PDA

View Full Version : Democracy is NOT FREEDOM! By Ron Paul - Good Riddance Mike Gravel!




rayzer
06-01-2008, 10:49 PM
----------- BEGIN EDIT --------------

I wanted to add this note because I thought it was important. I realized that I sound rather negative in this post. I am a positive person looking to making POSITIVE change in this country and this world. I thought about where my negative energy was coming from. I realized that it came from my experience with a die-hard Gravel supporter who I have been debating with. This individual is very new to the concepts of libertarianism. I personally don't feel like he is coming from the same place as most of us in "The Revolution". But I do recognize that even as a minority amoung us, each one of us has something to offer. I am not sure if I started the negative attacks with this person. I kind of doubt I did. But I do want to release myself from negativity. I DO believe this individual and Mike Gravel are not thinking the matter through to it's end point. I do hope that they will give some time to the study of the philosophy of people like Ayn Rand and G. Edward Griffin.

----------- END EDIT --------------

http://www.NorthVirginiaPatriots.com/mp3/Gravel%20Song.mp3

Put the nail in the coffin of Mike Gravel and his strange ideas. While he is undoubtedly a patriot, he, his ideas, and his uneducated followers do NOT belong in The Revolution.

His political career has now ended and I am not surprised. Whenever any principled and educated libertarian challenged him, he became very aggrivated and condescending. In my opinion, it was very foolish of him to think he could "fool the revolution". Mike, go fillibuster some more, at least that did some good for the people!

Those who were fooled by Gravel should be vary wary of their lack of understanding of the core values of freedom and libertarianism. Fellow revolutionaries, be very wary of these Marxist infiltrators amoungst us. DEMOCRACY IS NOT FREEDOM!

Don't take MY word for it! Even though Ron Paul is mainly writing about the Iraq war here, his views on "Democracy" are very clear. Here are his words:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.* Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive – and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state – but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Ron Paul Quotes (source (http://ronpaultalks.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-talks-about-democracy-22-ron.html)):

"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

"Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word "democracy" as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good."

"The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or Constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it."

"Our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a Constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago."

"Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob."

"The Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a Constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the 'excesses of democracy.'"

"Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a Constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy."

"The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom."

GOOD RIDDANCE MIKE GRAVEL!

Christianalwaysg124RP
06-01-2008, 10:58 PM
Thomas Jefferson clearly defined the distinction between a republic that is democratic and a democracy. Which is why some historians call us a "(democratic) republic."


A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

newyearsrevolution08
06-01-2008, 11:01 PM
And the sad thing is, many people STILL within this revolution still SCREAM democracy. We NEED to educate those within our own ranks so they don't mislead or misinterpret the message of LIBERTY.

rayzer
06-01-2008, 11:51 PM
And the sad thing is, many people STILL within this revolution still SCREAM democracy. We NEED to educate those within our own ranks so they don't mislead or misinterpret the message of LIBERTY.

The North Virginia Patriots Show (http://www.NorthVirginiaPatriots.com) is doing everything it can to educate!

Timothy
06-02-2008, 03:25 AM
You know, Rayzor, I wouldn't say a thing about Switzerland again, only, as you phrase it here, they would be Marxist, wouldn't they?

Let's see. The Pentagon is complaining already about too few math and physics students. I mean, they can't rely on Chinese and Russian ones, can they?

So, the role of the government is to protect not to provide? You see, sometimes, as in this instance, it is difficult to do the one without the other.

You can only go so far stripping down the government, and while it might be fun to wrap yourself in some kind of radical doctrine for the sake of arguing, it will not get you anywhere.

stevedasbach
06-02-2008, 05:27 AM
We should welcome Senator Gravel to the Revolution. That doesn't mean we should adopt his ideas.

Gravel is very good on foreign policy and civil liberties. He has a ways to go on economic policy, although he is already better than many liberals. He puts way too much stake in direct democracy, but letting voters repeal laws through referendum isn't a bad idea. (OTOH, ENACTING laws via referendum IS a bad idea, which would likely lead toward tyranny of the majority)

angelatc
06-02-2008, 06:19 AM
We should welcome Senator Gravel to the Revolution. That doesn't mean we should adopt his ideas.

Gravel is very good on foreign policy and civil liberties. He has a ways to go on economic policy, although he is already better than many liberals. He puts way too much stake in direct democracy, but letting voters repeal laws through referendum isn't a bad idea. (OTOH, ENACTING laws via referendum IS a bad idea, which would likely lead toward tyranny of the majority)

I absolutely agree! Gravel is too much of a socialist, but his supporters are smart, educated and friendly. If we can focus on the common ground, like eliminating corporate influences, the rest of the platform will naturally sink in.

