By a Vote of the People

[DrFree]

Hi path_of_one.

I like your answers to cyberpi's questions. I especially like this answer:

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Because I am not an expert on anything and anyone. I am an expert on only a few things, and that is what I should help make decisions on. The other stuff should be based on someone who knows what they're talking about and what the repercussions of their actions will be. I acknowledge what I can and can't do. I think it would be a big mistake to have people who know virtually nothing about very complex issues making the decisions. It would be a short trip to the end of our nation. It just doesn't work, which is why it doesn't exist in other large nation-states.

In a pluralistic society that's growing more diverse all the time, the greatest expertise we need is skill in negotiating solutions to problems that most people can live with. Ideally negotiation leads to win-win solutions, when people recognize that what different sides really want are not completely incompatible. Usually the result is less satisfying. No one gets everything they want, but no one loses everything.

Take for example the issue of abortion. In the US, partly because the question was made to turn on an interpretation of the Constitution, the stakes have seemed to be all or nothing: either Roe v Wade stands and there can be no limit on abortion, or it falls and all abortions become illegal. In Europe, where the issue was not assumed to be decided by a constitutional principle, it had to be negotiated in parliaments. The result was laws that provided criteria which defined which abortions were legal and which were not. No one got everything; no one lost everything. And the issue never became a litmus test for anyone.

Unfortunately, negotiation takes time, it takes skill, and it takes a willingness to sit down with the people you disagree with, talk respectfully with them, and work out a solution that can work. Moreover, not everyone can sit at the table. All sides must appoint representatives to protect their interests and work out the details. But then the solution has to be sold: Representatives have to convince their constituents that the compromise was reasonable, or at least acceptable.

That of course is not what the poles of the parties want. They want to WIN! Negotiation and compromise are not a highly regarded activities in Karl Rove's polarized partisan universe. What the party powerful want is skill in getting out the base and confusing the middle.

The Constitution provided direct democracy for the House of Representatives. Later it was amended to provide direct democracy for the Senate. It's time to provide the same for the way we select our President.

Namiste

[cyberpi]

Who realizes that they themselves are NOT an expert at everything, but then elects a President or a Representative to make decisions, making laws for people, against even the people's majority collective will, and living with a massive amount of oppressive power as if he were an expert at anything? Why should I vote for someone who I KNOW is NOT the expert at anything except at getting elected? I see that people are trying to elect a God... out of a man.

Do I have the right to elect someone to write the laws that you and I must obey? No? Then what makes anyone think they have the right to elect someone to write the laws for myself and neighbor to obey? You don't. I disown representative democracy. No government represents me. Not in my name. I refuse to elect another man to rule over my neighbor... my neighbor can represent himself, and I represent myself.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Who realizes that they themselves are NOT an expert at everything, but then elects a President or a Representative to make decisions, making laws for people, against even the people's majority collective will, and living with a massive amount of oppressive power as if he were an expert at anything?

A person that recognizes something has to get done, and a President doesn't rule by himself. He comes with a cabinet of people (experts) to inform him on a variety of topics. And she (may be a woman in 08!) is balanced by the House and Senate, and the judicial branch of government. All of whom are more educated than the typical American and have in their branches experts to inform them on all the various issues such as foreign policy, energy, the economy, etc.

It isn't that the representative is herself an expert, it is that they are educated enough to use the experts provided to them.

So I vote for a representative who most closely matches my own ideals, and then hope they will live up to those ideals, being informed by the experts that work for the Federal government for that purpose. I also attempt to vote for people I think are reasonably intelligent and well-educated. The type that will recognize what they don't know, and will go find the people who do know.

Why should I vote for someone who I KNOW is NOT the expert at anything except at getting elected?

For the reasons I outlined above. Most of the populace is uneducated, apathetic, and unwilling and/or unable to make sense out of experts' advice. The hope is that you elect someone who shares some or most of your ideals who happens to be educated and want to do something about the issues, so they will take advice from experts and make decisions about it.

It isn't a perfect system (naturally, what is?). However, it is a system that is preferable to decisions being made by people who are not only uneducated about the issues but also unwilling to spend any time learning about them.

I see that people are trying to elect a God... out of a man.

OK. That's your opinion and what you see. I see a bunch of folks trying to get a very large national government that works decently well and avoid total anarchy.

The President is hardly a God, nor does the President wield as much power as you propose. Our government is a system of checks and balances. Bush had a lot of power because the Legislative branch was Republican for most of his two terms and backed his decisions. But it isn't like the President is a dictator or anything. Much as I can't stand Bush myself, even I will admit that.

