1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
Jsickert, I don't know if this was in response to me. If you simply look up the word "government" it most likely assumes that hierarchy is government and government is hierarchy.
A republic is a system of government that is not a monarchy, which is to say that it's a system of government that's not based on FORCE, but instead the consent of the governed. It can take any form.
A purely directly democratic government can still be a republic.
No it was directed at oldhacks. A direct democracy can be a republic, but not with our Constitution which was designed not only to protect our freedoms from the government but from each other. A direct democracy could overturn every aspect of our Constitution until nothing remains. Historically opponents to popular belief or feeling has resulted in many deaths and atrocities. Off the bat NI4D already violates our right to privacy with their ballots allowing the vindictive precision strikes.
The Swiss modeled their constitution after ours following the end of a civil war. The major fundamental difference was that they made provisions for the people to amend the constitution. What you're defending was used to protect slavery.
Slavery would have ended much earlier had there been provisions for the people to amend the constitution. Instead we were saddled with:
1) slaves counted as 3/5 a person for representative purposes in the US House
2) the Electoral College
3) Article V
4) the US Senate
5) state control of federal elections
A state constitution with slavery in Massachusetts was put before the people in 1778 and failed to pass. Two years later, one without slavery overwhelmingly passed. (c.f. Citizen Power)
1) Slaves counted as 3/5 of the population to boost the amount of representatives from the under populated South to allow for a more even distribution of Representation.
2) The electoral College simplifies voting procedures by district allowing for a decrease in corruption and increase counting accuracy. Only objection is the winner take all set up.
3) Article V of the Constitution is based on what is deemed necessary to the congress is determined by the will of the constituents.
Maybe if I do some. Otherwise I'm going to assume the founding fathers were quite literal with their meanings and that the Constitution is to be taken as a whole, as well as the history of our revolution and country, to keep its words in proper context. The people demanded of their legislatures to end slavery and it happened, the people demanded suffrage for women and it happened, same with Civil Rights, and all (for the most part) of it Constitutional.
And in 1820 the Missouri Compromise was passed because there were territories that wanted statehood but were reluctant due to under representation, allowing slavery in these areas got them to join the US.
But the problem is that if we can't change our own Constitution we're still just being governed by other people; most of whom are dead white men. A direct democracy could dissolve the nation's bond entirely. But if that's the will of the citizens then it's justified. Contractarian government is based on consent. We *will* make mistakes, but that's just part of the learning curve. Read the book "Educated by Initiative".
We can change our constitution it just requires a lot of people demanding it of their representatives. But it prevents the majority of the country, which the majority lives within 50 miles of a coastline, from imposing their will on the rest. You would have a dozen states deciding the outcome for all 50. We've changed the Constitution before slavery is gone, women and minorities have equal rights and voting privilege. We just need to take control of our representatives again.
No, we can't change our constitution. Our "representatives" are too easily influenced by special interests to care about what we think (as is the case ANY time you have representative government) and the media is in control of what we think. It's impossible.
If not impossible, then at least closer to impossible than possible. It's much too hard. We're not free.
Quit proponing the system that got into this mess to begin with. You're a champion of my lack of freedom.
Such an emotional outburst, and completely ignoring the Constitution and those who have protested and sacrificed to have it changed for the better. What possible hardships have been inflicted on you that you believe you have no freedom? The only power our representatives have is the power we give them, if we let them make decisions on their own they have that power. If we get together enough people from their constituents demanding their removal or they vote a certain way it will happen.
Keep believing the big lie. Representative government is broken. How have Article V conventions been working out for you? Ever heard of Friends of the Article V Convention? Is dropping our jobs & shouting through megaphones for our demands an effective or reasonable means to legislate? We have no power. We give at all away at the voting booth. Can we even call a facultative referendum on a law Congress passes or a recall vote on a corrupted official ourselves? No, we are locked out of power.
Representative government is broken, so lets fix it instead of starting over. Shouting through megaphones isn't as persuasive as intelligent debate and garnering large numbers of signatures that show a politician they will have to comply or loose their position. Yes we can overturn laws passed by congress through the courts, who again could be corrupt, but that is something you will have to deal with under any system. Officials can be removed from office if enough people demand it.
You still buy the lie that representative government is responsive. Dictatorships fall when enough people unite against them. It doesn't mean that dictatorships are responsive to the interests of the people up to the moment the critical mass required to overthrow is achieved. What makes our rep gov't so effective in retaining power is the means by which it marginalizes dissent & manufactures consent through illusions of democracy & freedom of choice & strategic control of ideological division.