The Revolution has people from a wide variety of political backgrounds. It is counter-productive to bash honorable men they consider viable leaders.

constituent
06-02-2008, 06:33 AM
<snip>

1) Put the nail in the coffin of Mike Gravel and his strange ideas. While he is undoubtedly a patriot, he, his ideas, and his uneducated followers do NOT belong in The Revolution.

His political career has now ended and I am not surprised. Whenever any principled and educated libertarian challenged him, he became very aggrivated and condescending. In my opinion, it was very foolish of him to think he could "fool the revolution". Mike, go fillibuster some more, at least that did some good for the people!

2) Those who were fooled by Gravel should be vary wary of their lack of understanding of the core values of freedom and libertarianism. Fellow revolutionaries, be very wary of these Marxist infiltrators amoungst us. DEMOCRACY IS NOT FREEDOM!



1) You were put in charge of determining who does and does not "belong" in "the" "revolution" by whom exactly?

no fan of the oup or anything, but see "whose revolution" for some historical precedent on this type of thinking

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5155S6QCFKL._SL500_AA240_.jpg


2) Infiltrators? This coming from the revolution's only known, or dare i say admitted "double-agent."
Denier's the supplier.

LibertyIn08
06-02-2008, 07:41 AM
You'd kick out Mike Gravel, who put himself out there and was willing to work with us, but yet you support Steve Parent, who has been more divisive than Gravel could have ever been?

I'm so surprised.

Alex Libman
06-02-2008, 07:42 AM
Gravel's LP stunt has always been a senile joke.

LibertyIn08
06-02-2008, 07:44 AM
Gravel's LP stunt has always been a senile joke.

That's irrelevant to his inclusion within the wider liberty movement. I disagree vehemently with him, but the larger the movement grows, the better. Many of his supporters have now opened their ears to libertarian thought. That is the first step.

Timothy
06-02-2008, 08:14 AM
That's irrelevant to his inclusion within the wider liberty movement. I disagree vehemently with him, but the larger the movement grows, the better. Many of his supporters have now opened their ears to libertarian thought. That is the first step.

Well, I for instance have liked direct democracy since I've been a schoolboy, because it was all too apparent to me that when people start grouping together the loyalty to the group will beat any rational argument. I considered it shameful behavior when I was 12 and I still do.

So, I like Gravel because he likes direct democracy and not vice versa. I like Ron Paul (apart from the common things between Gravel, Kucinich and Paul) because he favors state rights over federal rights and I think that it's not the nations business to tell the people of its states what to think.

I must tell you though... when I read in the creed of freedom that you pledge to consider charity always superior to welfare that you actually pledge to close your eyes. Why wouldn't you pledge to keep an open mind and judge policies on their merits? To pledge that I will support a position independent of the experiences I'll make is something I won't do, no matter what position.

Also, when it comes to libertarianism, I'm so much more impressed by the shop owner down the street who takes an active role in public life than by libertarian "philosophers" that I doubt that the latter will do libertarianism any good at all in the long run. Keep in mind, the former defines America, the latter is seen as fringe. I'm even inclined to say that the latter feeds on the former, i.e. a parasite.

torchbearer
06-02-2008, 08:17 AM
That's irrelevant to his inclusion within the wider liberty movement. I disagree vehemently with him, but the larger the movement grows, the better. Many of his supporters have now opened their ears to libertarian thought. That is the first step.

And a good reason to accept Bob Barr, and give him his "second chance" to walk the path of Liberty.
I can't stand the fact that people on this forum are actively campaigning against him... like options trader. That is such a simpleton view of our movement.
We need to grow and be tolerant. No one else will be a Ron Paul.. besides maybe Rand.
We have to work with people in our movement, even if they aren't 100% Paul.

LibertyIn08
06-02-2008, 08:22 AM
I must tell you though... when I read in the creed of freedom that you pledge to consider charity always superior to welfare that you actually pledge to close your eyes. Why wouldn't you pledge to keep an open mind and judge policies on their merits? To pledge that I will support a position independent of the experiences I'll make is something I won't do, no matter what position.

Not quite sure what this had to do with the thread, however, I'll set you up with some links that could perhaps explicate this issue better than I. If you want to continue this discussion past this post, perhaps another thread or PMs would be a better medium.