This nation was founded as a Republic for these types of reasons. And there is a reason that no nation, and certainly not large ones, runs the way you want it to. That's my opinion and observation.

Do I have the right to elect someone to write the laws that you and I must obey? No?

You don't have the right to do anything on your own. The majority has a right to elect someone to write the laws, yes.

How else would this really work, by the way? Do you propose that in a nation of approximately 300 million people, any person just throws anything they want out there, no matter how poorly written, how ill-thought out, how destructive to long-term collective good? Then we all vote on them and pray that the average person, who reads at a fourth-grade level and has little or no information about the issue, will choose the right path?

Do you have any idea of how dangerous it would be? Of how our civil rights could go away in a heartbeat? How minority groups could once again be abused? How horrific things like slavery could be legalized?

And then there is the practicality of it all. Any idea on how many laws would float out there to be voted on? Who would write this stuff up? Edit it? How would people vote on the never-ending stream of crap that would be out there? How much time would it take out of people's lives? Do you have any idea of what could happen- just a bunch of swinging back and forth on issues and wasting time and money?

Take the war, for example. Initially, the majority of voters were for it (by polls). But they only wanted to be in there for a year. Now the majority are against it. OK. So you think it's just a matter of go in when people say to and leave when people say to. Except that it isn't that simple. You can't go in to a country, bomb the heck out of it, get rid of its government, and then leave it like that. Why? It results in really bad foreign policy, long term security issues, etc. The public has no real basis for understanding when to go to war, how to do it, when to leave, etc. and most of them aren't very consistent in their own views.

Off the top of my head, I could come up with a ton of likely bad scenarios resulting from this sort of thing.

Then what makes anyone think they have the right to elect someone to write the laws for myself and neighbor to obey? You don't.

Actually, in the United States, I do. Or rather, the majority does.

You may disagree with how the nation was built and how the government runs, but it is what it is and it defines my rights and your rights.

I can think of lots of improvements to the system, but I don't think what you propose would be an improvement. Eh, to each our own. At least in the US we get to freely voice our opinions, which is nice.

I disown representative democracy. No government represents me. Not in my name. I refuse to elect another man to rule over my neighbor... my neighbor can represent himself, and I represent myself.

OK. So do you vote? Do you have any plan for implementing this, or is it just what your ideal is? Do you actively avoid voting since you live in a representative government?

It's all just kind of rhetorical to me. It's like me saying I want to live in a socialist state. I do like socialism more than capitalism, but it's kind of a non-issue. I live in a capitalist state, so it is what it is. I make different choices than many within capitalism, but I cannot make the choice to live in a socialist state by virtue of my birthplace.

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Do I have the right to elect someone to write the laws that you and I must obey? No? Then what makes anyone think they have the right to elect someone to write the laws for myself and neighbor to obey? You don't. I disown representative democracy. No government represents me. Not in my name. I refuse to elect another man to rule over my neighbor... my neighbor can represent himself, and I represent myself.

This reminds me of a few things. What was that movie where the presidentcy was a randomly selected joe out of the entire population? Sometimes I wonder if part of our problems was electing professional politicians, who are usually schooled as lawyers. Therefore more laws and negotiations, less answers? Just a thought.

And the part about representative democracy. Sometimes on the news I see other governments. Fights breaking out, punches thrown, or even the english parliment which seems to get loud and even crack jokes about each other. Now THAT seems more like MY representatives. In comparison when watching the american version it seems too polite and boring. I often thought "anyone who thinks that the american houses are representative of the american people have not spent much time with any group of american people."

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by gp1628

.And the part about representative democracy. Sometimes on the news I see other governments. Fights breaking out, punches thrown, or even the english parliment which seems to get loud and even crack jokes about each other. Now THAT seems more like MY representatives. In comparison when watching the american version it seems too polite and boring. I often thought "anyone who thinks that the american houses are representative of the american people have not spent much time with any group of american people."

Awesome.

In defense of direct democracy, briefly:

Yes, the United States is too large and too distracted to feasibly implement direct democracy for, of, and by the people. One solution for this would be to decentralize dramatically. The existing framework wouldn't have to be completely overturned. I advocate for independent states and a reversal of current power polarity, so that instead of a top-down institution, government becomes bottom-up, from the burgs and 'burbs and rural country county court houses where town meetings are called and people interact chaotically in the way hinted at by Gandalf, quoted above. Out of civil disorder and debate, which might just be kind of a party, too--why not?--arise the refined policies of democracy. For sure, it's a long process that takes time, which to my mind is a great thing--that way, we aren't beholden to a unitary federal executive who might do something stupid, like say, declare a "War On Terror" days after a criminal attack on the civilians of New York City.

