What do you think of Mike Gravel joining the Libertarian Party?

[rossl]

Personally, I think it's a good move for Senator Gravel and good for the Libertarian party. It gives Gravel a venue in which he can be taken seriously and not have to be corrupt and rich in order to compete, and it gives the party a lot of press, and gives them a more diverse field of candidates. But beyond that, it could give the party a chance to stop and examine itself for a moment, and that is a powerful, great thing to do for any party or ideology or anything like that. It can expose flaws and qualities about it that would have previously been plowed over in a singleminded rampage for success.

But the really important question now is whether Mike Gravel is a good fit for the Libertarian party. I would doubt this, if not for the central idea of Gravel's candidacy: The National Initiative for Democracy (http://www.ni4d.us, http://www.vote.org). It is a proposed law that would allow citizens to propose, vote on, and eventually pass laws. They would act as a supplement to the other branches of the government, a new branch and a new set of checks and balances. Except that this set of checks and balances would directly empower the people. But don't worry - within this system there would be many smaller checks and balances to make sure that there aren't any frivolous, repetitive, or destructive laws. For more details on that, go to http://www.ni4d.us. The text of the current incarnation of the law is there as well.

What do you think? Do you think Mike and the Ni4D are a good fit for the Libertarian party/philosophy? I'm happy to discuss it with you.

By the way, Mike Gravel will be in Philadelphia on April 9th and 10th. For more info go to the campaign blog on the front page of www.gravel2008.us (http://www.gravel2008.us).

For more info about Gravel:
http://www.gravel2008.us
http://www.ni4d.us
http://www.vote.org
http://www.citizen-power.us

[AutoDas]

He's not a libertarian. The LP stands to bring back the government to the Constitution and Gravel has socialist interpretations of it.

[nate895]

He's not a libertarian. The LP stands to bring back the government to the Constitution and Gravel has socialist interpretations of it.

It may sound ironic but there is such thing "libertarian socialism."

[freedom-maniac]

He's not a libertarian. The LP stands to bring back the government to the Constitution and Gravel has socialist interpretations of it.

Blah!!! You know that Thomas Jefferson was the guy who thought up the idea of having public education here in America?

People that go around screaming, "SOCIALIST! SOCIALIST! SOOOOCIAAALIIIIIIST!!!!" at everyone who isn't an Anarcho-capitalist are the same people who would scream the same thing at Jefferson if he were to craw out of his grave and run for public office again.

[rossl]

He's not a libertarian. The LP stands to bring back the government to the Constitution and Gravel has socialist interpretations of it.

This is not really so. It's a misconception of Gravel. The most "socialist" opinion that Gravel holds is his healthcare plan, which really isn't socialist at all. The government would not be running a single payer system. The government would issue vouchers to make sure that everyone has healthcare.

But Gravel's opinion on all but one issue are not as important as the opinions in other campaigns, and that issue is the National Initiative. The people would come first in a Gravel administration, not Gravel.

[nate895]

Blah!!! You know that Thomas Jefferson was the guy who thought up the idea of having public education here in America?

People that go around screaming, "SOCIALIST! SOCIALIST! SOOOOCIAAALIIIIIIST!!!!" at everyone who isn't an Anarcho-capitalist are the same people who would scream the same thing at Jefferson if he were to craw out of his grave and run for public office again.

I don't think he wanted it run by the DoEdu, which is my only objection, though I will home school my kids.

[freedom-maniac]

I don't think he wanted it run by the DoEdu, which is my only objection, though I will home school my kids.

Agreed. I hate the strenghtening of education requirements. Every year I'm in highschool I feel like the noose around my neck is continuing to get tighter.

Personally I would abolish the DoEdu, but I would certainly downsize by like 90% or something.

[rossl]

Hey, let's not hijack the thread. What do all of you think of Mike Gravel and his National Initiative, especially now that he's joined the Libertarian party? That is, do you think his central plan of the Ni4D can fit into the Libertarian philosophy?