And what do you mean by starting over? This is a natural continuation to all the civil rights battles that have been fought. The NI4D does not replace representative government. It merely facilitatives independent deliberative lawmaking procedures for the people. This can only make representative government more responsive, as the laws they make can be called to vote if necessary to hold them accountable. There are only 2 venues for change: rep gov't or the people. Rep gov't won't change itself.
Everything that goes through the Electoral Trust gets passed by a simple majority and overrides both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, which in effect replaces them. Further the Judicial branch has even less power over the results of the initiative. The Constitution can be amended without review by a simple majority vote, not a majority of all voters, but of those who voted. Within a few generations this branch will become the oligarchy of the country, back in the USSR.
"The Constitution can be amended without review by a simple majority vote, not a majority of all voters, but of those who voted."
See Section 4 of the Democracy Amendment. A constitutional amendment requires a majority of registered voters in two elections held 6-12 months apart.
As for the other stuff, you are just repeating misinformation about democracy. At least think about who this misinformation serves if you are able. It might help to study the Swiss model if you pursue this further.
It won't change itself, we have to change it, and we can do it by fixing it .Instead of being like the government and putting a bureaucratic band-aid over it.
Bureaucratic band-aids are what we have right now. You are projecting the flaws of the current system onto something you don't understand. Being able to organize independently of representative government diminishes bureaucracy, not increases it. The Electoral Trust just provides a public service that would be needed anyway due to the excessive bureaucracy and corruption in place already. Excessive bureaucracy is what you get when you have poor representation.
Also we can start intelligent debate on the issues and resolve problems around artificial ideological division now. That's really what needs to happen for people to see the importance of legislative procedures like the NI4D. One place to start is
issues,dot,ni4d,dot,us
You can share research & propose laws despite your stance. I am not against people working through the system to push it to its limits. It's a path that often needs to occur for people to realize the limitations of rep gov't.
I'm fine with limitations, government needs to be limited. And it should be difficult to pass legislation that will affect the lives of 300 million plus people.
I'm not fine with limitations on proper representation of the people. In the context of my usage of the word, the most oppressive totalitarian governments are the most limited in this respect. Different meaning..
If you want limited government, there's nothing better you could do than bring the people into the operations of government. Look at Switzerland and how they maintain decentralized government. Democracy is a lot more than voting. Totalitarian dictatorships will call votes all the time.
Now add the same concept of keeping the people active and involved in the operations of government to the Republic and you have the government created by our founding fathers.
No! The founding fathers were just people. They are not gods! It should be a government for, of, and by the people. This is what is holding people back. We should be the founding fathers of today.
"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."-G. Washington"
"Each generation has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes is promotive of its happiness."-T. Jefferson
NI4D, same old product, smaller, sleeker packaging, increased power. I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.
No the founding fathers were not gods, just very intelligent men. Our government is for, of, and by the people its just the people stopped tending it.
No, it's not same old product! There's a big difference between talk and action, and the founding fathers fell short on a lot of things. Give economic freedom to people and they can do amazing things. We could fight for economic freedom today and be the founding fathers of tomorrow.
You can blame the victim all you want, but all the major choices are already being made for us. Voting on personalities changes nothing. How are we directly able to change policy now? Begging the system even more?
Oh yes! Universal capitalism and direct democracy must be terrible things! We must appease our overlords in the name of freedom and pray daily in our shrine to the founding fathers as that's certainly the best way to honor them! Better to maintain the market inefficiencies and distortions of corporatocracy and plutocracy for the sake of the Republic! All hail the Republic of the USSA!
haha cool. I am really not planning on it passing in the United States first. I think it is much more likely to pass in South Korea, since they are on the rise and have recent knowledge of what it means to truly fight for liberty. Maybe we will take notice then as we fall farther behind. :-/
I am. fuck this shit. all we have to do is start making fucking videos. we can get the shit passed within a few fucking Years if everybody would just start throwing a fucking Barrage of Ni4d videos on youtube. thats all it would take. we just need to get motivated. organized and fanatical
Yeah, I think you're right. The more people who say "fuck this shit.", the sooner it's going to happen. That's what happened to me when Gravel was censored in the debates and people were trying to figure out who to latch onto next. I got a webcam recently so I think I'll try to do some sort of a vlog. It's actually less expensive than I thought it would be. So many people could be doing at least something.