Replacing Welfare (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html)

Davy Crockett vs. Welfare (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html)

Even if you want welfare, the current set-up is rather inefficient:

Milton Friedman's Social Welfare Program (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/milton_friedman_1.html)

The Other Milton Friedman: A Conservative With a Social Welfare Program (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html)

Read those, let me know what you think. I don't think trusting the government with the traditional welfare setup, however, is either a natural or efficient solution.

rayzer
06-02-2008, 08:24 AM
You can only go so far stripping down the government, and while it might be fun to wrap yourself in some kind of radical doctrine for the sake of arguing, it will not get you anywhere.

So now Dr. Paul's ideals are a "radical doctrine"? Go join MoveOn.org where you belong!

LibertyIn08
06-02-2008, 08:26 AM
So now Dr. Paul's ideals are a "radical doctrine"? Go join MoveOn.org where you belong!

Surprise surprise! A Patrician (my new reference for SGP supporters) excluding someone from the movement!

crazyfingers
06-02-2008, 08:28 AM
A good link to point people to: http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/

That said, I'd vote for Gravel over Barr. At least Mike is against the military-industrial complex.

rayzer
06-02-2008, 08:29 AM
We should welcome Senator Gravel to the Revolution.

That would be the polite thing to do. It's just I have had some really bad experiences with his supporters, so I got mad. But you are probably right.


He puts way too much stake in direct democracy, but letting voters repeal laws through referendum isn't a bad idea.


I couldn't agree more. I support a "People's Veto" 100%. Unfortunately, his supporters are so closed minded and set on following him blindly, even when I have repeatedly suggested this, I don't think anyone ever bothered to tell Mr. Gravel.[/QUOTE]



(OTOH, ENACTING laws via referendum IS a bad idea, which would likely lead toward tyranny of the majority)

Yes it is a bad idea. But don't try to convince his supporters of that, they will act like you just killed their mother.

rayzer
06-02-2008, 08:31 AM
You'd kick out Mike Gravel, who put himself out there and was willing to work with us

In what way is Mike Gravel willing to work with us?



but yet you support Steve Parent, who has been more divisive than Gravel could have ever been?

Off topic. But thanks for your input. I mean it. Thanks!

rayzer
06-02-2008, 08:32 AM
That's irrelevant to his inclusion within the wider liberty movement. I disagree vehemently with him, but the larger the movement grows, the better. Many of his supporters have now opened their ears to libertarian thought. That is the first step.

I TRULY hope you are right. But I have seen to evidence of this. From where I sit, his supporters are completely blinded and are convinced that true libertarianism is some kind of evil sin. Please show me evidence to the contrary. I couldn't imagine what would make me happier!

JoeMac
06-02-2008, 08:40 AM
There are lots of people I wouldn't welcome to the revolution. Like anyone who is willing to do what they see as personally gratifying or beneficial over what is truly right. Justice is blind to those with even the best intentions.

I don't see why I or anyone else should welcome nice people who drag us all down to their gracious intentions of welfarism and social theft. I still deny Gravel is anything but a crazy old fool who needed a pulpit to bolster his memoirs.

The guy is the antithesis of a freedom advocate. He is the George Bush of the far left. The country would be great, in his eyes, if only he was the one to decide how your money should be spent.

Communist I say.

rayzer
06-02-2008, 08:43 AM
OK, it SOUNDS like Timothy has some kind of point here. But I can't deciper it.


Well, I for instance have liked direct democracy since I've been a schoolboy, because it was all too apparent to me that when people start grouping together the loyalty to the group will beat any rational argument. I considered it shameful behavior when I was 12 and I still do.

I am confused. Direct democracy is EXACTLY people grouping togeter into "loyalty groups" that beat any rational argument. Us rational libertarians want NOTHING TO DO with going out and voting every week to make sure we preserve our liberties. It is the "busy body" types who want to tell the rest of us how to live that will create these "groups" (i call them mobs) that will irrationally implement laws that affect the rest of us.


I must tell you though... when I read in the creed of freedom that you pledge to consider charity always superior to welfare that you actually pledge to close your eyes.


Huh?



Why wouldn't you pledge to keep an open mind and judge policies on their merits?


What takes an "open mind" is for the "general population" to judge LIBERTARIAN VALUES on their MERTIS! But we can't even SEE what a world based on libertarian values would be LIKE because nobody on this planet today has experienced it's merits. The MOST open minded position is to believe in these values and help to see them become reality.



