Democracy is NOT FREEDOM! By Ron Paul - Good Riddance Mike Gravel!

Did you know someone in The Revolution who was fooled by Gravel's ideas?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 25.9%
  • No

    Votes: 60 74.1%

  • Total voters
    81
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 sometime and talk about this? We are on Revolution Broadcasting M-F 3-5PM eastern time.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 sometime and talk about this? We are on Revolution Broadcasting 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".
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
dude... i sometimes bump up golden oldies, too!

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!
 
Back
Top