Let's run with that scenario. What would have happened in mid-September of 2001 if, instead of having given power to a unitary executive to commit the entire country to a vague, endless, ideological war, the citizens of New York City were allowed to meet, grieve, and investigate the attacks on the World Trade Center. Who knows? It certainly would have been a slower process, which would have, in my opinion, been a great thing. It would have given people in New York and throughout the country and the world time to consider what had happened and ask some very serious questions--perhaps "why?" would have come up, instead of simply "who's responsible?" and "who do we punish?"

Currently the governmental framework of the United States is a digital, cranked-up speed freak plugged into endless televised networks of corporate marketing. Actual people play a very limited role in this democracy, and the role we have is mediated by this glossy, high-definition, glitzy and glitchy corporate-media-government hybrid. What if we detangled ourselves from the cables, unplugged all of the short-circuiting inputs, and got back to basics? Caucuses are a farce, a minimalist caricature of what real direct democracy can be. Ideally, local organizations would meet monthly, bi-weekly, weekly to mull over the issues and social reality.

The question that we need to ask, I think, is what first steps can we take to get back to a grassroots democracy?

[wil]

As I see it a lot of this discussion about the woes of our republic, our representative democracy stems from the very freedoms and benefits our gov't provides us.

Take a walk around the world and look at the other choices.

Be it a monarchy, a dictatorship, military rule....

The fact that we have some say in the rules without having a gun in our hand to inforce our rules or being a member of the lucky sperm club (aka royalty) allows us the freedom to say "Hey, I'm sick and tired of this and I'm not going to take it anymore", without being shot on site.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by gp1628

Sometimes on the news I see other governments. Fights breaking out, punches thrown, or even the english parliment which seems to get loud and even crack jokes about each other. Now THAT seems more like MY representatives.

Just a little clarification for you Gandalf. In the UK legislature there is no such thing as the "English Parliament". There is a British Parliament, a Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Lords. The House of Lords being the second house for bills proposed in the British Parliament, or House of Commons. You can get fruity debates in all of them.

Tao

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by wil

As I see it a lot of this discussion about the woes of our republic, our representative democracy stems from the very freedoms and benefits our gov't provides us.

Take a walk around the world and look at the other choices.

Be it a monarchy, a dictatorship, military rule....

The fact that we have some say in the rules without having a gun in our hand to inforce our rules or being a member of the lucky sperm club (aka royalty) allows us the freedom to say "Hey, I'm sick and tired of this and I'm not going to take it anymore", without being shot on site.

I hear that alot but I disagree. Take a walk arouind the world and look at the other choices. In most cases I feel that its not the choice of government but the size of it which decides if its working or not. People tend to think that those forms of government should not work more than having any real experience with it.


Gandalf Parker
--
Why do I get an opinion? Im old, Im a native US citizen, registered to vote,
graduate, a home owner, a family man, vietnam vet and retired military.
What did you have in mind for a requirement?

[wil]

Originally Posted by gp1628

I hear that alot but I disagree. Take a walk arouind the world and look at the other choices. In most cases I feel that its not the choice of government but the size of it which decides if its working or not. People tend to think that those forms of government should not work more than having any real experience with it.

Namaste Gandalf,

So how does one handle that? Are you indicating that is why all empires fall, they eventually grow to large and can't handle their territory they are trying to make safe?

Time seems to be a factor as well. But you offer that a walk around the world will find better gov'ts with free-er people, folks not complaining about services. Where do you suggest I walk? With the what 200+ countries how many do you believe the people are better served than the US?

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by wil

Time seems to be a factor as well. But you offer that a walk around the world will find better gov'ts with free-er people, folks not complaining about services. Where do you suggest I walk? With the what 200+ countries how many do you believe the people are better served than the US?

This line of reasoning seems to me to miss a large part of the picture, which is that U.S. hegemony, U.S. military operations and paramilitary coups have undermined democracy in many countries: Chile, Panama, Haiti, to name only a few. It doesn't seem appropriate to me, then, for us to go on about how great and democratic our governmental system is in the United States--and how grateful we should be as citizens--when that same government continues to undermine democracy and foment violence in much of the world to serve its own "national interests."

[flowperson]

Hmmmm... let's see. I'm still working on the "correct" spelling of three words.

"sub...ju...ga...tion" ?

"hy...poc...risy" ?

"li...ars" ?

Anyone out there feel free to correct any spelling errors they might see.

flow....

[wil]

Originally Posted by Pathless

This line of reasoning seems to me to miss a large part of the picture, which is that U.S. hegemony, U.S. military operations and paramilitary coups have undermined democracy in many countries: Chile, Panama, Haiti, to name only a few. It doesn't seem appropriate to me, then, for us to go on about how great and democratic our governmental system is in the United States--and how grateful we should be as citizens--when that same government continues to undermine democracy and foment violence in much of the world to serve its own "national interests."