Also, when it comes to libertarianism, I'm so much more impressed by the shop owner down the street who takes an active role in public life than by libertarian "philosophers" that I doubt that the latter will do libertarianism any good at all in the long run. Keep in mind, the former defines America, the latter is seen as fringe. I'm even inclined to say that the latter feeds on the former, i.e. a parasite.

I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion, your kind of talk sounds like marxism. People have NO obligation to take an "active role in public life"! For you to sit here and bash a philosophy because it is "seen as fringe" is the kind of thing that will keep this country in it's sad state forever.

Why don't YOU take "an active role in public life" and go out and TEACH the philisophy of liberty.

Seriously, do you consider yourself part of the Ron Paul Revolution? Does anyone else? No offense, but to me, you just sound confused.

Timothy
06-02-2008, 10:09 AM
The last part of your comments, rayzor, exemplifies a problem that you have quite well.

What I was saying was that if a shop owner would be active in charity (or sponsoring) that does help the libertarian cause more than a so called philosopher that speaks about the virtue of charity on purely theoretic grounds.

So, since you have this misunderstanding problem, I don't know how reasonable discourse with you might look like.

constituent
06-02-2008, 10:16 AM
<snip>

Put the nail in the coffin of Mike Gravel and his strange ideas. While he is undoubtedly a patriot, he, his ideas, and his uneducated followers do NOT belong in The Revolution.

<snip>

Those who were fooled by Gravel should be vary wary of their lack of understanding of the core values of freedom and libertarianism. Fellow revolutionaries, be very wary of these Marxist infiltrators amoungst us. DEMOCRACY IS NOT FREEDOM!

<snip>

GOOD RIDDANCE MIKE GRAVEL!


<snip>

I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion, your kind of talk sounds like marxism. People have NO obligation to take an "active role in public life"! For you to sit here and bash a philosophy because it is "seen as fringe" is the kind of thing that will keep this country in it's sad state forever.

Why don't YOU take "an active role in public life" and go out and TEACH the philisophy of liberty.

Seriously, do you consider yourself part of the Ron Paul Revolution? Does anyone else? No offense, but to me, you just sound confused.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5155S6QCFKL._SL500_AA240_.jpg


We should welcome Senator Gravel to the Revolution. That doesn't mean we should adopt his ideas.

Gravel is very good on foreign policy and civil liberties. He has a ways to go on economic policy, although he is already better than many liberals. He puts way too much stake in direct democracy, but letting voters repeal laws through referendum isn't a bad idea. (OTOH, ENACTING laws via referendum IS a bad idea, which would likely lead toward tyranny of the majority)

i agree


I absolutely agree! Gravel is too much of a socialist, but his supporters are smart, educated and friendly. If we can focus on the common ground, like eliminating corporate influences, the rest of the platform will naturally sink in.

The Revolution has people from a wide variety of political backgrounds. It is counter-productive to bash honorable men they consider viable leaders.

yep.


You'd kick out Mike Gravel, who put himself out there and was willing to work with us, but yet you support Steve Parent, who has been more divisive than Gravel could have ever been?

I'm so surprised.

I know, right.

Aratus
06-02-2008, 10:22 AM
can't we have liberty AND democracy...both? ---- these core values...
http://www.bigissueground.com/history/ash-athenianempire.shtml can we be
these in tandem without turning ourselves into a latterday delian league?

Timothy
06-02-2008, 10:23 AM
Replacing Welfare (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html)

I do agree more or less. And it is very promising to read that 80% of Americans take part in charity.

But I wasn't referring to these work programs in the first place.

I was speaking about using progressive taxes to finance education and health care and perhaps something more.

My feeling is this. You are born into this society and you profit from the knowledge your ancestors have gathered. It's not your achievement after all and you could regard it as your duty to make sure that future generations will have the same benefit by contributing not an absolute amount, but a relative one to your fortune. Health care is a similar argument. Of course, people need to work. You cannot simply feed people through. On the other hand, you need something to start with. I mean, if you owned land, you could grow your own food and all it would cost is that land. It's no real problem, I think, because we all have all the chances we need (in China it looks already different) to get enough starting capital to build up our own existences.

If that were not the case though, we would have to address it and make provisions, so that people get these chances in a fair way, fair for all sides, but that is hypothetical. The situation in the US is too good as for such measures to be necessary.

rayzer
06-02-2008, 10:42 AM
So, since you have this misunderstanding problem, I don't know how reasonable discourse with you might look like.

