What does everyone think about getting behind this?

[Brassmouth]

Hi everyone. Has anyone ever considered direct democracy as a viable plank for the Campaign for Liberty?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

This bailout is clearly an issue that would never have occurred if the people were allowed to make the decision, instead of the mobsters in Washington. I believe that representative democracy has failed, and ultimately leads to oligarchy, which is what we now have in America.

This bailout situation has completely disillusioned me with not only our politicians but the very system with which we allow them to operate. I think we need a fundamental change in how our government works, and direct democracy could be our best bet. Who needs corrupt asshole politicians lying and screwing us over all the time?

It seems to be working well in Switzerland. What do you think?

[Alawn]

NO!

[Micah Dardar]

It is a nice concept, but it doesn't bind down groups from pushing their values on other people by legal means. I like the idea of a direct democracy vote, but we still need to be protected by certain inalienable rights.

Direct democracy would work well for metro areas.

[Brassmouth]

NO!

Care to elaborate?

I'm legitimately trying to gauge people's views on this.

[heavenlyboy34]

Hi everyone. Has anyone ever considered direct democracy as a viable plank for the Campaign for Liberty?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

This bailout is clearly an issue that would never have occurred if the people were allowed to make the decision, instead of the mobsters in Washington. I believe that representative democracy has failed, and ultimately leads to oligarchy, which is what we now have in America.

This bailout situation has completely disillusioned me with not only our politicians but the very system with which we allow them to operate. I think we need a fundamental change in how our government works, and direct democracy could be our best bet. Who needs corrupt asshole politicians lying and screwing us over all the time?

What do you think?

I don't think so. There needs to be fundamental reform and all new rules for both the legislature and executive. However, the 'system' is workable if monitored properly by the citizenry. Perhaps an independent, citizen-run oversight committee or 2 or 100 is in order? (the oversight MUST be done by citizens somehow, or we'll wind up back here in short order)

[Brassmouth]

It is a nice concept, but it doesn't bind down groups from pushing their values on other people by legal means. I like the idea of a direct democracy vote, but we still need to be protected by certain inalienable rights.

Direct democracy would work well for metro areas.

We'd still operate under the Constitution.

Direct democracy isnt that same as mob rule. It doesn't have to be raw, unrestrained democracy, we'd be a democratic republic as we are now.

[Micah Dardar]

After reading what the Founding Fathers thought about it, I would have to say no.

The citizens would have made a better decision on the bailout, though.

[Brassmouth]

After reading what the Founding Fathers thought about it, I would have to say no.

The citizens would have made a better decision on the bailout, though.

What did they say about it? I wasn't aware direct democracy existed to a degree in which they could accurately critique it. If they were referring to some sort of Greek model, thats not what I mean. I talking about something similar to how the Swiss operate today.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Two years ago, I was a full-blown Bushite neocon supporting Rudy Giuliani.
A year and a half ago, I became a constitutionalist Republican supporting Ron Paul.
After a year and a half of study, I've come to a conclusion that free market anarchism is the best system. If our current government is going to continue existing, I'd like to see it abide by its constitutional republic format, however, not a direct democracy. Constitutional republics are much better at securing the rights of minorities (not in the racial sense) against the tyranny of the majority than are direct democracies.

So, basically I want either constitutional government or no government.

[Brassmouth]

Hmm, what if the Senate and House wrote bills, and the people voted on them? Would that be sufficient?

That way Congress can't write themselves any pork or jam through unconstitutional bullshit without the direct permission of the people. At the same time, it's not really direct democracy, more of a hybrid that still abides by a constitution and protects the individual.

Thoughts?

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Like I said, I'd rather have a government that is a federalist republic as the current Constitution specifies, or no government at all. Having people directly vote on all legislation is a bad idea for many reasons.

[Kludge]

The Republic is functioning as only it can. Direct Democracy would only give "the people" more power (BAD!!!).