It's really a shame when people cling to outdated methods and indoctrination, while all the good innovative ideas we have are being exported to other countries, as innovation is usually a threat to the existing power structures. You'd probably say that you are against slavery, but then you defend all the institutions that enable slavery at the expense of the people. It's really strange to me, but I see it all the time. No matter how much proof, people will repeat the same indoctrinated lies.
I do not believe that popular movements are easy, but it is easy for people involved in the movement to believe they are the majority. People are divided on what they want and what they believe is the right course of action that is why only certain ideas ever gain enough strength to make a change. I don't belittle the effect of money and believe that section 3 P of NI4D should be placed on our current representatives.
It obviously wasn't something the majority was willing to come out and support, so no they weren't the majority. A perfect example of what I was referring to are those people in "The Moral Majority" They're neither but they believe they are.
No, that's very dishonest of you. Just because a small-ish group of people doesn't get a majority of people to come out of their houses and into the street that doesn't mean that the majority doesn't support their goals. If that was the case then no initiative would ever pass.
That ignores SO MANY societal issues/constraints that it almost makes me think you're deliberately lying.
If they didn't support it enough to get on the ballots or pass the vote it wasn't the majority. It's not about the number of people in the street its about the number of people who vote for or against it. There is nothing preventing individuals who support an idea or piece of legislation from doing a door to door campaign, pass out fliers, put up signs, etc.
We're not talking about popular support for a ballot initiative. We're talking about changing the Constitution WITHOUT a ballot initiative.
This means that people would be left with only the option of protesting and petitioning and that's about it... which, again, you think is a good thing.
There is plenty preventing individuals who support an idea or piece of legislation from doing a door to door campaign. Many different little things. Money being one.
How much does it cost for a supporter to watch a news interview or televised debate? How much does it cost a supporter to make a sign to put in their front yard or tape to their car? How much does it cost to print out a few fliers on your computer and pass them out during your trips to the grocery store, concerts, and other daily activities?
Amending/changing the Constitution requires the majority of constituents from the majority of the states applying pressure on the representatives.
Like I said, you ignore all the things that contribute to a society of inactivists. You posit that the only reason people don't get out and protest is because they don't support an idea.
That's erroneous; faulty reasoning. There are many issues I support, but I've never been to a protest or gone door-to-door in my life. Have you?
There was a study that concluded that conservatives that go away from a discussion usually go away MORE convinced than when they went in. I hope you won't do that...
What contributes to it is the idea that we don't have the power to affect change in the government, when we do. I did not posit that they don't support it by not protesting, however they do show whether they support it or not by voting. Maybe its not the idea, sometimes its one of those damn trailer bills people try to put in. Like I said some of the ideas of NI4D are good, but could be put to better use in fixing what we have instead of adding more government.
"More government" is a vague, subjective, and possibly meaningless term. The initiative reduces the size of government. You support a centralization of power, which history has shown is suicidal. How can you say the initiative increases the size of government? What do you mean by size? By size I think power. You obviously don't support reducing the power of the government.
If we had the power to change government then we would have already. The last 8 years was us trying to do that and failing.
It creates a new government body that collects its money from the U.S. treasury, our taxes. I do not support the centralization of power, because that is exactly what NI4D does. A new Senate that super cedes all other government bodies.
If you had the majority support for those 8 years it would have happened. Perhaps there was something added to the rhetoric that didn't click with people for them to agree enough. I'm for government being limited to the Constitution.
"There was a study that concluded that conservatives that go away from a discussion usually go away MORE convinced than when they went in. I hope you won't do that..."
haha too late I think. Perhaps I don't have the best manner in these discussions.
actually they Are in control. they just aren't flexing their muscle enough. the slightest nudge and those fuckers will bend. we just have to get organized and get enough people on our side that the people will support revolution.
I support revolution as well, but to reclaim the Republic as it was meant to be. The founding fathers (I forget which of them) stated their should be an armed revolution every twenty years or so to keep the representatives in their place.
Just as Jefferson said, which doesn't require NI4D, we just need to get people to check their representatives. NI4D is a way for those who do pay attention to our representatives to take the control from those who don't pay attention. Instead of getting people involved they are content to let people remain sheep as long as they get their own way. We need to get people to first wake up enough to take active interest in daily government activities and allow them to add ideas to make things better.