Oh you meant through charity? Charity is a wonderful part of our society and human nature. Sorry if I blantantly misunderstood what you were saying. Of course nobody has ANY obligation to be charitable. But thank God for those who do choose to be. What would the world be if we were all completely selfish?

rayzer
06-02-2008, 10:55 AM
I wanted to add this note because I thought it was important. I realized that I sound rather negative in this post. I am a positive person looking to making POSITIVE change in this country and this world. I thought about where my negative energy was coming from. I realized that it came from my experience with a die-hard Gravel supporter who I have been debating with. This individual is very new to the concepts of libertarianism. I personally don't feel like he is coming from the same place as most of us in "The Revolution". But I do recognize that even as a minority amoung us, each one of us has something to offer. I am not sure if I started the negative attacks with this person. I kind of doubt I did. But I do want to release myself from negativity. I DO believe this individual and Mike Gravel are not thinking the matter through to it's end point. I do hope that they will give some time to the study of the philosophy of people like Ayn Rand and G. Edward Griffin.

Timothy
06-02-2008, 10:57 AM
I am confused. Direct democracy is EXACTLY people grouping togeter into "loyalty groups" that beat any rational argument.

No, in the case of direct democracy there is quite obviously no need for loyalty.

Who should I be loyal to in a direct democracy? The group that on some issue has the same views as I? Certainly not, next issue, new fronts. There's no such thing there.

Aratus
06-02-2008, 11:00 AM
lets respect mike gravel for his last hurrah most political. he entered the merrie debate and
then in mid-stream he then realized he was the "devil's advocate" of the LP party in full. what
i like about gravel is that he kept on talking like the trooper he is. true grit. even if his era is gone...

rayzer
06-02-2008, 11:18 AM
No, in the case of direct democracy there is quite obviously no need for loyalty.

Who should I be loyal to in a direct democracy? The group that on some issue has the same views as I? Certainly not, next issue, new fronts. There's no such thing there.

There is VERY much need for loyalty under the system that Mike Gravel proposed. Some citizen needs to step up and propose a law. This citizen won't do that unless they know they have some "loyal" supporters. They obviously have some beliefe that THEY are superior and have some duty to tell others how to live their life.

What causes someone to have the mentality to want to step up and tell other people how to live their lives is FAR beyond my comprehension. But in my study of human nature, I have noticed that another personality trait the follows with these types of people is that they will stop at NOTHING to smear those who don't agree and to gain power. This only enhances the "group loyalty" amoung those that suport their idea.

The techniques of "smearing" are well defined by Ayn Rand in her book, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". What happens is that the "mob leaders" get a loyal group of followers who are loud and vocal. Then they attempt to smear and marginalize anyone who stands up against them early on- thus setting an example fr anyone else who would stand up against them. They will put labels on their detractors and usually try to call them things like "extremeists".

The reason it is so easy for "the mob" to smear libertarian types is because to truly understand the concepts of libertarianism, it takes many years of the study of it's practical application. Since the general public never has and never will study these things, it is very easy to sway "the mob" in other directions by using non-linear arguments.

For instance, let's look at the FLDS situation in Texas. Why is the general population not FURIOUS about what is going on there? Because it is WAY easier to make the argument that if you DON'T support what the government is doing, then obviously you don't care about "the children".

So the non-linear argument is: Because you DO care about the civil liberties of the adults in the situation, you DON'T care about the rights of the children.

Can't we care about BOTH? And realize that it is a VERY tricky situation that should be handled with MUCH CAUTION and CARE? This situaton is a perfect example of what happens under "mob rule". There is no care taken to preserve civil liberties and VERY OFTEN, the wrong people are punished. And then those who were the REAL worst abusers of civil liberties (the bueracrats), are NOT punished- or even accused of a crime!

rayzer
06-02-2008, 11:24 AM
lets respect mike gravel for his last hurrah most political. he entered the merrie debate and
then in mid-stream he then realized he was the "devil's advocate" of the LP party in full. what
i like about gravel is that he kept on talking like the trooper he is. true grit. even if his era is gone...

I have to admit. I DO respect Mike Gravel as evidenced in my interview with him (http://nvp.mypodcast.com/2008/04/Gold_Commodities_Internet_Driven_Senator_Mike_Grav el_comes_on_our_show_GOP_now_criminal_Ron_Paul_del egates-102686.html). I realize now that my anger and negativity towards him came from my experience with one of his supporters.

