New member with some questions

April 3rd, 2008 by minorgrey

Hello everyone.

I'm a libertarian (and by libertarian I mean market anarchist) that decided to take a closer look at Gravel. I don't vote but I do volunteer for campaigns and try to spread the message. I've volunteered for the Nader campaign, Ron Paul campaign, and Kucinich campaign. The last person I voted for was Michael Badnarik. I'm currently a moderator on ronpaulforums.com though I haven't been very active lately due to a busy schedule.

I understand that many libertarians (and I'm sure many of you supporters) are scratching your head about his plans on moving to the Libertarian Party. I have to say I was a bit perplexed as well but decided that I just don't know enough about his positions to make an educated decision. I think there's a lot of misinformation floating around about how Gravel would implement some of his ideas. I've heard he is in favor of school vouchers, not sure if that's correct or not. I've also heard he would like to see a centralized government, that kind of frightens me. The fact of the matter is I just don't know enough about the man and you can only tell so much from video clips on youtube. Because of this I have come to you, the supporters, in search for answers. I hope we can have some thought provoking discussions and learn from each other. In also invite you to answer these questions with your own view as well. I'd love to hear how you feel about them.

Without further delay, my questions:

1. On the issue of taxes, I have heard he's shown support for eliminating the IRS and possibly the fed. If this is correct do you feel Gravel would show support for those of us that have taken direct action against the IRS and decided to not pay our income tax? If this is incorrect do you feel he would support heavy jail time for those that challenge this authority?

2. Drugs. Does he favor decriminalization, or legalization for all drugs or just marijuana and/or other naturally growing substances?

3. Is he for complete and total open boarders? If not could someone explain his stance on this issue? Would he prefer more lax boarder regulations, keeping it the same, amping it up a little, amnesty? Could you also include how government would play a roll in his plan?

4. How does he view gun control and how does he view the government’s roll with controlling weapons?

5. Has Gravel spoken about prison reform? It's an issue that is always shuffled to the side but I think it's incredibly important, especially with our growing prison population.

6. Has Gravel ever mentioned any philosophers that have influenced him? If not I'd like to suggest someone ask him to make a book recommendation video. I'd love to know who he's been reading.

7. I'm a new business owner so I would like to know how much control he plans on having over the economy. Does he recognize corporations as a legal entity? What are his views on subsidies? How does his tax plan work for business (not really interested in the carbon tax since that doesn't pertain to me at all)? Would he get out of NAFTA and the WTO?

That about does it for now. Thanks for reading and I'm looking forward to the responses.

Comments

The first thing to know

Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by rossl

The first thing to know about a potential Gravel presidency is that the people would take presedence. The main idea that is really the purpose of this campaign is the National Initiative for Democracy, aka the Ni4D (www.ni4d.us www.vote.org). That is why Mike Gravel is a libertarian. Because he believes that the people should empower themselves, not throw their power away on election day.

Out of all the libertarians

Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by minorgrey

Out of all the libertarians I know (and I know a ton) this is the main issue they have a problem with. Many libertarians see national initiatives as a way for the majority to enslave the minority. They use examples such as the Nazi takeover in Germany, and how the majority of Americans would vote for tougher gun restrictions or not recognizing gay marriage. Just because the "majority" thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean it is.

For me, this is the largest roadblock. As a libertarian I feel no man should tell me what to do with my body or property. The majority should not have authority over me anymore than I should have authority over another human.

To quote Lysander Spooner:

"The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that -- however bloody -- can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave."

majority won't work for the NI4D?

Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by arpidoodle

My feelings : democracy, like finance, has been left where it originated - in the stone age. The lack of progress lies with the unwillingness to share concentrated and amassed power. Those who have control are doing just that - keeping control, and the 'priviledges' that go with it.

I think I mentioned once (before you arrived) the solution might be a 50% (voted) interest in any given issue to determine that it is an issue, followed by a much higher voting percentage ratification to enact or legislate the incentive(s).

This is not an unreasonable suggestion - full participation on national issues - it only requires civic duty be tended to.

There wouldn't be a simple 'majority of one' and the manipulation that goes with the 50% rule of order with a higher percentile of voters actually voting on an issue. But - so many current issues are smoke screens to begin with that there really is no issue. Bush is a criminal, and he will pull off perfect crimes because he owns the smoke making machine.

Until that machine gets a lot more attention - it will continue in whoevers hands it is placed in by the 'stone age' voting process.

I wish money were as simple to deal with as politics, but the rights private bankers have far exceed those of (the) minimal accountability our representative government must answer to.

As far as our finances are concerned - we NEED government to enforce fair trades and practices - or we will continue with the slave and master scenario we currently live with. Every person should have credit - not just the person with the biggest gun - equality is not a birthright, no matter how it is written into the constitution - it is a priviledge for those who earn it, for those who bring it into being. There has been, if anything, a divergence from equality since the U.S. separated from England, the main divergence giving opportunity for wealth to the wealthy via privately owned central banks, and a gruelling life to the rest. This master/slave divergence has grown so much it thinks it wears the cloak of respectability, master thinks he can have his cake and eat AND be respected for doing so.

if money is going to be the tool of the day - the God of the times, then Money should be available as God, as a tool, available EQUALLY for all.

I posted to some length about instituting an equitable minimum wage as basis for the valuation of the American dollar, the issue that underlies that whole line of thought is simple in concept : but without official recognition, enforcement and protection from manipulation by our government the issue does not hold water.

I will venture a tangent on general monetary concept - : if prices were fairly stable, as they could be, one could easily determine the amount of money one would need to live their entire lives, from that figure one could divide the hundred thousand hours the average person works in their lifetime to produce a base wage for each and every person - no exceptions for age - infirmity etc - and use that as an official benchmark from which we could conduct the remainder of business.

Our government is so contrary to giving equality to its' people that access to equality seems impossible, because our governors are in it for themselves, not us.

Government and money is a dual threat to equality and progress, if both aren't dealt with, neither suceeds.

There's a lot in this post

Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by minorgrey

There's a lot in this post that I disagree with for several reasons but this forum is the worst possible place to debate them. If you are part of a forum could you create a thread so we can discuss it? I'm fine with signing up to any forum that allows me to quote the other person. If you're not part of a forum you can come to the small one I post at and create a thread. I'll be more than happy to keep the other members out of our conversation if you like.

http://forum.afcore.com/index.php is where I'm at a lot but I'm more than happy to try one of yours.

will start a thread in the 'Backyard' section of this forum

Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by arpidoodle

will call topic minorgrey

That was me in that chat

Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by minorgrey

That was me in that chat room btw.

That 50% threshhold is a

Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by rossl

That 50% threshhold is a very good idea, although I wonder if it should be as high as 50%. That might take some very useful laws off of the ballot because of a simple technicality.

I'm not sure. I like the idea. But it seems like it might keep things off the ballot that people simply aren't informed about.

50% may be too high

Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by arpidoodle

for starters - until ppl get involved 30 -40% may do, but, issues could be resolved at local levels that do not meet up to federal or national criteria

But what about an issue like

Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by rossl

But what about an issue like the National Initiative (at this point in history)? Not many people at all know about it, but it affects everyone in the United States, and it is in their interest to know about it. If it were proposed, it wouldn't reach that 50% mark, unless there were actions taken by the Electoral Trust to educate people about it before the first session of voting even took place.

speaking of percentages -

Submitted on April 9th, 2008 by arpidoodle

speaking of percentages - how popular is the Bush administration these days?

percentage projections are just that - they aren't needed as a prerequisite to enable action.

If and when someone like Mike Gravel gets elected he could (through the proposed NI4D Electoral Committee) ratify a less than majority consensus on the grounds of that percentile constituting, essentially - 100% response by interested parties.

It's a start, and no worse than current administration practices now.

Nothing ventured - nothing gained.

How do you interperate the

Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by gravel08nj

How do you interperate the current sitation in society? Do you feel that all government should be abolished and even the form of representative government there is now should not exist?

--
tomislav v. butkovic
tomislav@gravel2008.us
Gravel 2008 - New Jersey State Director
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gravel2008nj/
http://gravel2008.us

nopers

Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by arpidoodle

the government should reflect the will of the people - so why abolish it?

If it needs abolishing it's because it is not keeping the faith ('maintainant le droit)'

but abolish is a harsh word - ppl need society - society needs governing - i think a lot of the problems lie in the direction government takes - i say that loosely because it really takes direction only when the people don't give it any

then it goes rampant

civics is - too little too late - at that point - the 'revolution' has to go full cycle and then a return to civics

this could be a long drawn out affair - the U.S. would face a unique experience in terms of full scale political revolution - it doesnt have a long history (of same) vis a vis European etc experience, and it lacks the political diversity needed to easily create a more functioning governemt. Being deeply entrenched with the federal bank and capitalism will not help to facilitate a recognizeable change in governing practices.

But the problem may solve itself anyways - if Bush draws the US into yet another Mid East war it could and would change the face of global politics and all ensuing issues afterward.

but we will still need governing

"How do you interperate the

Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by minorgrey

"How do you interperate the current sitation in society?"

I think the current system is a farce and illegitimate. I do not give my consent and I do not recognize their authority over me. The population has no control over the current government and I don't believe a nation initiative is going to change that. If anything it gives the government more power to rule over me because it will have a stronger majority backing when they vote on laws. Government grows and becomes more intrusive... that is the nature of government.

"Do you feel that all government should be abolished and even the form of representative government there is now should not exist?"

Yes. I'm an anarchist, which is actually a fairly large portion of libertarians in the party (when you compare it to other parties anarchist population). The party demographics kind of break down like this:

Paleo-conservatives (Pat Buchanan types)

Libertarians (the kind that think government should only defend our life, liberty and property. They also favor some privatization but many do not see corporations as legitimate entities that deserve protection from the state so they don't favor corporatism)

Constitutionalists (the guys that think the federal government should only do what is granted in the constitution. Everything else should be left up to the state)

Minarchists (These are the people that think the only purpose of government should be defense and essential services such as a fire department and police force)

Market Anarchists / Anarcho-Capitalists / Voluntarists (Anarchists that support private ownership. Most are don't vote but have made exceptions for Ron Paul... they do a lot of activist work with campaigns though.)

There are probably more market anarchists and minarchists than constitutionalists in the LP so getting them on board with any kind of central government or national initiative is going to be a large uphill battle. That's not to say they don't like Gravel, they do, but there are some large issues that go directly against many of their own personal philosophies. If you can convince the libertarians that a Gravel administration will be less intrusive and costly than the people he is running against, then you have a shot.

"The population has no

Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by gravel08nj

"The population has no control over the current government and I don't believe a nation initiative is going to change that. "

What do you think should be done instead? I'm curious what you think. I've been reading about anarchist groups like 'Class War' in the UK.

--
tomislav v. butkovic
tomislav@gravel2008.us
Gravel 2008 - New Jersey State Director
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gravel2008nj/
http://gravel2008.us

I don't think anything in

Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by minorgrey

I don't think anything in the political realm is going to help. Voting, in my opinion, only gives the system legitimacy and further backs up the state. It's a passive form of oppression. The best we can hope for with politics is spreading a message... it helps when the messenger is getting major media time and quoting anarchists on air.

I think real change comes from withdrawing from the system and non-violent direct action. Protests, refusal to pay taxes (it just feeds the system), agroist markets... anything to throw a cog in the wheel. The less the state can take from you the less it has... we simply need to resist.

Some libertarians have started something called the free state project (you might have heard of it). The goal of the project is to pick a state (New Hampshire was chosen) and get as many libertarians to move there as possible. The next step is for people to run for local office and keep the state government from expanding and/or choke it out completely. I'm pretty sure the final step is secession from the US but I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Some of the cities have started to cater to certain niches... Keene seems to collect anarchists; political libertarians are attracted to Concord etc.

Here's some info on argoism, underground economies, and counter-economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economic

Also, just to add this, many market anarchists / anarcho-capitalists don't define the class war between the rich and the poor but instead between the political class (and those it supports such as big business) and the productive class (those that work and are directly effected by rules and regulations).

But couldn't the Ni4D be

Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by rossl

But couldn't the Ni4D be viewed as and ends to a means in terms of reaching your goals and/or empowering the productive class?

I see it as a way for the

Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by minorgrey

I see it as a way for the majority to oppress the minority. There is a powerful media machine that can stir this country into a panic... imagine a panicked, uninformed nation with the ability to vote on security measures, gay rights, personal liberties, taxes, war, gun rights, and drugs. I just don't see people being objective or rational when it comes to these kinds of issues, especially when there is so much misinformation out there.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a place for initiatives, it's just in local communities and not on a national level.

With respect to the media...

Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by DebbieKat

that's one of the first things I would change if I were creating legislation via the NI4D. Reverse the consolidation of

media that has been ongoing since the days of Reagan... That will take some of the power away. We could also legislate that there cannot be ownership by conglomerates that create conflicts of interest with reporting accurate news... There's SO much we can do here.

But even an Initiative can't overrule a Constitutional right

Submitted on April 5th, 2008 by Jaywin

...at least in theory, anyways. I'm sure many libertarians would argue that the Constitution matters less and less in America these days!

But at least in principle, even an initiative couldn't override a Constitutionally protected right. To give an extreme example in order to make a more general point, let's say that there was an initiative where Americans voted overwhelmingly to outlaw a particular religion. Someone could challenge the new law in the Supreme Court, and such a law would be struck down for being such a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Of course, that one's a no-brainer. Many other laws could be..well...more nuanced and debateble. But then wouldn't this shift the focus to the quality of the justices that are appointed to the Supreme Court, as opposed to a focus on popular opinion?

Just thinking out loud here!

--------------------------------

Jason

National Staff

Volunteer Moderator

Jason@Gravel2008.us

"...at least in theory,

Submitted on April 5th, 2008 by minorgrey

"...at least in theory, anyways. I'm sure many libertarians would argue that the Constitution matters less and less in America these days!"

Most would argue that it doesn't matter at all at this point.

"But at least in principle, even an initiative couldn't override a Constitutionally protected right. To give an extreme example in order to make a more general point, let's say that there was an initiative where Americans voted overwhelmingly to outlaw a particular religion. Someone could challenge the new law in the Supreme Court, and such a law would be struck down for being such a blatant violation of the First Amendment."

Unless someone decided to change the constitution which is a very real possibility considering all the support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman. There's a fundamental philosophy that drives libertarianism and you really need to understand how they view things like rights, force, property, and liberty. You might have come across this simplistic video before but it sums up their thoughts nicely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

If you can fit the NI4D into their philosophy you have a shot, I just don't see how you can with some of the more hard lined libertarians. I don't think there's any way you can get minarchists or market anarchist to be down with it but they might be willing to help with the campaign because of his other issues. You also might be able to snag a few if Gravel's position is less restrictive than any of the other candidates... like, say, with universal health care, and the fair tax (though many don't want a national sales tax either)

"Of course, that one's a no-brainer. Many other laws could be..well...more nuanced and debateble. But then wouldn't this shift the focus to the quality of the justices that are appointed to the Supreme Court, as opposed to a focus on popular opinion?"

I don't think so, no. Not in today’s political climate. We'd still be talking about electing a president that will choose the justices, just like we have today.

So what kinds of justices should be appointed?

Submitted on April 5th, 2008 by Jaywin

Personally, I don't like "litmus tests". That seems like a way to politicize the Supreme Court, which I think disrespects that institution.

