PDA

View Full Version : Gravel's National Initiative For Democracy




surGeon
08-01-2009, 08:49 PM
YouTube - Explanation of the NI4D (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYVK4zOcryg)

It seems to me like it would decentralize power, which is always a good thing, and it could completely solve corporatism and interventionism overseas. I've always liked Gravel despite him being a Democrat.

What's your analysis?

Aratus
08-02-2009, 12:22 PM
!!!

South Park Fan
08-02-2009, 01:10 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684

emazur
08-02-2009, 01:12 PM
I haven't watched it yet but you know he joined the Libertarian Party right?

MelissaWV
08-02-2009, 01:13 PM
Are you trying to attract Rayzer to the thread? lol If you're wondering why I mention it, you might want to look him up, and look up his thread history :D You'll see pretty much all the points and counterpoints the board has regarding Gravel.

BillyDkid
08-02-2009, 01:40 PM
I'm lost. What is the purpose of this initiative? To pass laws in addition to the laws passed by Congress? Is that what we need? More "democracy"? More people passing more laws? And what if this organization passes law that contradict the laws passed by Congress? What kind of laws would they be passing? Who will be enforcing those laws? It may not be "the government" but it's just another government isn't it? And why is there any reason to believe the laws passed by this people's government are going to be anymore pro-liberty than the ones passed the actual government?

demolama
08-02-2009, 02:10 PM
The problem is the Republic does not have enough representatives. Direct democracy is not the way to go. NY votes yes to kill off corn for consumption that vote alone kills off 5 of the lowest populated states who may benefit from corn production.

Only through representation are people of like values are able to protect the minority from the majority

Flash
08-02-2009, 03:08 PM
The problem is the Republic does not have enough representatives. Direct democracy is not the way to go. NY votes yes to kill off corn for consumption that vote alone kills off 5 of the lowest populated states who may benefit from corn production.

Only through representation are people of like values are able to protect the minority from the majority

There is another movement trying to increase the # of representatives.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

surGeon
08-02-2009, 04:09 PM
The problem is the Republic does not have enough representatives. Direct democracy is not the way to go. NY votes yes to kill off corn for consumption that vote alone kills off 5 of the lowest populated states who may benefit from corn production.

Only through representation are people of like values are able to protect the minority from the majority

I don't see how direct democracy is any less subject to federalism and the rule of law. All you're doing is giving each person a vote (or more than one vote depending on what state he's in), rather than having one representative act as a proxy for a large heterogeneous group. What is stopping NY from electing representatives, who would kill off corn consumption, now? I don't see why we can't incorporate the same solution into direct democracy.

Representative democracy has a number of problems with it, Party politics, corruption, corporatism, unsupported wars. We wouldn't have had the Iraq war or the bailouts with direct democracy.


I'm lost. What is the purpose of this initiative? To pass laws in addition to the laws passed by Congress? Is that what we need? More "democracy"? More people passing more laws? And what if this organization passes law that contradict the laws passed by Congress? What kind of laws would they be passing? Who will be enforcing those laws? It may not be "the government" but it's just another government isn't it? And why is there any reason to believe the laws passed by this people's government are going to be anymore pro-liberty than the ones passed the actual government?

I have no idea how this particular initiative would work alongside the congress. I assume it would take over much of what congress currently does. I think we need both more democracy and more rule of law. I don't necessarily see them in opposition to each other when our representatives neither adhere to the people nor the law. I don't know if there is any reason to believe the laws would be pro-liberty, but at least they wouldn't have political motivations behind them.

demolama
08-02-2009, 09:00 PM
I don't see how direct democracy is any less subject to federalism and the rule of law. All you're doing is giving each person a vote (or more than one vote depending on what state he's in), rather than having one representative act as a proxy for a large heterogeneous group. What is stopping NY from electing representatives, who would kill off corn consumption, now? I don't see why we can't incorporate the same solution into direct democracy.


Nationalism and Federalism are mutually exclusive and can not coexist. National initiatives will destroy what is left of the states.

National initiatives are blanket legislation that effect every person in the US, since the federal congress assumes rolls on anything and everything, expect national initiatives on everything as well. Environmental laws dealing with car pollution that works well in SF would work for Utah? Don't put it passed people with ideas of what is best for us with no idea of the cost or the different needs in certain areas.

So besides having blanket legislation for the whole country... you cannot put whole laws on a ballot for people to vote on.