Timothy
06-02-2008, 11:34 AM
Towards revolutionary strategy.

It is like always. When you want to get something you either have to deal or to fight.

When you have the majority behind you, you can chose to announce to fight, in case you don't get what you want. That will be sufficient to get what you want even without a fight.

And how to get the majority behind you? Again, either deal or fight.

It's simple enough.

That raises the question how full a victory you want to score, because it will be obviously easier to score a partial victory.

Now, the truly revolutionary thing would be to dissolve the FED in terms of resistance you'd encounter. But how much more?

The FED thing is outrageous, 6% dividend for nothing! But you can't probably narrow down on that alone and be perceived as an attractive political force. Ron Paul had the loudest applause when he spoke about Iraq, not the FED. People don't really care, as it seems.

Well... I also think that if you point too much in that direction you will get into stormy waters because your rhetoric would be quite similar to Hitler's - there's a single thread here that foreshadows what would happen then.

Whether it's clever to get rid of any form of central bank is also a valid question. You don't want to make money too scarce, at least not if you care about the national economy.

So, long story short, work out a program that bears a realistic chance to achieve your goals. Be wary.

rayzer
06-02-2008, 12:09 PM
So, long story short, work out a program that bears a realistic chance to achieve your goals. Be wary.

Timothy, I don't mean this as an insult. But I am having trouble following your writing. Many thoughts (and sentences) seem incomplete.

Anyway, my program to acheive my goals is simple!

EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE!

When people get a grasp of our monetary system and the power structure that we are up against, then they take the core priciples of liberty to heart, it becomes pretty clear to most that we need to stop allowing others to control our lives- whether that be beuracrats, bankers, or "the mob" of democracy fanatics.

EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE!
TEACH, TEACH, TEACH!

SPREAD THE WORD about what we are up against.

To the extent the we all do that, we are on the same team.

To the extent that we propose solutions BEYOND education, we start to fall into VERY different camps.

I am going to try very hard to stick to what we have in common.

Timothy
06-02-2008, 12:31 PM
There is VERY much need for loyalty under the system that Mike Gravel proposed. Some citizen needs to step up and propose a law. This citizen won't do that unless they know they have some "loyal" supporters. They obviously have some beliefe that THEY are superior and have some duty to tell others how to live their life.

What causes someone to have the mentality to want to step up and tell other people how to live their lives is FAR beyond my comprehension. But in my study of human nature, I have noticed that another personality trait the follows with these types of people is that they will stop at NOTHING to smear those who don't agree and to gain power. This only enhances the "group loyalty" amoung those that suport their idea.

Not really. Let's see. You feel that the patriot act needs to be repealed and you talk about in your local pub and, hey, there you go start campaigning for it until you have 25000 signatures and then the nation gets to vote on it.

Sweet and simple.

The deeper problem with the libertarian thinking (as far as I can see) is that it assumes that people have rights. That's not so. We have to fight or deal for our rights. And fighting or dealing COSTS. So, some people will have to pay.

I mean, all of this wouldn't be much of a problem, because it's really not that difficult to grant ourselves our rights on a mutual basis, i.e. it doesn't cost us that much, if you wouldn't insist on doctrinal purity, since when you do that, even the smallest problem becomes a big one.

Back to laws, because it's related to that. Laws arise out of necessity. You don't wake up and say: "Now I will make my neighbor do that!" (well, if you're a bureaucrat you may, but that's a professional deformation) you wake up and say: "We have to do something about this! We cannot take responsibility for letting things continue like that!"

That is because our life is no gift, we have to fight or deal to get it. And so has a state. And if somebody stands on the sideline and says: "I don't like to participate.", well, perhaps you find an agreement with him, o.k., but your freedom to do so is limited by the laws of nature, actually.

A society is not for free. Basically.

LibertyCzar
06-02-2008, 12:38 PM
Quite frankly, part of Gravel's National Initiative scares me. It's not that people can make laws, it's that people can change the Constitution. If it was just laws by initiative, we would still have the judiciary to determine whether these laws are Constitutional, much like what happens with State Initiatives. Does anyone remember California's Prop 187?

Also, I find the National Initiative useless. So the people vote by majority. But if the purpose of this is to take power from Congress, it does not work. Say the Initiative is to make the first Wednesday in June the official National Fun Day. Well, what is to stop Congress from voting to repeal this law once it is enacted through the National Initiative? With the National Initiative, I fear Congress will endlessly vote to repeal whatever is enacted through the National Initiative.

