Issue: Government Reform: The National Initiative, good idea?

[Mesogen]

What do you think about Mike Gravel's National Initiative idea?

From what I have seen of it, I think it's a great idea.

Maybe someone can point out some flaws to me that I haven't caught yet.

http://ni4d.us/

http://www.gravel2008.us/national_initiative

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


I hope someone will bring this up to Ron Paul and ask his opinion on this.

 

[torchbearer]

The problem I see and I think Dr. Paul has spoken of before...
democracy in the truest form becomes tyranny of the majority.

Everyone voting on all the issues is a true democracy... thus, the majority of the people could legally pass laws to hold down the minority.

 

[Mesogen]

Ok, but the law would still be limited by the constitution.

Right now we delegate this same authority to people we've never met and usually don't have our best interests in mind.

 

[angelatc]

These days, I'm pretty much in the mood to get my hackles raised any time somebody says "National" anything.

I'd vote for Gravel though. I don't agree with him politically, but I think he is a pretty honest guy, and it would be fun to see him chewing people out on a daily basis. America could use a good dose of grouchy.

 

[Capitalism]

Ok, but the law would still be limited by the constitution.

Right now we delegate this same authority to people we've never met and usually don't have our best interests in mind.

You mean just like how the president, the Congress and the Courts are limited by the Constitution? Do you have any idea how many people think newspapers should be regulated and licensed by the federal government?

Yeah, I think I will pass.

 

[jblosser]

Democracy was not something the founders were unaware of and would have jumped on if they'd known about. They understood it well and believed that a direct democracy would lead to situations where the masses could be swayed by powerful people to do evil things. This is why they created a system that was very inefficient by design, under the theory that the worst abuses of power would peter out before they became law.

This is why several of these "inefficiency" provisions have been attacked over the history of this nation by those that want to consolidate the power. They always carry the banner of "democracy" because it's easy to get the masses behind, and few understand why things are the way they are. Democracy is just good, right? As an example, the original Constitution had the Senators appointed by the various state governments. This left us with one house that was directly elected, and another that went through a bit more rigorous vetting by state legislatures. The electoral college for the President was a third variable. All these methods together made it hard for the power mongers to efficiently bilk the people into supporting them, which is exactly why they fought to get the 17th amendment and are now fighting to do away with the electoral college.

(This doesn't mean that Gravel is evil for wanting this. Lots of people get confused, especially those that don't know their history or think we've somehow outgrown it.)

For more information on this, go read the debates between the founding fathers on these very issues:

http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Constitutional-Convention-Debates-Classics/dp/0451528840/
http://www.amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-Signet-Classics/dp/0451528816/

 

[austin356]

I prefer a Constitutionally limited republic with strict enumerated powers.

But, I would prefer the National Initiative over the current manifestation of the system where corporatist, lobbyist, and international bankers rule the people and use the government for their own personal gain.

 

[jblosser]

I prefer a Constitutionally limited republic with strict enumerated powers.

But, I would prefer the National Initiative over the current manifestation of the system where corporatist, lobbyist, and international bankers rule the people and use the government for their own personal gain.

All that would happen under a National Iniative is the focus of the lobbying would switch to the people directly. And that doesn't mean the lobbyists would go broke, because they'd be targeting people below the poverty line, while trying to increase the size of the same.

 

[USPatriot36]

Limited Government is the Answer

I see no reason to believe that the people who elected George Bush TWICE and Bill Clinton TWICE would make good decisions on laws. The key is for the American people to wake up and educate themselves of the proper role of the Federal government. The direction our country is going will not be reversed until the people understand and embrace the idea of the Federal government being Limited by the US Constituition.

 

[RockEnds]

There's a quote usually attributed to Franklin that has several variations:

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

 

[Capitalism]

I see no reason to believe that the people who elected George Bush TWICE and Bill Clinton TWICE would make good decisions on laws. The key is for the American people to wake up and educate themselves of the proper role of the Federal government. The direction our country is going will not be reversed until the people understand and embrace the idea of the Federal government being Limited by the US Constituition.

Well, technically, if we're talking about democracy, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, not that that's any better!

 

[Mesogen]

Still the thing is that we give away this power to people we don't know who go to Washington and do things we don't approve of.

Maybe instead of this national initiative thing, I'd settle for recall votes or votes of confidence.

When they just suck too bad, we should be able to recall them. President, Senators, everyone.

 

[jblosser]

Still the thing is that we give away this power to people we don't know who go to Washington and do things we don't approve of.

Which they could not do if we followed the laws we already have. They get away with it because they are breaking the law. More laws have no ability to change this, they'll just break the new ones as well. Either case requires we the people to hold them to the law and tell them "no" when they attempt to go beyond.

Edit: Obviously you're proposing a recall as a way to hold them to the law, but keep in mind the notion that reps need to be somewhat isolated from the immediate will of the people so that we don't have mob rule. If someone riles up a state in favor of say, banning left-handed people, we don't want their reps to bend to that even under threat of recall. A more permanent solution is to forbid Congress the authority to say anything about banning left-handed people, then hold them to it during the general election cycles. We lose the rule of law when we let them add to their authority under the typical banners of "won't someone think of the children", etc. Breaking the law for special interests is bad even when the special interests are orphans and the poor. Not because we are heartless, but because giving them that power and handing over our individual responsibility to care for the poor leads to horrible things.

 

[Mesogen]

he he 'banning lefties' would be prohibited by the 14th amendment.

and the more I think about it, the national initiative would not be a good idea.

People in California, Texas, and the East Coast would be making law for the whole country. Also, people are just too dumb to be trusted with that power. They are too easily swayed. It would actually be easier for 'special interests' to sway them that it is to sway Congresscritters. Hmm, well maybe not easier.

 

[Gee]

I'd love a direct constitutional democracy, but thats something I'd like to see the states try out first. We'd also need to actually enforce the constitution for it to work... So I don't think it would be a good idea in the near future.