"vote yes" for prop 9 and you get a 15 word explanation on the ballot... and then realize you just voted yes on something you should have voted no because you did not have enough information on the ballot.

Democracy only works when the people are well informed... and people in the US are far from informed on the issues.




Representative democracy has a number of problems with it, Party politics, corruption, corporatism, unsupported wars. We wouldn't have had the Iraq war or the bailouts with direct democracy.


WE do not have a real representative republic... what you are basing your idea of a representative republic is what we currently have, which hasn't been a representative republic for well over 100 years when Congress put into law a cap on the amount of seats in the house.

What you are describing is a perverted effects of unconstitutional usurpation and progressive ideals that destroyed the representation in favor of more "democratic" ideas... such as direct vote for Senators, legislation on agriculture, manufacturing, learning, etc.

I beg to differ that we would have not been in Iraq... there were a lot of people in 2003 wanting the war because of the "ties" to Bin Laden and the WMD talk that people were scared shitless. Don't think for a minute that enough scare tactics for a national initiative would be no different than what the current Congress is capable of



I have no idea how this particular initiative would work alongside the congress. I assume it would take over much of what congress currently does. I think we need both more democracy and more rule of law. I don't necessarily see them in opposition to each other when our representatives neither adhere to the people nor the law. I don't know if there is any reason to believe the laws would be pro-liberty, but at least they wouldn't have political motivations behind them.

again democracy only works when the people are well informed... based on voting records... people are not informed enough to make the right choices to vote on legislation that effect me and my community. Brief explanation on ballots won't cut it either.


Freedom and liberty can only exists when the government is as close to them as possible... only state and local governments can be controlled much better than some group of politicians 3000 miles away who know nothing of the plight of some people in some county in CA. The same can be said for some city dweller who knows nothing about rural Americans and vice versa... The last thing I want is for them to be voting on issues that effects one or the other.

Plan and simple... people are too apathetic, incompetent, and ill informed enough to vote on issues that affect the whole country.... only people close to you would know your particular plight and they should be the ones dealing with the issues... not DC... and not the whole nation.

surGeon
08-02-2009, 11:17 PM
Nationalism and Federalism are mutually exclusive and can not coexist. National initiatives will destroy what is left of the states

National initiatives are blanket legislation that effect every person in the US, since the federal congress assumes rolls on anything and everything, expect national initiatives on everything as well. Environmental laws dealing with car pollution that works well in SF would work for Utah? Don't put it passed people with ideas of what is best for us with no idea of the cost or the different needs in certain areas.

Direct democracy would function no differently than the current congress. The difference between nationalism and federalism is not in whether the people or their representatives are the ones voting. It's in the checks and balances imposed on the legislative body. I have no idea how this is handled in Gravel's bill but it's not a good criticism of direct democracy as a principle.


So besides having blanket legislation for the whole country... you cannot put whole laws on a ballot for people to vote on.

"vote yes" for prop 9 and you get a 15 word explanation on the ballot... and then realize you just voted yes on something you should have voted no because you did not have enough information on the ballot.

Democracy only works when the people are well informed... and people in the US are far from informed on the issues.

That's a valid point.


WE do not have a real representative republic... what you are basing your idea of a representative republic is what we currently have, which hasn't been a representative republic for well over 100 years when Congress put into law a cap on the amount of seats in the house.

What you are describing is a perverted effects of unconstitutional usurpation and progressive ideals that destroyed the representation in favor of more "democratic" ideas... such as direct vote for Senators, legislation on agriculture, manufacturing, learning, etc.

That's mostly true but some of it is inherent in the system. You could also argue that the incentive for government to grow and usurp power comes from representative democracy. The representatives have different motivations from the people they represent. What gets them reelected is not the same as what the people would elect to do in their place.


I beg to differ that we would have not been in Iraq... there were a lot of people in 2003 wanting the war because of the "ties" to Bin Laden and the WMD talk that people were scared shitless. Don't think for a minute that enough scare tactics for a national initiative would be no different than what the current Congress is capable of

You might be right. I don't remember that far back. We would've been out by now though.



Freedom and liberty can only exists when the government is as close to them as possible... only state and local governments can be controlled much better than some group of politicians 3000 miles away who know nothing of the plight of some people in some county in CA. The same can be said for some city dweller who knows nothing about rural Americans and vice versa... The last thing I want is for them to be voting on issues that effects one or the other.

Agreed, but as I said, I don't see how direct democracy would lead to that.