[Shii]

Absolutely, the National Initiative and Libertarian Party address different issues: how local government should be and how laissez-faire it should be. Ron Paul is different from Gravel because he emphasizes local control, such as favoring the Electoral College because it grants power to the states.

[Aratus]

its breath of fresh air! its a revolutionary cannon ball across
the bow of the democratic party! its a statement of his wit
at his age, and his logical flexibility! he also wonderously
ticket balances, he has a recognition factor! if he's now
Libertarian Party to the end of his days, its more than a
neat footnote in any biography that is ever written about he!
didn't gravel toy with the idea of an electronic democracy?

[rossl]

Glad you feel that way Aratus.

Shii - but you can't simply give up on the federal government if you don't believe it's working. Even most libertarians believe that there should be some amount of government at the federal level. And if there's any government, then it is worth giving the people a say in what to do with it. This initiative proposal would give everyone more freedom, by giving them freedom to do what they want with their federal tax dollars. If there is any government at the federal level, the people should have a say in what it does. Of course, they wouldn't have unchecked power, but enough that they have a voice that can be heard above the racket of corrupt Congress and the executive branch.

[jlaker]

Two reasons why I like Mike Gravel.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=z91Jhze1TKc

http://au.youtube.comwatch?v=2YK_QR0w0ks

[aravoth]

It may sound ironic but there is such thing "libertarian socialism."

No there isn't, Thats like calling an Irish Red head an African American.

[nate895]

No there isn't, Thats like calling an Irish Red head an African American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)

From what I understand of it, it is basically true communism (in true communism, which has never existed, there is no government).

[Kludge]

Don't care.

He's unheard of, old, sick, out-of-office for a long time, and quite frankly - a jackass.

(I feel somewhat ashamed that I was going to vote for him before I discovered Dr. Paul)

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Hey, let's not hijack the thread. What do all of you think of Mike Gravel and his National Initiative, especially now that he's joined the Libertarian party? That is, do you think his central plan of the Ni4D can fit into the Libertarian philosophy?

Well... I'm not sure how I feel about him joining the LP... neutral, I guess. His vote for the LP will be great, if he's not going to write in Ron Paul.

I don't think he can get an LP presidential nomination, though. Libertarians as I've known them, are much too principled and rooted in a philosophy inconsistent with Gravel. (as I understand Gravel, anyway.)

[rossl]

That's just ignorant, Kludge. I could have said, before the Ron Paul campaign, "Why should I support him? He's just a fringe candidate who has no chance of winning and is crazy." But I didn't. I looked at people like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, and I said, wow, these are real American heroes.

Where would you be, Kludge, without Mike Gravel? You would probably be in Iraq. He ended the draft in the 1970s and he was essential in ending the Vietnam war. This man is not irrelevant. He is an innovator, a maverick, and a hero.

But he is also the perfect fit for the Libertarian party, because of the National Initiative.

[Mesogen]

Listen to this interview of Mike Gravel, where Scott Horton is just trying to flesh out Gravel's ideas and it makes it seem like he hasn't even thought them through.

I like some things about Mike Gravel, but he would make a terrible president. I think, even though he is an old man, that he's quite naive.

http://dissentradio.com/radio/08_04_07_gravel.mp3

In this interview he comes of sounding stupid.

[rossl]

I'll admit it, Gravel isn't the best of speakers (he's dyslexic and he learned English and French both as his first language, I believe), and he'll have a bad interview every so often. But look beyond his speaking techniques to see his ideas, specifically the National Initiative, and he's a genius.

One on one, the man's charming.

How do you think he's naive?

[Mesogen]

Did you listen to the interview?

It's not his speaking that is lame, it's his ideas.

I agree that he we need to restructure the UN. Getting rid of it is a bad idea, but not because "it would be the jungle." But, he wants to give it way too much power. Also, he thinks that the majority should rule! The majority knows what's best. I agree that the minority also doesn't know best, but that's why no one should tell you how to live your own life.

I have some respect for Mike Gravel, but after hearing this interview, I have less.

