Direct democracy

[uranian]

GSUS! LTNS. what do you guys and girls make of direct democracy? i watched this episode of the keiser report, where he interviewed ex-US senator mike gravel (who has spent the last 10 years or so working on an idealised direct democracy constitution):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKoLNb1Uwpk

i think that his point that the only successful way out of the covert fascism that we live in is to become the law makers ourselves is a very good one. there was another interview by keiser with an icelandic MP recently and she noted that 95% or more of politicians are either in the pockets of bankers or bankers themselves (not news, i know, but to hear it from an MP must be turning a thought or 2 in a typical icelander's head), and that even though iceland had popularly rejected bank bailouts, they're actually happening anyway (the IMF just privatised some state electricity company, as a start on repayments of the loan that iceland did indeed accept), so the question then for people there has to be, what do we do then?? if the current system has become so irrelevant that it's working in direct opposition to the great majority of the people in an obvious and active manner, and attempts to change it from within fail, i can only see this idea of direct democracy as a potential solution. the people themselves as the authors of the laws. switzerland is a quasi-example, though apparently the direct democracy apparatus is subservient to the representative democracy government, so i don't know that there's anywhere on the planet that has successfully implemented these ideas. they'd probably spread quite quickly...i'm reminded a little of the diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers), who were swiftly persecuted by the state.

i'm not holding my breath, o'course, as i think it'll be total monetary collapse that forces everyone's hand in addressing the issue of their own slavery (y'all seen thrive (http://www.youtube.com/results?uploaded=w&search_query=thrive+earth&search_type=videos&search_duration=long&uni=3) yet?), but i wonder what people think of the notion of governing themselves by voting on any and every issue that they want to, and the tyranny of the majority at least being genuinely implemented, rather than the tyranny of the people who are paid by us to represent us.

[Gaillo]

Tyranny of the majority vs. tyranny of the few?

Certainly there must be a "non-tyranny" option of some sort that could be implemented! :o

[Neuro]

Kadaffi, was talking about direct democracy in his green book, as an alternative to repressentative democracy which he argued wasn't democratic at all...

Things didn't work out too well for him...

[uranian]

yeah from what i've seen of libya, gadaffi was doing a lot of good stuff for people, including the gold currency, probably the most important reason for his murder.

gaillo, suggest away! i agree any tyranny isn't good, obviously. DD strikes me as the least worst system i can think of, got any other suggestions? it seems to be the working version of libertarianism, the embodiment of the non-violence ideal.

[iOWNme]

Democracy = Tyranny

The words have the exact same meaning.

Who wants to live in a society where the 'people' decide what the Law is? What about Morals and Justice? Morals and Justice are absolute - They do not change with a Majority's whim.

Democracy = Man's Law

And if man made the Law, than man can change the Law. This is the road to SLAVERY.

If the Majority says its ok to steal, then everyone steals. If the Majority says its ok to murder, then everyone murders.

No, man didnt make the Law- The Law is either morally right or morally wrong, REGARDLESS of who made the Law. Law is designed to Govern the Government, NOT the people.

Democracy = States Rights = Mob Rules = Robbing the Minority

Democracy says we can all live off of each other - It is a scam, a 5 year old can figure it out.

EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM WE FACE comes from the Democratic and Legal process. And yet, we want to increase/expand this process?

There is NO Democracy that practices Private Property Rights, Sound Money and Individual Liberty.

Democracy = The Majority Rules. Rules who? The Minority of course.


This whole 'Direct Democracy' thing is Controlled Op. Getting you to get rid of your old system, (That was designed to fail) and replacing it with another system (designed to enslave you.)


Democracy = The DEATH of the Individual

[Twisted Titan]

If a man cannot protect his person, property and the fruit of his labors.......all else is folly and will lead to tyranny.

[uranian]

so what's better, sui juris?

[JohnQPublic]

17th amendment was a "direct democrarcy" argument and served mainly to reduce state powers and increase federal.

[Dogman]

so what's better, sui juris? With out law or rules for a society to live by, it just boils down , they that are the strongest and fittest, will take everything. And Joe sixpack type people will own nothing and have no say what so ever in anything and have too do what is ordered.