The government we have now is a mix between monarchy and statism. It's hardly a republic and there's no way you can describe it as sovereign.
So, let me get this straight... you support armed revolution (against the most powerful military force in the world, mind you, and us with pea-shooters) over the NI4D?
It's the way it is because the people couldn't keep their Republic.
Remember that military force is composed of our relatives and are likely to side with the citizens than the government. The military is sworn to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic and swear to uphold the Constitution, the government are the only ones capable of violating the Constitution, unless the people become the government by becoming a direct democracy.
Contrary to what some believe I think it effects them quite a bit (this is called the subversion hypothesis), but it all depends. The media doesn't completely control what we think, of course.
It's more effective in representative politics than the initiative system. An initiative is 1 piece of legislation. A politician is a person who will vote on a whole bunch of legislation.
Remember prohibition, people got lazy and didn't check their representatives and lost their right to drink, in what was it two years they got a new amendment overturning prohibition, people need to treat all their rights just as preciously.
We deserve to have the legal mechanisms in place to afford to get a little lazy sometimes. Fair governmental policies shouldn't be so hard to attain. I don't think you really have any idea what you're saying.
Its like cleaning a house, if everyone does a little and does it every day it isn't hard to keep clean. Same goes with our government, enough daily light maintenance with everyone contributing makes it all very easy.
The electoral trust has such little power on its own, that I think it's hilarious that people fear it more than our current form of representative government. It's like if someone described the duties of a garbageman and someone became very frightened by the power they would have over a community. Legislative bodies in rep gov't have people performing the same duties. Why shouldn't we? If they screw up, everyone will know and they'll get ass kicked out there. (c.f. "recall election": Sec. 4.B.3)
way to compare philidelphia 2 to a garbage company. haha.
ut yea I get your meaning. its just gonna be the same old rude people we have guarding the ballot box now. they're more like security guards than garbagemen.
Well the whole point is to create a transparent independent process, so that it's not the same old people effectively guarding the ballot box through secretive means. It's a safeguard against corruption so that the duties are clearly defined and all activities are visible.
I prefer the garbageman analogy. They have a lot to sort through and have to set "collection times" for voting. Also they facilitate hearings and deliberative procedures. It's all our stuff and they're doing the dirty work.
If the garbage isn't collected properly, shit piles up. That's what's happening now. People accept the stench, but it's getting to the point where the garbage is killing them.
"I learned more when I left school than in school"
Amen
PersonalJesus348 2 years ago
Direct democracy is a thoughtcrime!
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
brainpolice2 is watching
oldhacks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i will be sure to check out the vid
manicmetropolis 2 years ago
Accountability is the key. It makes people accountable for their government, for their society, for their country and eventually for their world.
Buddhagem is awesome. I just foound out about the dude. He's a cool anarchist and has great vids.
larma7 2 years ago
A republic is just a contractarian system of government/law. It has nothing to do with representative government.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
yea. I know but a lot of people use the term "republic" as a way of saying representative government. especially republicans.
oldhacks 2 years ago
Republic:
1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
Jsickert 2 years ago
Jsickert, I don't know if this was in response to me. If you simply look up the word "government" it most likely assumes that hierarchy is government and government is hierarchy.
A republic is a system of government that is not a monarchy, which is to say that it's a system of government that's not based on FORCE, but instead the consent of the governed. It can take any form.
A purely directly democratic government can still be a republic.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
No it was directed at oldhacks. A direct democracy can be a republic, but not with our Constitution which was designed not only to protect our freedoms from the government but from each other. A direct democracy could overturn every aspect of our Constitution until nothing remains. Historically opponents to popular belief or feeling has resulted in many deaths and atrocities. Off the bat NI4D already violates our right to privacy with their ballots allowing the vindictive precision strikes.
Jsickert 2 years ago
The Swiss modeled their constitution after ours following the end of a civil war. The major fundamental difference was that they made provisions for the people to amend the constitution. What you're defending was used to protect slavery.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Explain how it was used to protect slavery?
Jsickert 2 years ago
Slavery would have ended much earlier had there been provisions for the people to amend the constitution. Instead we were saddled with:
1) slaves counted as 3/5 a person for representative purposes in the US House
2) the Electoral College
3) Article V
4) the US Senate
5) state control of federal elections
A state constitution with slavery in Massachusetts was put before the people in 1778 and failed to pass. Two years later, one without slavery overwhelmingly passed. (c.f. Citizen Power)
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
1) Slaves counted as 3/5 of the population to boost the amount of representatives from the under populated South to allow for a more even distribution of Representation.