Where was the line of reasoning?? I was asking questions. Screw the diatribe, how do we find solutions??

Was I going on about how great anything was?? G was indicating that size was the constraint, the problem with govts, well we are 300 million people, that our economy has to feed supply and support. What system can we say is better at doing that?? And still supplying freedoms of some sort to the people?

We talk about pulling our military out, out of where, everywhere?? Cutting our expenses and not borrowing from China, what $$ should we cut?? The AIDS money to Africa?? $$ in support of other nations??

I'm not about just whining about what we did here or there, I agree it is a problem, lets discuss exactly how we are going about making a difference to fix it.

Got this in an email the other day, to be honest I don't know how true any of it is, but without our war machine, could we have helped as efficiently??

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American.

During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, a[/font]nd they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

[Pathless]

Hey wil. The line of reasoning was a couple posts back, actually. I guess I should have quoted that as well:

Originally Posted by wil

The fact that we have some say in the rules without having a gun in our hand to inforce our rules or being a member of the lucky sperm club (aka royalty) allows us the freedom to say "Hey, I'm sick and tired of this and I'm not going to take it anymore", without being shot on site.

We can't arrive at any meaningful solutions without looking critically and deeply at the problems. I don't have a lot of solutions, although I do make constructive suggestions every now and then. If you'll take another look at post #20 in this thread, you'll see that I offered some constructive ideas as well as posed a question. Yes, the ideas are rather radical, which is why I followed up with the question that I did. The post has been ignored up until now.

To answer some of your questions. No, I don't think we should cut any kind of medicines or aid to Africa or any other country. I do think that we should get on board with the rest of the world as far as nuclear non-proliferation, and then charge ahead further by disarming the nuclear weapons that we do have and encouraging others to follow suit. I do think we should stop undermining democracy in Latin America and in other parts of the world. All of this is a very large task and is not going to happen with any fix-quick solution, or even a series of them. It most certainly isn't going to happen by continuing to fund wars and militarization. I think the only way that we can begin to approach a sustainable, creative, peaceful way of life is by revolutionizing from within through grassroots changes in the very structures of our society.

What purpose does our economy serve? Does it serve life, or death? Individual empowerment or corporate enrichment? How much money does a person really need to survive and thrive? Are there safer, saner ways to procure foods than monocultures of crops and genetic modifications?

These are a few questions, some musings. Why is it that western civilization is so intent on globalization? Is it to spread freedom, or is it to consolidate an economic model, further channeling resources to a limited set of people? What does the world stand to lose from a globalized culture?

More questions. Questioning is an important step. It helps break down paradigms that have outlived their usefulness.

[Pathless]

Amiri Baraka talks about creating democracy "step by step by step." He makes some interesting points about "entering into that mainstream struggle," about taking "one opening that they leave you which they claim is democracy," and once that is acquired, putting on the pressure, the pressure, the pressure. He is talking to and about black Americans, but I believe his words apply to all of us who want to make the States and the world more democratic, more constructive, more equal, and more concerned with people and their needs, more concerned with human rights, animal rights, and the health of the Earth.

It's a long speech, but worth it if you have 35 minutes:
Z Audio - A Black President?

[Pathless]

This is tangential and loosely related, but speaks to me about how to revolutionize education and make it resonate with kids--certain ones, at least:

Originally Posted by Education to a Brand New Beat

The New York-based hip-hop Association (H2A) recently published the Hip-Hop Education Guidebook: Volume 1, the first all-encompassing set of hip-hop lesson plans that cover all subjects and meet education standards.

Martha Diaz, H2A president and founder, found the inspiration for the education initiative (H2ed) from her years of using hip-hop as a teacher in the Bronx. After putting on three H2A teacher-training summits, Diaz saw an opportunity to make hip-hop education into a tangible reality for other educators.

“We realized there were some amazing lesson plans out there,” she said. “Educators were rocking it all over the world and we needed to show that, so we self-published the book that would highlight the best ones and prove that it can be used in the classroom, standardized and everything — you won’t get in trouble for it.”

The guidebook’s lessons range from an activity for middle school students that uses break dance moves to teach the muscle groups to one for high schoolers entitled “Who Runs Your Streets? Introducing Democracy, the Electoral Process and Government Into the Classroom.” The latter intertwines Eminem’s politically focused music video “Mosh” with a study on the Declaration of Independence and the writings of Frederick Douglass.

Rad.

Education to a Brand New Beat - City on a Hill Press