All representative governments more or less represent "the people". The Common Good is supreme whenever voting is involved.



People (collectively) are stupid.
As a result, representatives (collectively) are stupid (or, at least, inept).
As a result, government (collectively) functions stupidly.
As a result, people (collectively) continue to be stupid.
As a result, we (collectively) get what we (collectively) deserve.

[fj45lvr]

NO


the best thing that could happen is for the STATES to regain power because then you have COMPETITION in GOVERNMENT (you can let your feet do the walking and MOVE if you don't like it)

How is gov. going to get better without Competition??? Just like any other service industry.



The MORE "states" the better....a NATIONAL democracy scares me to death....the average reading level is what?? 7th grade?? Pro Wrestling is popular?? The "mob" mentality should scare anybody with half a brain.

[Brassmouth]

You've all made good points. Although I disagree that just because most people are stupid, that would mean DD couldn't work. I doubt the majority of the stupid people would care enough to vote. The people who did vote, however would probably put more effort into educating themselves (like we did a year ago) and voting intelligently.

But if you all think the system we have now is the best, how do you explain it's descension into de facto oligarchy? Surely any similar system in which a few people had the reigns of the government in their hands would end up turning out like ours. Today, we are in effect only voting to select our masters, not our representatives. The bailout proved that beyond any doubt.

[Kludge]

I shouldn't have said that people are stupid. Instead, maybe I should have said many of us are preoccupied with other activities in our lives. I do stand by that we get what we deserve as government only gives back what is put in, or, as it stands currently, around 40%.

[fj45lvr]

The people who did vote, however would probably put more effort into educating themselves (like we did a year ago) and voting intelligently. .

"probably"??? I seriously doubt that assumption. Besides the fact that "educating" yourself means that you have to have a "source" or "instructor" for the education (a major part of the problem today).


But if you all think the system we have now is the best, how do you explain it's descension into de facto oligarchy? Surely any similar system in which a few people had the reigns of the government in their hands would end up turning out like ours. Today, we are in effect only voting to select our masters, not our representatives. The bailout proved that beyond any doubt.

The decent into what we have today has been ongoing for a VERY long time but the root problem is that the founders design was seriously FLAWED when it came to the Judiciary and thus we today have MOST of the Federal Gov. being UTTERLY "unconstitutional" (including the Fed and this bailout bill).

However, the founding fathers state that this was the natural order of things for LIBERTY to give up ground to "designing men", even the Declaration of Independence states straightaway that people were more apt to live under EVIL than to right things.....Secession is the best course of action to evade the monster that has been created. Don't worry about "reforming" it or "caging" it, just simply LEAVE IT BEHIND as it has completely obliterated its intent to begin with.

[Brassmouth]

I shouldn't have said that people are stupid. Instead, maybe I should have said many of us are preoccupied with other activities in our lives. I do stand by that we get what we deserve as government only gives back what is put in, or, as it stands currently, around 40%.

Sorry, I don't buy the whole "it's all the people's fault" argument. Even if everyone was as attentive as we were with politics and economics and actually cared, we'd still have no idea what's going on in those backrooms. Politicians do whatever they want to do. This "vote them into office and forget about them until the next election" system is what causes these problems.

[Brassmouth]

"probably"??? I seriously doubt that assumption. Besides the fact that "educating" yourself means that you have to have a "source" or "instructor" for the education (a major part of the problem today).

Basically, all one needs is an internet connection and a will to learn. If people realized they actually had power I'm sure they'd take politics much more seriously.



The decent into what we have today has been ongoing for a VERY long time but the root problem is that the founders design was seriously FLAWED when it came to the Judiciary and thus we today have MOST of the Federal Gov. being UTTERLY "unconstitutional" (including the Fed and this bailout bill).