2) The electoral College simplifies voting procedures by district allowing for a decrease in corruption and increase counting accuracy. Only objection is the winner take all set up.
3) Article V of the Constitution is based on what is deemed necessary to the congress is determined by the will of the constituents.
Jsickert 2 years ago
Can't you read between the lines?
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Maybe if I do some. Otherwise I'm going to assume the founding fathers were quite literal with their meanings and that the Constitution is to be taken as a whole, as well as the history of our revolution and country, to keep its words in proper context. The people demanded of their legislatures to end slavery and it happened, the people demanded suffrage for women and it happened, same with Civil Rights, and all (for the most part) of it Constitutional.
Jsickert 2 years ago
4) The US Senate creates an evenly representative group from all states for the purpose of overseeing the disproportionate House.
5) Please explain what you mean by this?
Jsickert 2 years ago
And in 1820 the Missouri Compromise was passed because there were territories that wanted statehood but were reluctant due to under representation, allowing slavery in these areas got them to join the US.
Jsickert 2 years ago
But the problem is that if we can't change our own Constitution we're still just being governed by other people; most of whom are dead white men. A direct democracy could dissolve the nation's bond entirely. But if that's the will of the citizens then it's justified. Contractarian government is based on consent. We *will* make mistakes, but that's just part of the learning curve. Read the book "Educated by Initiative".
mistaspot1 2 years ago
We can change our constitution it just requires a lot of people demanding it of their representatives. But it prevents the majority of the country, which the majority lives within 50 miles of a coastline, from imposing their will on the rest. You would have a dozen states deciding the outcome for all 50. We've changed the Constitution before slavery is gone, women and minorities have equal rights and voting privilege. We just need to take control of our representatives again.
Jsickert 2 years ago
No, we can't change our constitution. Our "representatives" are too easily influenced by special interests to care about what we think (as is the case ANY time you have representative government) and the media is in control of what we think. It's impossible.
If not impossible, then at least closer to impossible than possible. It's much too hard. We're not free.
Quit proponing the system that got into this mess to begin with. You're a champion of my lack of freedom.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Such an emotional outburst, and completely ignoring the Constitution and those who have protested and sacrificed to have it changed for the better. What possible hardships have been inflicted on you that you believe you have no freedom? The only power our representatives have is the power we give them, if we let them make decisions on their own they have that power. If we get together enough people from their constituents demanding their removal or they vote a certain way it will happen.
Jsickert 2 years ago
Keep believing the big lie. Representative government is broken. How have Article V conventions been working out for you? Ever heard of Friends of the Article V Convention? Is dropping our jobs & shouting through megaphones for our demands an effective or reasonable means to legislate? We have no power. We give at all away at the voting booth. Can we even call a facultative referendum on a law Congress passes or a recall vote on a corrupted official ourselves? No, we are locked out of power.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Representative government is broken, so lets fix it instead of starting over. Shouting through megaphones isn't as persuasive as intelligent debate and garnering large numbers of signatures that show a politician they will have to comply or loose their position. Yes we can overturn laws passed by congress through the courts, who again could be corrupt, but that is something you will have to deal with under any system. Officials can be removed from office if enough people demand it.
Jsickert 2 years ago
You still buy the lie that representative government is responsive. Dictatorships fall when enough people unite against them. It doesn't mean that dictatorships are responsive to the interests of the people up to the moment the critical mass required to overthrow is achieved. What makes our rep gov't so effective in retaining power is the means by which it marginalizes dissent & manufactures consent through illusions of democracy & freedom of choice & strategic control of ideological division.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
And what do you mean by starting over? This is a natural continuation to all the civil rights battles that have been fought. The NI4D does not replace representative government. It merely facilitatives independent deliberative lawmaking procedures for the people. This can only make representative government more responsive, as the laws they make can be called to vote if necessary to hold them accountable. There are only 2 venues for change: rep gov't or the people. Rep gov't won't change itself.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Everything that goes through the Electoral Trust gets passed by a simple majority and overrides both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, which in effect replaces them. Further the Judicial branch has even less power over the results of the initiative. The Constitution can be amended without review by a simple majority vote, not a majority of all voters, but of those who voted. Within a few generations this branch will become the oligarchy of the country, back in the USSR.
