Rhetorical Essay

Democracy is being boarded by pirates and taken back to ancient Greece, and those pirates are using technology to do so. These are not Jack Sparrow type pirates, but rather political parties who are using the age of the internet to create open-source democracy. Open-source democracy is essentially direct democracy that is all run through the convenience of your smartphone; it is voting directly on legislation through the channel of technology. These grassroots populist movements have started a very deliberate revolution that is slowly changing the way democracy operates in the modern world. Cole Edick, an author for the Harvard International Review, serves as an advocate for pirate parties by providing many examples of different pirates around the world, offering up reasons why the parties are not reaching wider audiences, and explaining the implications of a return to direct democracy via the internet. While Edick presents a multitude of facts and thought-provoking assertions, his central argument is rendered impotent by his hazy sense of purpose. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Up to this point, student has introduced general topic/issue in his own words. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Here, the student transitions to introduce the article and author to his readers. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Student summarizes the author’s overall argument. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Student writes a thesis that evaluates the author’s argument.

In his article, “The golden age of piracy: can open-source democracy redefine citizenship for the internet age?” Cole Edick asserts that while pirate parties are making enough gains in the international political realm to be noticed, their platforms for organizing are not attractive enough to users. Edick illustrates the different practices of pirates by using the examples of the Pirate Parties in Iceland and Germany, the Net Party in Argentina, and the Podemas Party in Spain. Edick argues that one of the most resounding qualities of the pirate parties is that “pirates boast a unique modal of political organizing and decision-making...” This modal being crowdsourcing, the opening up of issues online for the masses to deliberate on. Edick contrasts the systems of LiquidFeedback in Germany to that of DemocracyOS in Argentina; they are both tools to organize meetings, propose votes, and vote on legislation online. Edick argues that DemocracyOS should be the tool that launches all of open-source democracy into the mainstream because it is more user-friendly. Edick believes this is exactly what open-source democracy needs, an attractive platform like DemocracyOS but with a large and energetic political party. With a platform like DemocracyOS, the world could return to direct democracy by allowing people to express their political views with no major time consumption to their daily lives. Edick lastly stresses the dangers of this implication arguing that “the open-source revolution may end up pirating not from the establishment, but from the already disenfranchised,” meaning that those who currently have a difficult time making their voice heard would continue to be silenced. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: This whole paragraph summarizes the article. Notice how the student uses the author’s name throughout the paragraph to make it clear that he is talking about the author’s text/ideas.

Edick crafts an argument that is overflowing with evidence and research making it highly informative for the reader, however; the purpose is often lost in the landslide of facts. Edick is attempting to achieve multiple purposes: inform about pirate parties and the platforms they use to operate, discuss the implications of an open-source revolution, explain why such a revolution cannot be stopped, but also argue for why the world should not want one. This muddled purpose makes the argument tremendously ineffective, making it challenging for readers to identify Edick’s claim. However, the most effective part of Edick’s argument is how he contrasts the platform of LiquidFeedback with that of DemocracyOS by presenting solid evidence on both, effectively proving why DemocracyOS is a necessity in the new direct democracy revolution. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: The student makes an assertion about the argument being made: there is plenty of evidence, but a lack of purpose.

The strongest facet of Edick’s argument is the approach that is used to reach the intended audience. The topic of pirate parties is very broad and has a conversation on the international stage of politics; by publishing this article in the Harvard International Review the article has the ability to reach a wide audience across the world. In stark contrast to Edick reaching his intended audience, the style and tone of the article make it a very difficult read. Edick puts the language into easy to understand terms but often repeats himself in multiple paragraphs due to a lack of organization of the argument. Edick quickly jumps between different topics and pirate parties, leaving him with over-saturated paragraphs that begin to feel repetitive and often contain irrelevant information that is not necessary to the claim. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: The student continues to evaluate the argument by identifying a strength in the article.

The most glaring problem with Edick’s article is the omission of opposition and rebuttal. Edick did not address any opposition to pirate parties, except for briefly mentioning how mainstream politics has rejected much of their ideals. This makes his argument completely one-sided and hallows out his already convoluted claim. Edick does however deliberate the problems that he foresees an open-source revolution creating in a very confusing stream of consciousness paragraph filled with mostly questions. At this point in his argument Edick has lost the majority of his credibility by omitting the opposition and having a rebuttal session with only himself. This approach leaves the reader wanting to seek out more information on the topic, not because of a sparked interest but rather because it is undeniable that certain information is simply not there. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: Again, the student is evaluating the argumentative strategies being used in the article, and explaining the reasoning for his evaluations.

While Edick’s argument falters in certain areas, his does bring about many important and interesting points about the future of democracy. The most thought provoking point that Edick brings to light is the implication that an open-source revolution could lead contemporary citizens to a democracy with the governance of ancient Greece without being a slave-owning society. This is because citizens in ancient Greece had slaves perform all of the daily tasks in order for them to be able to participate in their hands-on direct democracy. The advent of technology has oddly enough made that practice out of date, but at the same time, has made it possible to have a direct democracy once again in a vastly unique way. Technology is a crucial player in the game of the pirates, and there are even connections to the issue of net neutrality in the United States. In order for a pirate party to form in the United States, net neutrality has to be present. Parties that thrive on an open platform and the accessibility of the internet would never be possible if the internet is not a fair and equal playing field. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: More evaluation of the argument being made in the article. Notice how the student supports his assertions with explanations and references to the article.

The grassroots movement of the pirate parties has been making a foothold in countries across the globe. The topic of pirate parties is one small part of a much larger occurrence, the people of democracies are ready to embrace a new type of government, and that new type of government is an updated form of the original direct democracy that is iconic to ancient Greece. Technology will be directly tied with an open-source revolution, and the issue of net neutrality in the United States could be the deciding factor for the future of pirate parties. There is no way for this democratic revolution to occur without pirate parties in the United States; the inclusion of the United States in the pirate party revolution due to permanently fortified net neutrality rules will be the catalyst that sparks the whole reaction. The ship of democracy has been boarded by pirates and that ship is being taken around the world as direct democracy. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: The conclusion begins without overtly announcing it with a phrase like “In conclusion.” Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: Conclusion looks to the future and predicts how the topic might evolve in the future.

Work Cited Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: Work Cited (“Work” because there is only one source) aligns perfectly with MLA formatting.

Edick, Cole. "The golden age of piracy: can open-source democracy redefine citizenship for the internet age?" Harvard International Review 36.4 (2015): 7+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.