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

[JoeMac]

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]

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]

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]

<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.

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]

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]

Replacing Welfare

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. I realize now that my anger and negativity towards him came from my experience with one of his supporters.

 

[Timothy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

national initiative = revamped new deal? mike gravel remembers when rural electrification happened in a big way... [tva]

 

[Timothy]

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]

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]

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.