Jsickert 2 years ago
"The Constitution can be amended without review by a simple majority vote, not a majority of all voters, but of those who voted."
See Section 4 of the Democracy Amendment. A constitutional amendment requires a majority of registered voters in two elections held 6-12 months apart.
As for the other stuff, you are just repeating misinformation about democracy. At least think about who this misinformation serves if you are able. It might help to study the Swiss model if you pursue this further.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
It won't change itself, we have to change it, and we can do it by fixing it .Instead of being like the government and putting a bureaucratic band-aid over it.
Jsickert 2 years ago
Bureaucratic band-aids are what we have right now. You are projecting the flaws of the current system onto something you don't understand. Being able to organize independently of representative government diminishes bureaucracy, not increases it. The Electoral Trust just provides a public service that would be needed anyway due to the excessive bureaucracy and corruption in place already. Excessive bureaucracy is what you get when you have poor representation.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Also we can start intelligent debate on the issues and resolve problems around artificial ideological division now. That's really what needs to happen for people to see the importance of legislative procedures like the NI4D. One place to start is
issues,dot,ni4d,dot,us
You can share research & propose laws despite your stance. I am not against people working through the system to push it to its limits. It's a path that often needs to occur for people to realize the limitations of rep gov't.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
I'm fine with limitations, government needs to be limited. And it should be difficult to pass legislation that will affect the lives of 300 million plus people.
Jsickert 2 years ago
I'm not fine with limitations on proper representation of the people. In the context of my usage of the word, the most oppressive totalitarian governments are the most limited in this respect. Different meaning..
If you want limited government, there's nothing better you could do than bring the people into the operations of government. Look at Switzerland and how they maintain decentralized government. Democracy is a lot more than voting. Totalitarian dictatorships will call votes all the time.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Now add the same concept of keeping the people active and involved in the operations of government to the Republic and you have the government created by our founding fathers.
Jsickert 2 years ago
No! The founding fathers were just people. They are not gods! It should be a government for, of, and by the people. This is what is holding people back. We should be the founding fathers of today.
"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."-G. Washington"
"Each generation has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes is promotive of its happiness."-T. Jefferson
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
NI4D, same old product, smaller, sleeker packaging, increased power. I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.
No the founding fathers were not gods, just very intelligent men. Our government is for, of, and by the people its just the people stopped tending it.
Jsickert 2 years ago
No, it's not same old product! There's a big difference between talk and action, and the founding fathers fell short on a lot of things. Give economic freedom to people and they can do amazing things. We could fight for economic freedom today and be the founding fathers of tomorrow.
You can blame the victim all you want, but all the major choices are already being made for us. Voting on personalities changes nothing. How are we directly able to change policy now? Begging the system even more?
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Thus falls the Republic, descend into the metamorphosis of democracy and emerge from your chrysalis a tyranny.
Jsickert 2 years ago
Oh yes! Universal capitalism and direct democracy must be terrible things! We must appease our overlords in the name of freedom and pray daily in our shrine to the founding fathers as that's certainly the best way to honor them! Better to maintain the market inefficiencies and distortions of corporatocracy and plutocracy for the sake of the Republic! All hail the Republic of the USSA!
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
May you live for 50 years after the passage of NI4D and lament that which you have lost.
Jsickert 2 years ago
haha cool. I am really not planning on it passing in the United States first. I think it is much more likely to pass in South Korea, since they are on the rise and have recent knowledge of what it means to truly fight for liberty. Maybe we will take notice then as we fall farther behind. :-/
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
I am. fuck this shit. all we have to do is start making fucking videos. we can get the shit passed within a few fucking Years if everybody would just start throwing a fucking Barrage of Ni4d videos on youtube. thats all it would take. we just need to get motivated. organized and fanatical
oldhacks 2 years ago
Yeah, I think you're right. The more people who say "fuck this shit.", the sooner it's going to happen. That's what happened to me when Gravel was censored in the debates and people were trying to figure out who to latch onto next. I got a webcam recently so I think I'll try to do some sort of a vlog. It's actually less expensive than I thought it would be. So many people could be doing at least something.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
It's really a shame when people cling to outdated methods and indoctrination, while all the good innovative ideas we have are being exported to other countries, as innovation is usually a threat to the existing power structures. You'd probably say that you are against slavery, but then you defend all the institutions that enable slavery at the expense of the people. It's really strange to me, but I see it all the time. No matter how much proof, people will repeat the same indoctrinated lies.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
the end of state servitude. yes. I will relish in the day that I live in a free nation.
oldhacks 2 years ago
You ignore and belittle the role of money in this all and you also have an irrational belief that popular movements are easy and common.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
I do not believe that popular movements are easy, but it is easy for people involved in the movement to believe they are the majority. People are divided on what they want and what they believe is the right course of action that is why only certain ideas ever gain enough strength to make a change. I don't belittle the effect of money and believe that section 3 P of NI4D should be placed on our current representatives.