Like it was in the day of kings and such. King wants your daughter for the night , he get's her.

Then you end up with the few, ruling the majority by power and might.

Human nature being what it is , some will get along with each other, and agree on rules to live together. The hippy communes were an experiment on that model. And look at how that turned out. Some made it work and most did not.

No rules is anarchy and that has been tried in the past by some, and all have failed.

Law/rules = civilization. No having any would be a very dangerous lifestyle, living with large groups of people. And few would grow into old age, because if you have something someone wants and is stronger, they get it. And you may end up dead.

Some form of democracy is the best chance out of all the others that have been tried in the past. There is no reinventing of the wheel, when it comes too people , it just can not be done.

Imo.

[palani]

i wonder what people think of the notion of governing themselves by voting on any and every issue that they want to, and the tyranny of the majority at least being genuinely implemented, rather than the tyranny of the people who are paid by us to represent us.

In the present system there are no people in any county. Counties are composed of villages, cities and townships, not people. All entities composing a county are corporations.

Where people do fit are in hundreds. You form yourself into an organization with your neighbors and govern yourself independently. It is still a form of democracy but limited to people who are going to have to abide by their decisions out of a limited treasury. Bottom up not top down.

There is a historical background for this type of local control. With a hundred families they got their own court.

[Bigjon]

GSUS! LTNS. what do you guys and girls make of direct democracy? i watched this episode of the keiser report, where he interviewed ex-US senator mike gravel (who has spent the last 10 years or so working on an idealised direct democracy constitution):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKoLNb1Uwpk

i think that his point that the only successful way out of the covert fascism that we live in is to become the law makers ourselves is a very good one. there was another interview by keiser with an icelandic MP recently and she noted that 95% or more of politicians are either in the pockets of bankers or bankers themselves (not news, i know, but to hear it from an MP must be turning a thought or 2 in a typical icelander's head), and that even though iceland had popularly rejected bank bailouts, they're actually happening anyway (the IMF just privatised some state electricity company, as a start on repayments of the loan that iceland did indeed accept), so the question then for people there has to be, what do we do then?? if the current system has become so irrelevant that it's working in direct opposition to the great majority of the people in an obvious and active manner, and attempts to change it from within fail, i can only see this idea of direct democracy as a potential solution. the people themselves as the authors of the laws. switzerland is a quasi-example, though apparently the direct democracy apparatus is subservient to the representative democracy government, so i don't know that there's anywhere on the planet that has successfully implemented these ideas. they'd probably spread quite quickly...i'm reminded a little of the diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers), who were swiftly persecuted by the state.

i'm not holding my breath, o'course, as i think it'll be total monetary collapse that forces everyone's hand in addressing the issue of their own slavery (y'all seen thrive (http://www.youtube.com/results?uploaded=w&search_query=thrive+earth&search_type=videos&search_duration=long&uni=3) yet?), but i wonder what people think of the notion of governing themselves by voting on any and every issue that they want to, and the tyranny of the majority at least being genuinely implemented, rather than the tyranny of the people who are paid by us to represent us.

Does anyone ever think about rural america?

We are very few in number but we have a lot of land and that land needs representation.

I think this would be an alright proposition, providing we repeal the 17th amendment and go back to having state legislatures appoint the 2 senators for each state.

Without that, the idea is lunacy.

[Horn]

I'm all for stripping the Constitution down to its original form, and replacing Congress with The People.

Land doesn't need Representatives...

[palani]

I'm all for stripping the Constitution down to its original form, and replacing Congress with The People.

An oath given to no one is no oath at all. That is to say if a politician cannot be held accountable to an oath then why bother with the oath at all? It becomes of no effect.

[Horn]

An oath given to no one is no oath at all. That is to say if a politician cannot be held accountable to an oath then why bother with the oath at all? It becomes of no effect.

There's still the elected admin. and judicial branches.

Each bill should be scrutinized by the Constitutional judiciary aswell before passage.

A direct Republic

I'm workin on the rules so just follow me.:)

[palani]

There's still the elected admin. and judicial branches.
There is only executive, legislative and judicial branches. Administrative law comprehends all three of these branches.

Anytime you participate in an administrative action then you have consented somewhere along the line (contract). If there is no contract then government is attempting to impose their will on you through their constitution (limitations). One of the express limitations is bill of attainder. Its' lesser cousin is bill of pains and punishments. You will find these two prohibitions are actually addressing the separation of powers.


Each bill should be scrutinized by the Constitutional judiciary aswell before passage.
That is the function of a court of first impressions. The injury has to come before the action.

The supreme court did a pretty good job of insulating themselves from constitutional issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashwander_rules

[Horn]

The legislative/representative branch will no longer exist in a direct republic, while the admin. and judiciary will.

The former branch becomes the body of the republic.

I didn't watch the video, yet. If you are referring to something contained there.

[palani]

The legislative/representative branch will no longer exist in a direct republic, while the admin. and judiciary will.
It is still a democracy though. If you have no intentions abiding with the will of the majority then it is best not to participate. Your vote whether for a candidate (representative) or a particular bill means you have decided to consent if you should lose. There are some things that a simple majority can not decide, things that violate your own moral code or religion. That is where people are confused now. Lawful are things that are not forbidden. Legal are things that are permitted. Legal concepts have committed trespass upon lawful concepts.


I didn't watch the video, yet. If you are referring to something contained there.
On dialup here. I don't do videos well.

[midnight rambler]

Democracy is where two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.

[Horn]

It is still a democracy though. If you have no intentions abiding with the will of the majority then it is best not to participate.

Any transgression by the will of bills on "individuals" is pre-determined by the Republic's judiciary.

Participation is of course mandatory by dictate of age.

A loophole could be foreseen for those falsifying their documents to remain under the age of 18 their entire lifespan... :)

[Horn]

I'm gonna set the bar high for you palani, and require at least an 80% popularity and 66% majority before even moving the bill to judicial review.

I believe you will find yourself well under & outside those bars on most occasions.

[palani]

Any transgression by the will of bills on "individuals" is pre-determined by the Republic's judiciary. These guys operate in the mode "necessity imports privilege".


Participation is of course mandatory by dictate of age. Mandatory is not compatible with consent.


A loophole could be foreseen for those falsifying their documents to remain under the age of 18 their entire lifespan... :) Documents are required?

[palani]

I'm gonna set the bar high for you palani, and require at least an 80% popularity and 66% majority before even moving the bill to judicial review.

I believe you will find yourself well under & outside those bars on most occasions.

Hardly makes a difference. A vote is still a lottery. Why would any responsible man or woman submit their will to that of any other individual or group (no matter the size)?

[Horn]

Hardly makes a difference. A vote is still a lottery. Why would any responsible man or woman submit their will to that of any other individual or group (no matter the size)?

You'd like to find yourself back in the dark ages without the even a will to submit then?

Its how a peoples get things down within a flexible reason.

Give me an individual outside legal support & I will crush him under my Kingly will.

[palani]

You'd like to find yourself back in the dark ages without the even a will to submit then?
Actually the dark ages were more enlightened than now. Illuminists seem to do the opposite of their name.


Its how a peoples get things down within a flexible reason. Flexible reason? Simple reason is good enough without flexing it.


Give me an individual outside legal support & I will crush him under my Kingly will.
Is that a threat? Because you have to know that offers to "crush him under my Kingly will" fit the duress category.

[Horn]

Simple reason is good enough without flexing it.

Simple reason would not stand the test of War upon it.

Everything has its duration marked in time, all bills are expiratory.

[palani]

Simple reason would not stand the test of War upon it.
Laws are Laws because there exists a reason for them. A Law is that nothing but gold or silver be a tender of payment. This Law has had War tested against it and I believe the Law is going to come out on top.

That is the way of all Laws. You might violate them for a time with impunity but eventually the reason will win out.


Everything has its duration marked in time, all bills are expiratory.
What is the duration of specie?