This being said, I have great respect for the things Gravel did while he was a senator. He had guts. I do believe the Draft was ended in part because of his actions in the Senate. He fillibustered. I just wish some of our current Senators had half the guts Gravel did.

Aratus
06-02-2008, 12:42 PM
national initiative = revamped new deal? mike gravel remembers when rural electrification happened in a big way... [tva]

Timothy
06-02-2008, 12:44 PM
Quite frankly, part of Gravel's National Initiative scares me. It's not that people can make laws, it's that people can change the Constitution. If it was just laws by initiative, we would still have the judiciary to determine whether these laws are Constitutional, much like what happens with State Initiatives. Does anyone remember California's Prop 187?

Also, I find the National Initiative useless. So the people vote by majority. But if the purpose of this is to take power from Congress, it does not work. Say the Initiative is to make the first Wednesday in June the official National Fun Day. Well, what is to stop Congress from voting to repeal this law once it is enacted through the National Initiative? With the National Initiative, I fear Congress will endlessly vote to repeal whatever is enacted through the National Initiative.

This being said, I have great respect for the things Gravel did while he was a senator. He had guts. I do believe the Draft was ended in part because of his actions in the Senate. He fillibustered. I just wish some of our current Senators had half the guts Gravel did.

Well, the population as a whole would then be turned against Congress and Congress wouldn't want that.

As for amending the constitution, I don't think it's necessary, Gravel simply put it in to give people the same powers as Congress. I'm pragmatic enough to drop that, since the possible good of that stands in no relation to the possible bad. Also, once two generations had experiences with direct democracy you could easily revive the issue whether amending the constitution should also be possible.

Timothy
06-02-2008, 12:49 PM
national initiave = revamped new deal? mike gravel remembers when rural electrification happened in a big way... [tva]

Perhaps Gravel thinks that way, who knows? I think though that if the people chose to finance their programs through the FED like FDR they would be pretty stupid. It's their choice after all, just get their attention to what they're doing.

rayzer
06-02-2008, 12:50 PM
I wish someone would just tell Mr. Gravel that if he would go with a "People's Veto" idea, he pretty much couldn't lose.

So the idea is simple. By 51% majority, the people can VETO any bill passed by congress just like the president can. This would essentially have the positive effects of the NI4D WITHOUT any of the NEGATIVE mob rule affects.

All debate would end, and maybe this movement could actually go somewhere with Gravel as our leader!

Think about it. All the people who are fanatical about the NI4D idea are always touting the affect of ENDING this or ENDING that. Then they fail to talk about the abuses of the mob. Oh well. I'm used to not being listened to. :)

rayzer
06-02-2008, 12:54 PM
That is because our life is no gift, we have to fight or deal to get it. And so has a state. And if somebody stands on the sideline and says: "I don't like to participate.", well, perhaps you find an agreement with him, o.k., but your freedom to do so is limited by the laws of nature, actually.

A society is not for free. Basically.

You are making some strange kind of sense here. To label it (which is kinda lame i know), you are partially a socialist and partially an anarchist.

Intriguing to say the least! Would you like to come on our radio show (http://www.NorthVirginiaPatriots.com) sometime and talk about this? We are on Revolution Broadcasting (http://www.RevolutionBroadcasting.com)M-F 3-5PM eastern time.

Timothy
06-02-2008, 12:58 PM
Well, rayzor, I think it's a realistic guess that a veto would suffice 80% of the time or more. Sometimes though constructive laws could be necessary, as I said, society is not for free, sometimes you have to do something.

LibertyCzar
06-02-2008, 01:30 PM
Well, the population as a whole would then be turned against Congress and Congress wouldn't want that.

As for amending the constitution, I don't think it's necessary, Gravel simply put it in to give people the same powers as Congress. I'm pragmatic enough to drop that, since the possible good of that stands in no relation to the possible bad. Also, once two generations had experiences with direct democracy you could easily revive the issue whether amending the constitution should also be possible.

Existing opinions of Congress are worse than of Bush.

A People's Veto would probably be the best idea. The Initiative Process is better at the State Level. Now if a Federal Law mandates the Initiative Process at the State Level in every State, that might be different because even State Constitutions must conform to the Federal Constitution. Also, a People's Veto would make Congress think twice before passing a law.

Timothy
06-02-2008, 01:34 PM
You are making some strange kind of sense here. To label it (which is kinda lame i know), you are partially a socialist and partially an anarchist.