Jsickert 2 years ago
And any time people who are involved in a movement don't get traction or aren't effective in their pursuit that means they're not a majority?
mistaspot1 2 years ago
It obviously wasn't something the majority was willing to come out and support, so no they weren't the majority. A perfect example of what I was referring to are those people in "The Moral Majority" They're neither but they believe they are.
Jsickert 2 years ago
No, that's very dishonest of you. Just because a small-ish group of people doesn't get a majority of people to come out of their houses and into the street that doesn't mean that the majority doesn't support their goals. If that was the case then no initiative would ever pass.
That ignores SO MANY societal issues/constraints that it almost makes me think you're deliberately lying.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
If they didn't support it enough to get on the ballots or pass the vote it wasn't the majority. It's not about the number of people in the street its about the number of people who vote for or against it. There is nothing preventing individuals who support an idea or piece of legislation from doing a door to door campaign, pass out fliers, put up signs, etc.
What do I ignore that makes you think I'm lying?
Jsickert 2 years ago
Wait, you're changing the subject.
We're not talking about popular support for a ballot initiative. We're talking about changing the Constitution WITHOUT a ballot initiative.
This means that people would be left with only the option of protesting and petitioning and that's about it... which, again, you think is a good thing.
There is plenty preventing individuals who support an idea or piece of legislation from doing a door to door campaign. Many different little things. Money being one.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
How much does it cost for a supporter to watch a news interview or televised debate? How much does it cost a supporter to make a sign to put in their front yard or tape to their car? How much does it cost to print out a few fliers on your computer and pass them out during your trips to the grocery store, concerts, and other daily activities?
Amending/changing the Constitution requires the majority of constituents from the majority of the states applying pressure on the representatives.
Jsickert 2 years ago
Like I said, you ignore all the things that contribute to a society of inactivists. You posit that the only reason people don't get out and protest is because they don't support an idea.
That's erroneous; faulty reasoning. There are many issues I support, but I've never been to a protest or gone door-to-door in my life. Have you?
There was a study that concluded that conservatives that go away from a discussion usually go away MORE convinced than when they went in. I hope you won't do that...
mistaspot1 2 years ago
What contributes to it is the idea that we don't have the power to affect change in the government, when we do. I did not posit that they don't support it by not protesting, however they do show whether they support it or not by voting. Maybe its not the idea, sometimes its one of those damn trailer bills people try to put in. Like I said some of the ideas of NI4D are good, but could be put to better use in fixing what we have instead of adding more government.
Jsickert 2 years ago
"More government" is a vague, subjective, and possibly meaningless term. The initiative reduces the size of government. You support a centralization of power, which history has shown is suicidal. How can you say the initiative increases the size of government? What do you mean by size? By size I think power. You obviously don't support reducing the power of the government.
If we had the power to change government then we would have already. The last 8 years was us trying to do that and failing.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
It creates a new government body that collects its money from the U.S. treasury, our taxes. I do not support the centralization of power, because that is exactly what NI4D does. A new Senate that super cedes all other government bodies.
If you had the majority support for those 8 years it would have happened. Perhaps there was something added to the rhetoric that didn't click with people for them to agree enough. I'm for government being limited to the Constitution.
Jsickert 2 years ago
It creates a new government body that would aid in absolutely eliminating pork legislation.
You can't say that creating a new branch of government is centralization. That, by definition is decentralizing it.
We did have majority support for those 8 years. Are you serious? Bush's approval rating was at like 24%.
You support totalitarianism.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
You didn't get rid of Bush because nobody wanted to end up with Cheney.