[rossl]

So you think there should be total anarchy, if you don't want anyone trying to control your life? Because otherwise whoever controls the law will forcefully be telling you how to live your life. Even with anarchy, there will be forces trying to manipulate and control you, which is why government is necessary to a certain extent - to defend and protect the people. But if there is any government, there needs to be someone controlling it. And who is better to do that? The American people, or some detached and corrupt politicians in Washington?

[porcupine]

This is not really so. It's a misconception of Gravel. The most "socialist" opinion that Gravel holds is his healthcare plan, which really isn't socialist at all. The government would not be running a single payer system. The government would issue vouchers to make sure that everyone has healthcare.

But Gravel's opinion on all but one issue are not as important as the opinions in other campaigns, and that issue is the National Initiative. The people would come first in a Gravel administration, not Gravel.

That's socialism. Just because it wouldn't be fully government run doesn't change that. It's redistributive government theft. And if you don't think mandates would follow those vouchers, you're naive. Gravel wants more government, not less. More government = less liberty. Therefore, Gravel is an anti-libertarian

[Mesogen]

So you think there should be total anarchy, if you don't want anyone trying to control your life? Because otherwise whoever controls the law will forcefully be telling you how to live your life.
No. Not anarchy. There should be a government so that people's rights can be protected. The problem with government though is that it never seems to mind its own boundaries and it starts to violate people's rights. This is usually the case because of human greed for money and power. Government tends to give itself more power over people and violate more individual rights. It rarely scales back its reach or power. It seems to only grow.


Even with anarchy, there will be forces trying to manipulate and control you, which is why government is necessary to a certain extent - to defend and protect the people. Protect their rights. There is a difference. "Protect the peopel" could mean "protect them from themselves" or "from hate" or "from obscenity" or any number of things that the government shouldn't be "protecting" you from.



But if there is any government, there needs to be someone controlling it. And who is better to do that? The American people, or some detached and corrupt politicians in Washington?
Think about it. The American People are quite easily manipulated. Some lame law would be passed because people are so stupid and there would be even less you could do about it because then civil liberties lawyers and petition groups and all the other people doing their best to keep the government in check would be "thwarting the will of the people."

Why does it take The American People to run a government if the only job of government is to protect my individual rights? Relatively speaking, there isn't a whole lot of decisions to be made, really.

[rossl]

Porcupine - I'm sorry, but you are really very immature. Open your mind a bit, stop being so hostile, and think for a second.

Mesogen - You said "Government tends to give itself more power over people and violate more individual rights."

So you want government, but not too much? That's not going to happen, because the peopel within government always want more power and more government (yes there are exceptions). But what if the people were a large part of the government? Then the people could only favor their own rights by favoring government.

And you ask why it takes the American people to run a government. It's because government officials are so corrupted by their power that they need to be kept in check by the people who feel the consequences of their decision-making.

[Mesogen]

So you want government, but not too much? That's not going to happen, because the peopel within government always want more power and more government (yes there are exceptions). But what if the people were a large part of the government? Then the people could only favor their own rights by favoring government.
The people would never know what they were really voting for. It's like that now with congress. They get a 10,000 page bill slammed on their desk (so to speak) and they have to vote on it within a few days. They should do what Ron Paul does and vote against it out of principle, but most of them vote for it because they are more easily manipulated. How can you vote against something called the Patriot Act? The American People would be even easier to manipulate. All the media hype for the Iraq War in 2002 had people wanting to drink the blood of every Muslim in the middle east. The American People would have voted for the war. Or, more likely for "Authorization to use force." That doesn't sound too bad, does it? Doesn't sound like full blown invasion and occupation without end. Doesn't sound like $1 trillion +.

I'm telling you. Whatever gets through Congress now would get through a popular vote even easier.

Most people would vote for some dumbass tax on carbon dioxide. The law would have some dumb provision about how people would come to your house and inspect it for CO2 emissions. And people would vote for it, and it would pass. Even if it didn't Diebold would make sure it did.


And you ask why it takes the American people to run a government. It's because government officials are so corrupted by their power that they need to be kept in check by the people who feel the consequences of their decision-making.The American People already have the power to take them out of office. They keep getting in because the majority of the American people are just plain stupid and easily manipulated. And the system is rigged. Don't think that a National Ballot Initiative system wouldn't be rigged.

