Kim Dotcom Forms Megaparty To Activate NZ's Internet Electorate

[Karloff]

Kim Dotcom Forms Megaparty To Activate NZ's Internet Electorate

Dotcom won't be standing for office, and we don't know who Megaparty will field as candidates.

"Where the government is supposed to serve us the people, we are paying with our taxes that they do a good job for us," says Kim Dotcom [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120213-Kim-Dotcom-Reveals-New-Mega-Strategy]. "But look what they do, they undermine our rights, they destroy our freedoms, they censor our internet, so we are the ones who have to bring that change." So the beleaguered internet entrepreneur, who has yet to have his extradition hearing, has formed a political party, Megaparty, which will contest the next New Zealand general election. An app will launch January 20th, and when it does Megaparty will start signing up members.

Dotcom is prohibited from standing as a candidate, as he is not a citizen of New Zealand. He has yet to announce Megaparty's candidates, saying that for now it's better to keep their names under wraps, as a surprise for the launch. Dotcom intends to target what he describes as the "internet electorate," as well as all the non-voters, to "make politics exciting." In the last election, nearly 1 million eligible voters chose not to participate.

It's likely, political observer and University of Otago lecturer Bryce Edwards [http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2014/01/the-dotcom-party-could-be-a-spanner-in-the-works.html] points out, that Dotcom's party will throw a spanner in the works at this year's general election. It probably won't win office, but it will take support away from the other parties, particularly Labour and the Greens. Moreover although Dotcom can't stand for office, that doesn't prevent him from leading his political party.

"[Dotcom's] libertarianism is not so much of the economic kind, but of the social kind - the belief that the state shouldn't be concerned with the public's personal lives," says Edwards. "Such social libertarians typically promote the abolition of laws against recreation drug use, the abolition of censorship laws, but are particularly strong against forms of state surveillance against citizens."

To get a seat in parliament, a political party needs to get at least 5% of the vote, a target Dotcom is determined to reach. According to Dotcom [https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/422973642742321152], over 15,000 tickets have already sold for his party's launch event. "Moving to Vector Arena now. This will be EPIC."

Source: Guardian [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/14/kim-dotcom-launch-mega-political-party]


Permalink

 

[omega 616]

I'd vote for that party, it would be the only party I would ever vote for ... it would put a serious kink in my saying for voting (which I wont post here, suffice to say it doesn't show voting as a useful thing).

The other saying about politics still stands though, people who want to be in politics are the exact people who shouldn't be politicians (though I might have bastardized that saying a little).

People use politics to further there agendas, as opposed to making there country better. I'm sure Kim never had any intention of running for office until his house got raided. Just so happens that I agree on "Such social libertarians typically promote the abolition of laws against recreation drug use, the abolition of censorship laws, but are particularly strong against forms of state surveillance against citizens."

I think you're daft for taking drugs but I don't see why you should be stopped for taking them, it's your body and smoking and alcohol are legal ... what is so different about drugs? Why should things be censored, seems like a way to control us and letting the government get away with stuff to me (without going into conspiracy theories). Why should they be allowed to keep surveillance on us, seems very intrusive to me and not to mention treating us all like criminals.

 

[webkilla]

First the swedish pirate party, now this?

I have to admit - Kimmy is not someone I'd want as a friend, but I can fully support his political agenda as it is advertised here.

Copyright law, how governments keep track of their citizens. I wouldn't mind some young blood with more modern political stances coming into power around the world.

 

[Alterego-X]

In principle, there is a need for pirate parties and massive political copyright reform through them, but Dotcom is a horrible person whom I wouldn't trust with power even if I would be sure that he could pull off such reforms. The Swedish and german pirate party guys are cool, and they can get more influence anyways through potentially influencing EU policy.

 

[cerebus23]

jim sterlings richer cousin, they do look alot alike in some pics.

i hope he wins, the man is right, what the USG and his government did at the urging of the mpaa and riaa, law enforced at the whim of big lobby groups, spied on by our own government, our government spying on the whole world, we need a kim dotcom here.

need more people with the will and hell the money to stand up to government.

 

[VanQ]

I wish the Australian Pirate Party got as much attention as this. It would be wonderful to have some people in Parliament that actually oppose censorship and shitty internet. Legalizing marijuana for recreational use would just be a nice bit of icing on the cake. But hoping for icing for a non-existing cake is like counting your eggs before they hatch.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Well, that's nice enough, I suppose. Though I wonder what Dotcom's stance is on corporate surveillance- is he the sort to favor government restrictions on what companies can do with customer information, or is he a more laissez-faire type who'd "let the market sort it out"? Also, is he in favor of some sort of government support for addicts if decriminalization of drug use does occur, or are they on their own?

But hoping for icing for a non-existing cake is like counting your eggs before they hatch.

I... I think your metaphors kind of got away from you there.

 

[chadachada123]

Well, that's nice enough, I suppose. Though I wonder what Dotcom's stance is on corporate surveillance- is he the sort to favor government restrictions on what companies can do with customer information, or is he a more laissez-faire type who'd "let the market sort it out"? Also, is he in favor of some sort of government support for addicts if decriminalization of drug use does occur, or are they on their own?

I can't speak for New Zealand, but in the US, both of those issues are made worse by our current laws than if there truly was no laws on the subject outside of the basic "don't steal, etc."

Addicts would be better off on their own than thrown in prison, and corporate entities are as monopolistic as they are in the US in part because of the lobbying power they have: They *support* many regulations because it makes it basically impossible for new businesses to take from their market.

Imagine if, to sell a video game, you needed to pass certain EA/Activision/Ubisoft or Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft-lobbied environmental checks and pay a government to rate and certify your game and blah blah blah (though, admittedly, it's hard to make a solid analogy here comparing it to, say, the auto or banking industries): Minecraft may never have been developed and released, as the barrier to entry would be just too damn high.

So, really, while we may or may not want to fully adopt Kim's policies (assuming they're "laissez-faire"), we at least, in the US, need to have a voice and push in his direction, and not solely for corporate or political interests.