Mike Gravel's National Initiative?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What is it about? It sounds nice on face value. People getting the opportunity to make changes, even if we have bad elected representatives.! But I wonder if it's realistic, how does he plan to create this thing? Would it increase the size and scope of government?

[freedom-maniac]

Direct Democracy died with the classical age. We saw how well that worked out for Greece.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Direct Democracy died with the classical age. We saw how well that worked out for Greece.

That's not direct democracy. He doesn't want to shut down our representative government. Maybe then we could repeal many laws?

[freedom-maniac]

Well, having people getting the right to make laws doesn't seem to help much. Just consider how many people supported us going into Iraq?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well, having people getting the right to make laws doesn't seem to help much. Just consider how many people supported us going into Iraq?

Would it also allow us to repeal laws?

[nate895]

Democracy in any form is an insult to liberty. In a democracy, the governing body puts issues on the ballot, even if they will destroy liberty, and see if it is the "people's will."

Ex: You find a small oil pool on you large estate. In a republic: Everyone wants your land, but the government says "sorry, that's his, you can't take it away." In a democracy: The issue is put on a ballot and people vote "yes" to take your land.

[Aratus]

the spartans weren't totally democratic yet they did stop the persians at thermopylae
long enough to give the rest of the greece time to arm. the athenian league over time
became a threat to the flame of democracy. rome rises, and then over time, the franks
have assemblies. we derive our ideals of republicanism from these three sources. prior
to the 1600s and the divine right of kings doctrine, worldly crowns to us tacitly were akin
to the one samuel, saul and david were quite familiar with. when george washington in
his advanced years steps aside, once again a latterday cincinnatus returns to his plow.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Democracy in any form is an insult to liberty. In a democracy, the governing body puts issues on the ballot, even if they will destroy liberty, and see if it is the "people's will."

Ex: You find a small oil pool on you large estate. In a republic: Everyone wants your land, but the government says "sorry, that's his, you can't take it away." In a democracy: The issue is put on a ballot and people vote "yes" to take your land.

lol. a republic is actually a form of indirect DEMOCRACY ;)

[nate895]

lol. a republic is actually a form of indirect DEMOCRACY ;)

A republic is its own form of government. In a republic, there are legitimate voter qualifications and an assembly who are the only ones who can make laws, and those laws must conform to the Constitution of the republic and to the natural law. In a democracy, everyone over a certain age, regardless of how stupid they are, can vote, and they can make laws. Our form of government has been perverted so much that we have changed forms from republican to indirect democracy.

[Luft97]

What is it about? It sounds nice on face value. People getting the opportunity to make changes, even if we have bad elected representatives.! But I wonder if it's realistic, how does he plan to create this thing? Would it increase the size and scope of government?

I'm not sure how he wants to accomplish the whole thing but the way I see it he wants to have a fourth system of checks and balances. I think after being there in the senate he saw that those people are no more wise than the common man and much more corrupt, so he thinks that if people are able to make laws it would be a good thing. It sounds good on paper, but not sure how it would work in reality.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm not sure how he wants to accomplish the whole thing but the way I see it he wants to have a fourth system of checks and balances. I think after being there in the senate he saw that those people are no more wise than the common man and much more corrupt, so he thinks that if people are able to make laws it would be a good thing. It sounds good on paper, but not sure how it would work in reality.

I guess it's a bit risky. It could either be godsend...or hell

[G-Wohl]

A republic is its own form of government. In a republic, there are legitimate voter qualifications and an assembly who are the only ones who can make laws, and those laws must conform to the Constitution of the republic and to the natural law. In a democracy, everyone over a certain age, regardless of how stupid they are, can vote, and they can make laws. Our form of government has been perverted so much that we have changed forms from republican to indirect democracy.

Wrong. There is no true definition of what a Democracy is. What can be defined is what is USUALLY featured in a Democracy.

A republic is simply a state/nation that is not led by an absolute dictator/monarch. The United States is a Republic that practices Representative Democracy.

The example you provided earlier is just absurd. Neither a Republic nor a Democracy specifically defines who can call up a vote, so to assume that a Republic OR a Democracy would ever allow a vote to be called regarding the seizing of somebody's land is just a logical fallacy. And remember that nothing in the definition of a Republic even specifies any particular voting process.

[Banana]

I did start a thread a while ago asking the same question (but didn't know about Mike Gravel's proposal then).

I would support a limited national initiative to allow voters to vote on issues that congress simply won't have the balls to rule on. An example would be pay cuts for representatives. Who wants to vote to cut his own paycheck? I didn't think so. Campaign financing reform is another example. Ideally, the national initiative should be strictly for federal matters only, maybe further qualify to something where it's basically a veto so any new proposals still has to go through the houses.

A generic national initiative, OTOH, is bad, IMO.

[familydog]

What is it about? It sounds nice on face value. People getting the opportunity to make changes, even if we have bad elected representatives.! But I wonder if it's realistic, how does he plan to create this thing? Would it increase the size and scope of government?

He joined the LP. Anything he does is automatically better than the two parties.