[freedom-maniac]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HLepLeJEWpE

Why I like Mike Gravel.

[rossl]

The laws that are passed in Congress have thousands of amendments and attachments and subclauses, etc. The laws passed through the Ni4D would be a single law, no amendments, no frills, no pork attached, nothing but a single law.

"The system is rigged." By who? By those in power! So how do you keep their power in check? Empower the people their rigging affects! The American people!

[nate895]

The laws that are passed in Congress have thousands of amendments and attachments and subclauses, etc. The laws passed through the Ni4D would be a single law, no amendments, no frills, no pork attached, nothing but a single law.

"The system is rigged." By who? By those in power! So how do you keep their power in check? Empower the people their rigging affects! The American people!

How do you propose having making a sovereign body (the kind of thing that would be able to have referendums) when there are 50 of them? I think some of those 50, if not all 50 sovereignties in the United States might not take to kindly to losing it.

[Carehn]

I am Libertarian. He can join but if he pulls some bassackward stunt he will be crawling back to the dems. I know that I will not put up with BS and i don't think many other card caring Libertarians will. Democrats scare me because they offer so much to the so stupid. Like that chick in the Simpson's thats always saying "wont somebody please think of the children!" It sound worm and fuzzy but its just a load. I will give this man a chance and the first time he compromises my party to support some kind of government outreach program hes GONE!

One Chance! Thats all the Libertarians will give him.

[Carehn]

Porcupine - I'm sorry, but you are really very immature. Open your mind a bit, stop being so hostile, and think for a second.

Mesogen - You said "Government tends to give itself more power over people and violate more individual rights."

So you want government, but not too much? That's not going to happen, because the peopel within government always want more power and more government (yes there are exceptions). But what if the people were a large part of the government? Then the people could only favor their own rights by favoring government.

And you ask why it takes the American people to run a government. It's because government officials are so corrupted by their power that they need to be kept in check by the people who feel the consequences of their decision-making.




Only in theory comrade.

[SeanEdwards]

I dont think the national initiative idea is neccesarily incompatible with libertarian philosophy.

However, I'm not convinced it would make for good or effective governance. We have a public initiative system here in California, and it's really quite fubar. Groups with money easily round up enough signatures to get their pet project put on the ballot as an initiative. They design the things to deliberately confuse and obfuscate. Then some competing group with a differeing agenda will put up a counter intiative. The voters goes into the ballot booth having to sort out weird stuff like, a yes vote on this initiative, really means you are against proposal X. But if you vote yes on this other initiative, it will override your previous yes vote. It becomes a totally confused mess and the apathetic voters end up going "huh?".

I was thinking the other day about a different strategy to get a similar result, and it draws upon some of the practices of ancient states in Greece. In Athens, there was a sort of legislature created by lottery. Every citizen would be entered in this lottery, and those chosen would essentially serve a single term as a legislator. These citizens would receive education about the legislative process, and would review any proposed laws, and then make recommendations to the larger voting body (which technically was every Athenian citizen, but for practical matters was usually a much smaller voting body).

The Spartan society had a group called the ephors who actually had the authority to override the wishes of the king and nobles. The ephors was another group of average citizens serving their role for a limited term. And no, they didn't like look those freakazoids in the movie "300".

[rossl]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, SeanEdwards. The Ni4D would be different than state initiative systems. When they were created, that was the best their creators could do. But the Ni4D would be simpler and easier for everyday people to create laws with. There would be a process to go through, but it would not require a legal education or anything near that.

Go to ni4d.us for more info on it. You can read the text of the law there, too.

[Mesogen]

The laws that are passed in Congress have thousands of amendments and attachments and subclauses, etc. The laws passed through the Ni4D would be a single law, no amendments, no frills, no pork attached, nothing but a single law.

"The system is rigged." By who? By those in power! So how do you keep their power in check? Empower the people their rigging affects! The American people!

How do you keep Dieiold in check? Outlaw Diebold by majority fiat? That wouldn't hold up in court at all.

The people in power are not the ones in Congress. They are the cabana boys for the real power brokers.

What are you going to do, start singling out robber barons and take their money by a ballot initiative? Besides that being unconstitutional, it would still not actually give "power to the people."

[Mesogen]

From:
http://ni4d.us/faq.htm


How will conflicts be resolved between laws passed by the People by initiative and those enacted by elected representatives?

Any law, whether enacted by the People or their elected representatives, will take precedence over any previous legislation and will be subject to constitutionality. We expect that elected representatives who frequently vote to overturn or modify laws passed by the People will not long hold their positions.

Fatal flaw right here.

Well, we HOPE they won't just overturn national initiative laws the next week. :rolleyes:


The enactment of The National Initiative will be done in two stages. In a first stage, votes are collected over the internet.
Absolutely ridiculous. Not everyone has access and there is high probability of hacker fraud.

This is looking worse and worse the more I look into it.

[rossl]

The nuances of the National Initiative are not important in this stage of its life. They can be altered, they can be changed, they're not set in stone. But being closeminded and annoying and not having a mature discussion isn't helping.

[Mesogen]

Being unconvincing isn't helping your case either.

[rossl]

It's hard when you're up against a bunch of people that don't know much about what you're trying to tell them (I'm not blaming you, that's just the way it is in most cases), especially when there are a few idiots mixed in with them. It's hard not to be pulled down to their level.

[Alex Libman]

Anyone who proposes programs that would put the total public sector (federal, state, local government budgets, as well as assets held by them) above 10% of national GDP is NOT a libertarian, by any stretch of imagination - and Gravel is more like 60%!

LP should be a big-tend party, but it should draw a line on limitation of government power. Other litmus tests should include putting local governments above national ones, no foreign entanglements, and no victimless crimes.

[FreeTraveler]

You can put a saddle on a pig, but that doesn't make it a race horse.

[rossl]

What are all of your proposed solutions? Elect Ron Paul? While that would do a great deal of good, nothing about it would be permanent.

Just look at how Bush dismantled all of FDR's programs (not saying that's a bad thing, although Bush did go about it in a terribly dishonest and possibly illegal way). FDR was possibly the most powerful politician in the US's history, and so much of what he did was destroyed by a single president. Why couldn't the same be done to someone like Ron Paul?

[porcupine]

Just look at how Bush dismantled all of FDR's programs (not saying that's a bad thing, although Bush did go about it in a terribly dishonest and possibly illegal way). FDR was possibly the most powerful politician in the US's history, and so much of what he did was destroyed by a single president. Why couldn't the same be done to someone like Ron Paul?

Wow, you really have no freaking clue what you're talking about do you? What FDR program did Bush dismantle? Name one.

[rossl]

He didn't completely dismantle FDR's New Deal, but he did make it a lot less effective. To name one example, Medicare.

[PeterWellington]

If you think Gravel is a Libertarian, you owe it to yourself to find out more about the principles of the Libertarian party.

[rossl]

And you owe it to yourself to find out more about Gravel.

By the way, I find it hard to believe that an entire party and everyone within it could believe exactly the same thing. It would just be astounding if that were true.

[PeterWellington]

And you owe it to yourself to find out more about Gravel.

By the way, I find it hard to believe that an entire party and everyone within it could believe exactly the same thing. It would just be astounding if that were true.


Of course you'll never find across-the-board agreement on all issues in any party, but can we agree that you should adhere to the central principles of a party if you're to call yourself a member? In other words, can someone really call themselves a Vegan and eat steak and cheese everyday?

Again, please do some research on the principles of the Libertarian party (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sop) and explain how you can reconcile Gravel's ideas for universal healthcare, increased government role in public education, etc.

[Flash]

I'm not sure about Gravel. But I can't stand Gravel fans whatsoever. They are the worse. No wonder everyone hates Gravel on the democrat side. Their fans are obsessed with 9/11 conspiracies and they continually call RP a racist and nazi.

[Mesogen]

Not trying to be a bitch, but I'm guessing you are between 17-21, rossl?