Jsickert 2 years ago
No, if we had a recall system (do you even support that?) we could have gotten rid of anybody. Even Cheney. And I'm convinced we *would* have.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
"There was a study that concluded that conservatives that go away from a discussion usually go away MORE convinced than when they went in. I hope you won't do that..."
haha too late I think. Perhaps I don't have the best manner in these discussions.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
actually they Are in control. they just aren't flexing their muscle enough. the slightest nudge and those fuckers will bend. we just have to get organized and get enough people on our side that the people will support revolution.
oldhacks 2 years ago
I support revolution as well, but to reclaim the Republic as it was meant to be. The founding fathers (I forget which of them) stated their should be an armed revolution every twenty years or so to keep the representatives in their place.
Jsickert 2 years ago
How was it meant to be?
The further the departure from direct & constant control by the citizens,the less has the gov't the ingredient of republicanism.-T.Jefferson
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
Just as Jefferson said, which doesn't require NI4D, we just need to get people to check their representatives. NI4D is a way for those who do pay attention to our representatives to take the control from those who don't pay attention. Instead of getting people involved they are content to let people remain sheep as long as they get their own way. We need to get people to first wake up enough to take active interest in daily government activities and allow them to add ideas to make things better.
Jsickert 2 years ago
The government we have now is a mix between monarchy and statism. It's hardly a republic and there's no way you can describe it as sovereign.
So, let me get this straight... you support armed revolution (against the most powerful military force in the world, mind you, and us with pea-shooters) over the NI4D?
You're clearly not thinking very rationally.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
It's the way it is because the people couldn't keep their Republic.
Remember that military force is composed of our relatives and are likely to side with the citizens than the government. The military is sworn to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic and swear to uphold the Constitution, the government are the only ones capable of violating the Constitution, unless the people become the government by becoming a direct democracy.
Jsickert 2 years ago
And with the media in control of what we think how does that effect the initiatives put forth? The media would control the direct democracy.
Jsickert 2 years ago
Contrary to what some believe I think it effects them quite a bit (this is called the subversion hypothesis), but it all depends. The media doesn't completely control what we think, of course.
It's more effective in representative politics than the initiative system. An initiative is 1 piece of legislation. A politician is a person who will vote on a whole bunch of legislation.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
And the media never nit pick over a single issue.
Jsickert 2 years ago
vote on legislation that they hardly ever even read...
oldhacks 2 years ago
Remember prohibition, people got lazy and didn't check their representatives and lost their right to drink, in what was it two years they got a new amendment overturning prohibition, people need to treat all their rights just as preciously.
Jsickert 2 years ago
We deserve to have the legal mechanisms in place to afford to get a little lazy sometimes. Fair governmental policies shouldn't be so hard to attain. I don't think you really have any idea what you're saying.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Its like cleaning a house, if everyone does a little and does it every day it isn't hard to keep clean. Same goes with our government, enough daily light maintenance with everyone contributing makes it all very easy.
Jsickert 2 years ago
If those who fought t change the Constitution for the better had had another recourse they would have taken it... and they would have preferred it.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Perhaps, but they followed the actions sanctioned by the Constitution that allowed them to get it changed.
Jsickert 2 years ago
that was because FDR was a decent man. those days are finished. the system has been completely bought out.
oldhacks 2 years ago
And FDR did the selling.
Jsickert 2 years ago
The electoral trust has such little power on its own, that I think it's hilarious that people fear it more than our current form of representative government. It's like if someone described the duties of a garbageman and someone became very frightened by the power they would have over a community. Legislative bodies in rep gov't have people performing the same duties. Why shouldn't we? If they screw up, everyone will know and they'll get ass kicked out there. (c.f. "recall election": Sec. 4.B.3)
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
way to compare philidelphia 2 to a garbage company. haha.
ut yea I get your meaning. its just gonna be the same old rude people we have guarding the ballot box now. they're more like security guards than garbagemen.
oldhacks 2 years ago
Well the whole point is to create a transparent independent process, so that it's not the same old people effectively guarding the ballot box through secretive means. It's a safeguard against corruption so that the duties are clearly defined and all activities are visible.
I prefer the garbageman analogy. They have a lot to sort through and have to set "collection times" for voting. Also they facilitate hearings and deliberative procedures. It's all our stuff and they're doing the dirty work.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
If the garbage isn't collected properly, shit piles up. That's what's happening now. People accept the stench, but it's getting to the point where the garbage is killing them.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
yea I get it.
oldhacks 2 years ago
Yeah, but I felt compelled to defend it. haha
In retrospect, probably not the most enticing analogy.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
*thumb down*
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago
haha I second that motion. all in favor say Aye. the nays have it!
oldhacks 2 years ago
hahaha
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago