MFWhyA1

Version 1

Because the old parties are more trying to play the election game instead of trying to really influence the system to change it. Plus, most of them don't realize the good potential internet has and it seems like they see internet as a threat or in the better cases just as a new economical opportunity.

Version 2

We do not «need» it in the first place. We can help citizens to become self responsible or to «empower them» by sharing our «pirates habits». Invite the «common folks» to become a pirate if they have the «courage to». Help them to understand the «servitude mecanisms» (discours de la servitude volontaire de Etienne de la Boétie).

Version 3

Pirate Party is innovative, ambitious, technology oriented party that understand the modern issues.

Version 4

Some could argue there are plenty of initiatives growing organically in a P2P fashion: within other parties, with the Open Source manifesto, banks that would give every client a basic income regardless of his amount on the bank, networks of P2P entrepreneurs, ... that allow to accomplish a lot of what the Pirate Party wants and that a party as such is not that necessary. However, the problems remain closely tied to politics and our democracy.

For example, when you want to try to create a UBI out of other measures than from the state, the funding of it will not be optimal because you will need to finance the bloated state at the same time with your own project. And practically all other parties spoke about a basic income at least once as a revolutionary idea to make them look cool, but finally, they are not serious about it. With in every party some people in favor while always being rejected finally, we risk to never implement it really. And they never mention any relations to liquid democracy and how it will change powers. Also, the ideas we foster, will always be against the ruling parties (yes, we are pirates). They don't want to transfer their power to the commons and that is why we are necessary: we need to force them.

There is also a sense of urgency in what we do. Suppose we let the system continue the way it is going now. A UBI might not be implemented, economic inequality will continue to rise and suppose on top of that, robots are really going to take our jobs, because we stayed in our old fashioned jobs and were too much afraid of taking new chances with our society. People will rebel on the streets towards a change of the system a little bit like people in Arabic countries wanted a change. The result will be that we risk reinventing the same problems again or we would need to invent a basic income suddenly. The change of mind needed for a basic income and liquid democracy cannot just happen in a flip second. It is like putting democracy in a country with years of dictatorship: you will be going through a difficult time.