life is included, protected, and celebrated. There are no ‘Others’, only ‘we’. Murder is an extreme form of othering which cannot be undone. The life of each sentient entity is sacred. We are often talking about curing aging and living indefinitely long. But death from aging is no different fundamentally than death from a gun. No one should lose life involuntarily. No one should have a right to take it away.”

“Murder is an extreme form of othering which cannot be undone. The life of each sentient entity is sacred. We are often talking about curing aging and living indefinitely long. But death from aging is no different fundamentally than death from a gun. No one should lose life involuntarily. No one should have a right to take it away.” ~ Pavel Ilin, Secretary, United States Transhumanist Party

Liz Parrish, the U.S. Vice-Presidential candidate endorsed by the USTP, called on all Americans to transcend violence and join the effort to build a brighter future for all. She stated:

“We must build a future founded in the principles that every American can agree with by stating the obvious; we are all in this together. We need each other.  We must deny drowning in party-line negativity, condemn violence, and use these current events as fuel to create positive change. We can bring this country back together over principles that we can all agree on — health, freedom, liberty, and justice.

“As a country, we will unite to create a future through science and technological advancement— eradicate disease and thereby increase human health-span and create technological developments that can reach every adult and child.  We will lead by rational conversation, compassion, and connection.

“We must deny drowning in party-line negativity, condemn violence, and use these current events as fuel to create positive change. We can bring this country back together over principles that we can all agree on — health, freedom, liberty, and justice.” ~ Liz Parrish, U.S. Vice-Presidential Candidate, United States Transhumanist Party

“Regardless of religion and identity, everyone is invited to build this future with us—a future without the abuse of power, unequal resources, and unfair treatment. We must overcome our brutality and greed to make these next advancements. The future awaits us as a logical, feeling, and intelligent species.  And in this newfound peace, we will create new advancements and connections to expand our reach beyond the stars.”

Join us in restoring a shared vision of a brighter future. Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free in less than a minute, no matter where you reside.