However, the founding fathers state that this was the natural order of things for LIBERTY to give up ground to "designing men", even the Declaration of Independence states straightaway that people were more apt to live under EVIL than to right things.....Secession is the best course of action to evade the monster that has been created. Don't worry about "reforming" it or "caging" it, just simply LEAVE IT BEHIND as it has completely obliterated its intent to begin with.

I agree. It seems like this is our most viable option, short of outright revolution. What do you suggest the FF should have included to strengthen the Judiciary? And what is to prevent the judges from the same kind of abuse we see in the Legislative branch today?

[Kludge]

Who needs to know what's going on in the backrooms? Our government is openly violating the Constitution and is redistributing wealth for the sake of "creating equality". If anyone believes in "creating equality" than WE are not doing enough to educate.

From the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, "... private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation"

[Brassmouth]

Who needs to know what's going on in the backrooms? Our government is openly violating the Constitution and is redistributing wealth for the sake of "creating equality". If anyone believes in "creating equality" than WE are not doing enough to educate.

From the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, "... private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Thats the point. Nothing should be going on in the backrooms. There should be no backrooms!

We have to devise a system that doesn't allow for large-scale corruption.

[Kludge]

Thats the point. Nothing should be going on in the backrooms. There should be no backrooms!

We have to devise a system that doesn't allow for large-scale corruption.


But it isn't corruption. It's the failure of voters. Representatives are openly violating the Constitution and people don't seem to care (enough). For example, the following is from Barney Frank's publicly-shown "Issues" page:


Frank attacks GOP's inadequate funding for housing programs
I invite Members to return with me to thrilling days of the Reverse Houdini. That is what we are seeing today on the floor. Older Members will remember Harry Houdini who had an act. His act was to have other people tie him in knots and then appear before the public and get out of the knots. What my Republicans colleagues will show you today…is the Reverse Houdini. Under the reverse Houdini, you tie yourself in knots. Then you appear before the public and tell them how much you wish you could help them, but you cannot because you are all tied up in knots. You do not mention that you tied the knots…I admire what you did with inadequate resources, but I do not admire that you are the ones who made the resources inadequate. Members who voted for the tax cuts do not come to the floor with clean hands when they talk about the consequences of the tax cuts…The gentleman said he wished he could do more for CDBG. Well, who is stopping him? What is stopping him in the budget he voted for. The budget he voted for was dictated by the tax cuts he voted for. Click Here to Read Congressman Frank,s Full Remarks From the House of Representatives June 29, 2005 Debate on Funding for Housing Programs (http://www.barneyfrank.net/housingfunding)

(http://www.barneyfrank.net/housingfunding)


read more (http://www.barneyfrank.net/housingfunding)Everyone reading that who isn't having trouble with their mortgage should instantly realize that what he wants is unconstitutional by the fifth amendment.

[Brassmouth]

But it isn't corruption. It's the failure of voters. Representatives are openly violating the Constitution and people don't seem to care (enough).

What about public education? The voters are failing in their duties as participants in our system because the Constitution and economics aren't taught to them in public schools. I learned everything I know about politics, government, the constitution, and economics (my major) outside of public school. For the less curious person, that means people graduate from high school with almost zero knowledge or respect for the constitution.


For example, the following is from Barney Frank's publicly-shown "Issues" page:

Everyone reading that who isn't having trouble with their mortgage should instantly realize that what he wants is unconstitutional by the fifth amendment.

I hate to say you're right. I still think we need a better system, but the more I think about this country the more cynical I become.

It's one thing to change the government,

but how the fuck are we supposed to get all these sheeple to wake up?

They're so indoctrinated it's unbelievable. I guarantee you the media will convince the majority of the people that opposed the bailout that it was a good thing, within a week, tops. Then EVERYONE will stop talking about it, forget it ever happened, and blame the free market when the depression hits. Just watch.

[LibertyCola]

BOOOOOOO! Democracy sucks! BOOOOOO!

