I was discussing politics with a friend the other day, and he said he’d love to vote for the Greens, but wouldn’t want them running the economic side of things.

At the same time, the NZ elections are coming up, and I don’t care for any of the parties. No Australian parties particularly appeal to me, and if I was in the USA I wouldn’t vote for the Republicans or the Democrats. I am also very scared that genuinely inept and mad people like Rick Perry or Tony Abbott could become leader.

So here’s my solution, a work in progress:

THE HYBRID PARTY

The idea is to selectively take components of each of these factions, and use them where they suit:

• Conservatives
• Liberals
• Greens
• Libertarian

The problem they all have is that they are scared to alienate their members, and try to fit one way of thinking into every area of government. Last century, pre-Mass Media, it was important for people to have a single sentence definition for what they stood for politically. The average person is more sophisticated these days, and can understand that a “bit of this, bit of that” can work. They are clued up enough to understand a less traditionally-described party.

I am a fan of the Libertarians, a lot of their policies suit me. And they are admittedly neither Republican or Democrat, and they “borrow from both sides“. But they lack the types of social policies I prefer – they’d sooner encourage people to save money that provide state-funded health care. For me, some things just cannot be solved by market forces…

I am a fan of the Greens, but in Australia once you remove the environment from the equation, their policies are a jumble of moderate non-ideas.

The Liberal Democrats are doing well in the UK at present, and they claim to be neither left nor right…

A Hybrid Party could get votes from people who care mostly about a single policy, by genuinely trying to please everybody.

POLICIES

I have no desire to be a dictator, but so far the Hybrid Party has a membership of one, so here’s some policies:

FORESTRY

The Green Party (in Australia) would prefer that there was no such thing as a commercial forest. The major parties are pro-business, and err towards allowing the plundering of our natural resources. Right now the status is quite balanced – a lot of old-growth forest has been protected, while jobs and forest industries continue. Why can’t this balance be a comprised and shared policy?

The Hybrid Party says:

• Old-growth forests are irreplaceable, and cannot, will not be logged, not for any reason.
• Australia has enough land to have a healthy industry based on sustainable logging – growing trees from scratch and chopping them down.
• The government will find employment for forestry workers during the period between old-growth removal ending and new growth harvesting beginning. Same pay, to plant and maintain new growth forests.
• The government will buy back forest leases, and in the long term maintain control of forest lands

MINING

Same as forestry:

• Mining is a limited resource, but not renewable
• The two imperative goals are getting the best long-term price for our minerals, and keeping miners employed
• The government will tax mineral extraction as much as it can. The only time for reducing taxes is when exploration and extraction dries up. There’s no rush – this limited resource will grow in value with time.

MARIJUANA / ECSTASY

The obvious wrong path is locking up users, who generally are peaceful, happy and otherwise law-abiding citizens. The Greens would choose legalization. Libertarians would want market forces to rule. The major parties, once they give in, would want tax.

The answer is government supply. Any private supply is illegal and dangerous. Government supply is safe and legal. Illegal providers are unlikely to beat a large-scale government operation on price – as long as taxation is kept at a realistic level. Age limits and user registration via an education course can be arranged. Everyone wins except drug dealers. Public transport use will soar.

VOTING

Switzerland has the ultimate democracy, and accordingly the wheels turn very slowly. Combine internet voting with gauging feelings and opinions to steer governments. Here’s the process:

• Problem arises – should we dredge the harbor so that larger ships can dock and increase commerce
• Ask the public, do we want more commerce and bigger ships if  no harm is done from the dredging?
• If enough people say yes, invite them to read both sides of the dredging argument
• Present a range of cost/benefit scenarios and ask the public how they feel about each
• Present the cost to budget in comparison to other possible uses for the same money
• Vote yes/no

If for nothing else, a community that feels that their voice is heard will be happier and more law-abiding. Communities that discuss, grow.