Mike Gravel: please donate to help fund a direct democracy documentary

[NYgs23]

The old classical liberals were supportive of democratic/republican representation of some sort, which is understandable. In those days, all states were controlled by kings. The idea was that the populace could check the power of the state from tyrannizing them. Unfortunately, by giving the people power in government, this arguably made the people more inclined to use the power of state in their own favor. So instead of one tyrant, you had a million mini-tyrants, all fighting for control of the aggressive apparatus of the state to benefit themselves and their interests. This is why partisan politics, special interest politics, the culture war, etc is so hopped up in our culture: each group wants to grab the state to impose its will on all the other groups and to prevent all the other groups from imposing their will on it. I'm not as hard-line against it as the Hoppeans, but there are big problems with democracy of any sort. Perhaps it makes people more willing and able to defend their rights, but it also makes them more willing and able to strip rights from others.

I think, maybe, instead of representative democracy, you could have a democratic veto power. For instance, what if all the laws passed by the legislature would them be subject to a referendum. Or at least certain types of legislation, such as those raising taxes or authorizing the use of military force, would be subject to an automatic referendum. This would allow the populace to block legislative tyranny without giving them the ability to use grab hold of the power of government themselves.

But giving the populace the power to actually write the laws? That's barking up the wrong tree.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government [. . .]

 

[specsaregood]

I think, maybe, instead of representative democracy, you could have a democratic veto power. For instance, what if all the laws passed by the legislature would them be subject to a referendum. Or at least certain types of legislation, such as those raising taxes or authorizing the use of military force, would be subject to an automatic referendum. This would allow the populace to block legislative tyranny without giving them the ability to use grab hold of the power of government themselves.

Now that is an idea I could potentially get behind! But for all legislation.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Originally Posted by NYgs23
I think, maybe, instead of representative democracy, you could have a democratic veto power. For instance, what if all the laws passed by the legislature would them be subject to a referendum. Or at least certain types of legislation, such as those raising taxes or authorizing the use of military force, would be subject to an automatic referendum. This would allow the populace to block legislative tyranny without giving them the ability to use grab hold of the power of government themselves.

Well, that is the reason why all appropriations of money were to be done in the House and that the House reps could be thrown out every 2 years.

What I would like is an interim eject button for them, and that the election of Senators go back to the state legislations. Because then, these SOBs could all be thrown out BETWEEN elections.

 

[fgd]

Direct democracy = mob rule and tyranny. Peddle that BS somewhere else.