We believe that individuals should be:
In short, we wish to ensure government remains open and transparent, whilst individuals retain liberty and privacy.
Some contributors hang out in #openpolitics on irc.freenode.net. Feel free to drop by for discussion or help contributing!
Some contributors hang out in #openpolitics on irc.freenode.net. Feel free to drop by for discussion or help contributing!
@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago
oooohh interesting, and slightly controversial (in my view) as I favour property rights and don't see why anyone else should be able to interfere with my 'stuff' as long as I'm not using that 'stuff' to damage others (ie weapons; bulldozers; polluting cars etc).
Happy to go along with omitting this, but wouldn't wish to start making explicit anti-property pledges. That would be too 'red' for my taste. So on the basis of this as a deletion only it gets a caveated 👍 from me.
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 13 January 2014 13:57, Tim Cowlishaw [email protected] wrote:
Strong agreement with this from me [image: 👍]
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/72#issuecomment-32170941 .
Certainly. Any proposal to change existing property rights would need another PR, and most likely a massive argument and probably a fork, so we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. This is just to keep the assumption out of the core principles. 👍
@otfrom - about 10 years ago
I'd rather we didn't have property rights as one of the central principals.