[blocks]

NO....Why not? Think of it this way...A good amount of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation are Propositions and Referendums all funded by various interest groups. That would be the system essentially, not that its end result is much different than the one we have, but it would be much more unstable as public opinion sways with the breeze.

[Alawn]

I agree. It seems like this is our most viable option, short of outright revolution. What do you suggest the FF should have included to strengthen the Judiciary? And what is to prevent the judges from the same kind of abuse we see in the Legislative branch today?

A complete change in form of government we have would likely never happen. It would require rewriting the entire constitution. Plus I don't like the type you originally suggested. A few small amendments directed directly at the problems we have would be better. Of course this would also be really hard to do but it would be a little easier. The framers didn't expect judges and congress to be so sneaky about changing the meaning of words. We could spell out specifics so it would be really hard for them to misinterpret certain clauses they have been abusing.

Be more specific in what powers the federal government can not have. Be more specific which powers are only allowed by the states and local governments. Make sure to return a lot of the power to the states that the federal government has taken away.

Add in clarifying terms. Say things like: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed at all. Even a reasonable restriction shall not be allowed."

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

Say that congress cannot condition federal funds to states.

Spell out no central banks or fractional reserve banking.

The list goes on and on. But we could take out all the wiggle room the federal government uses to abuse us. But yes this would be really hard.

The other option is to get people into office who aren't aholes. This might be a problem though because so many people have been conditioned that this is the way things should be. A good president could nominate better judges. We haven't had even one good judge in a really really long time.

[risk_reward]

Democracy is two wolves and 1 sheep deciding what is for dinner.

[fj45lvr]

The framers didn't expect judges and congress to be so sneaky about changing the meaning of words. We could spell out specifics so it would be really hard for them to misinterpret certain clauses they have been abusing.

hahahahahahahahahahah

There's a IMPOSSIBLE task.....remember the prez saying "it depends on what your definition of is is"!!!!

It's called judicial activism (basically those BUMS should be "tossed" and their opinions TOTALLY vacated.

The founders really screwed up on the judicial branch in their plans for PROTECTING the people....I think they underestimated how evil men are naturally.


Be more specific in what powers the federal government can not have.

I think it is already pretty specific and Article 1 section 8 only lists what?? 28 or so things?? the rest are left to the people or the states.

[jkm1864]

I doubt it because all it will take is the illegal aliens and the welfare crowd to put us into complete slavery. We are almost there as it is but You give them a 100% voting power our taxes would be 100% while they sit on their asses and doing all the things we enjoy that we can't because we are working 3 jobs. To hell with that idea but I have a better idea ..... if you don't pay taxes you don't vote that sounds better.

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

It has little to do with intelligence. The Fed runs the schools. It is in the best interest of the Fed for people to know as little as possible on these matters. Individual liberty is not complex. Why isn't it being taught?

The only way to even hope to prevent large amounts of corruption is to prevent large amounts of government. What is the #1 reason people give up? They feel too frustrated and hopeless going up against such a large and powerful government. True or not, it's large enough to convince them that this is true.

We have too much democracy. The Constitution was a dictator. A benevolent dictator. It basically said, "People will have liberty, whether the majority wants it or not." If anything, the Constitution lacks in it's forcefulness as dictator.

Someone posted this in another thread, supposedly by George Washington: "... every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offences, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death."

The Constitution should be littered with something similar to the above. Not that a piece of paper will ever guarantee freedom...

My conclusion is that a reduction in freedom eventually leads to the death and enslavement of billions and entire nations. It is possibly the worst crime that can be committed. Reducing freedom not only destroys the lives of the millions/billions living at the time, but it does so for the millions/billions yet to be born.

The majority today would continue to vote in much more government and way more handouts. It's not that they are bad people, it's just that this is what they've been taught is good. Return schools to the local level, have the states compete, and this may change.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

"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

“Democracy ... wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams

“Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention... incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” —James Madison

“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and ... breaks up the foundations of society.” —Thomas Jefferson