Intriguing to say the least! Would you like to come on our radio show (http://www.NorthVirginiaPatriots.com) sometime and talk about this? We are on Revolution Broadcasting (http://www.RevolutionBroadcasting.com)M-F 3-5PM eastern time.

Thanks a lot. I would consider myself an individualist first and foremost, and my vita certainly proves it. I hold the strong conviction that nowadays societies must open themselves and allow people to organize themselves in subcultures that would hold similar powers to a state, i.e. these subcultures should be allowed to collect their own taxes and only give a small part of these to the state. That's a long term perspective though, think about two centuries. I think it's necessary, because it's the only way that we can as groups of people regain control of our social environment. Direct democracy would only be a small step, but a step in the right direction, because people could at least react legislatively to problems they yet have to understand that they have.

In a way I just want to turn back time to a state when people somewhere in the wilderness in their village could administer on themselves whatever they saw fit. Of course, today we don't have that sort of geographical separation anymore, so we need ideological separations, perhaps with some racist elements too, but don't forget that races are the product of people who joined under a common banner.

If we could bring this about and everything would be included in a structure that minimized friction and we'd have peace, that would be worthwhile for sure.

Really, I hate the mob. I'm all for every single human being taking full responsibility of its life, including the set of rules that it prefers for social conduct. And nobody would force anybody to live the way he wants. Yes, you'd be born into a society, but you could leave.

O.k. Utopia. Until we get there in full blossom, surely 500 years will pass. At least.

And actually, though that's my overall view of where we should head, my direct interest right now concerns other things. I like to talk to people who are somewhat interested in these sort of things via these forums, for instance, but me being a mathematician I felt rather awkward on your show. Still, thanks.

EDIT. "social conduct" is badly phrased, I wasn't speaking about picking your nose in public and such, it should read "social commitment".

Timothy
06-02-2008, 01:37 PM
Existing opinions of Congress are worse than of Bush.

Well, now everybody thinks they are incompetent, but in that case people would be overtly hostile.

Truth Warrior
06-02-2008, 01:37 PM
Demobcrazy SUCKS! :p

rayzer
06-02-2008, 02:33 PM
Demobcrazy SUCKS! :p

AHHAHAHAHA FUNNY!

TheEngineer
06-02-2008, 02:59 PM
Ron Paul on Bob Barr: Good Candidate, Can Do Pretty Good Job (PLEASE DIGG)

Dugg and shouted to my network.

P.S. I hope you'll all join my Digg network. I'm "PPA2".

rayzer
06-02-2008, 04:17 PM
Dugg and shouted to my network.

P.S. I hope you'll all join my Digg network. I'm "PPA2".

Is this spam?

rayzer
06-02-2008, 07:50 PM
everyone needs to read this

PaulaGem
07-26-2009, 08:03 AM
Thomas Jefferson clearly defined the distinction between a republic that is democratic and a democracy. Which is why some historians call us a "(democratic) republic."


A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

Your Jefferson quote is a fake, hon, you've been had.

Kludge
07-26-2009, 08:07 AM
You'd kick out Mike Gravel, who put himself out there and was willing to work with us, but yet you support Steve Parent, who has been more divisive than Gravel could have ever been?

I'm so surprised.

:eek: Over a year old and rings truer than ever.

Gravel has no chance to lead us. He's a great asset, though, and I appreciate what he's done to help us, as a Paul supporter, libertarian, Libertarian, and pacifist.

MelissaWV
07-26-2009, 08:43 AM
Good Lord... Steve Parent and Rayzer are still around in the world. It seems like ages ago I stopped talking to the entire lot on a regular basis; VTV, mdh, LiN, Rayzer, Hoot, DrSteveParent, Gravel, milly...

*sighs* Thanks for making me feel old

Aratus
07-26-2009, 10:25 AM
can't we have liberty AND democracy...both? ---- these core values...
http://www.bigissueground.com/history/ash-athenianempire.shtml can we be
these in tandem without turning ourselves into a latterday delian league?


lets respect mike gravel for his last hurrah most political. he entered the merrie debate and
then in mid-stream he then realized he was the "devil's advocate" of the LP party in full. what
i like about gravel is that he kept on talking like the trooper he is. true grit. even if his era is gone...


everyone needs to read this

dude... mike gravel had this internet democracy idea at one point,
and yes... he had a small cadre of die-hard loyal tru-fans! of course
his move into Libertarian Party politics was quite a shock to they!