The way I see it, the fundamental task of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the Constitution. However there are several schools of thought in Constitutional interpretation. Libertarians, as I understand it, tend to favor "Strict Constructionism" (am I incorrect here?)

Ideally, (in my opinion), the court should reflect a variety of constitutional interpretations. For example, if we have nine justices and if there 9 schools of thought, then I say have a judge for each school of thought. (Probably easier said then done!)

I wouldn't want nine justices that all come from the same school of thought in Constitutional interpretation, even if I agreed with that school of thought. The reason why is that the court would essentially become dogmatic...

...and I believe that dogmatism can easily be one of the greatest threats to liberty. I believe that openess to as many different ways of looking at the Constitution as possible demonstrates the greatest respect for that document and the liberties that it is intended to represent.

Comments?

--------------------------------

Jason

National Staff

Volunteer Moderator

Jason@Gravel2008.us

“Personally, I don't

Submitted on April 5th, 2008 by minorgrey

“Personally, I don't like "litmus tests". That seems like a way to politicize the Supreme Court, which I think disrespects that institution.”

I despise them as well. The branches of government are supposed to act as a check and balance. If you can just appoint a branch that will be able to serve the rest of their life, then you have tainted the balance. This all kind of started with the Regan administration when he came up with the bright idea to appoint based on politics.

“The way I see it, the fundamental task of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the Constitution. However there are several schools of thought in Constitutional interpretation. Libertarians, as I understand it, tend to favor "Strict Constructionism" (am I incorrect here?)”

You would be correct. Most libertarians feel that if it’s not expressly granted in the constitution it is left up to the states… and they’d be correct according to the constitution. At that point any laws being created for states would have to be looked at by the individual state constitutions.

They feel this is the best way because each state has its own culture. You wouldn’t run New York the same way you would run Wyoming. They have vastly different cultures, attitudes, and even religious views. They basically feel the only thing the constitution grants the government power over is the mail, ports, and national defense against foreign invasion (roads might be in there too but I haven’t looked in a while). States can handle smoking bans, abortion, marriage, medical marijuana etc etc.

“I wouldn't want nine justices that all come from the same school of thought in Constitutional interpretation, even if I agreed with that school of thought. The reason why is that the court would essentially become dogmatic...”

Agreed and you would also be correct.

If you want zero government,

Submitted on April 5th, 2008 by rossl

If you want zero government, then the Ni4D isn't for you. But if you want any amount of government at all, then you should be interested in getting the Ni4D passed. Otherwise, instead of the people controlling a portion of what the government does, a small percentage of the population (politicians, beaureaucrats, lobbyists, etc) will control what the government does. In this way, the Ni4D creates a world of compromise in which the idea of personal liberty (ie, control over yourself) and government can coexist.

Even if you only believe that government should be there to defend the people, then you have an interest in the Ni4D. How does it defend the people? Defend the people from what? You will help decide that if the Ni4D is passed.

Those are important questions when looking at the Libertarian philosophy (it seems that a lot of Libertarians only want the government for defense): Defense from what? How to defend? I think that Mike Gravel thinks that it is only right to defend people from certain things that aren't human, like poverty and climate change, for example. It would be convenient to think that in every scenario that exists everyone would always be able to take care of themselves in every way, and that if you were getting hurt it is always your fault, but that is not true. In a world completely free of government intervention on all fronts, the same people that are taking advantage of you in government now would simply find new ways to take advantage of you and further themselves.

I think that a lot of Libertarians think that there is an inherent flaw in the idea of a government that provides more than physical defense from enemies. But I think that the problem we have in America is that the government is not afraid to do whatever it wants and take advantage of the people. In a country like France, people will march in the streets if they are simply inconvenienced by the government. In countries like France, the government is essentially afraid of the people. But here in America it's the other way around. The people are afraid of the government. What the Ni4D aims to do is to turn that around, and empower the people to have some say in the government. That way, they can keep the people in check who would be taking advantage of them, and ensure that the government works to their advantage, works efficiently, and works smartly.