Free SCV - 2013-01-11

Direct Democracy on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/331144230301729/

I recently was hooked up by Brad to this nice group. Many important issues are flashed by day by day, buried in yesterday's news but good reads none the less.

I hope their Page does well, looks great so far. I'm sure to repost lots when I'm able. Usually once/week I do that.

Below is copied from their "About" section. It's a hella long read but good for those browsing around!

=)

Why Direct Democracy is a Human Right and a Solution to Our Nations' Crises

Introduction

Direct Democracy is a human right. Also known as Real Democracy and Democracy, Direct Democracy is different from the Representative Government. Representative Government uses “representatives" to legislate, such as a congress or parliament. Many call Representative Government, "Representative Democracy," but "Representative Democracy" is an oxymoron because democracy is not rule by representatives. This will be explained later.

Direct Democracy is a human right because our ability to vote on the laws that rule us is the essence of self-determination. And self-determination is the essence of human rights. Without a vote on the laws, the people's will is not manifested, either individually or collectively, because representatives cannot represent the people. And if the people's' will is not manifested, then the people lack our right to self-determination. As a system, Direct Democracy functions better than Representative Government. Practically any criticism that can be leveled at Direct Democracy can also be leveled against Representative Government. But Representative Government does not manifest the will of individuals or the people.

Defining Democracy

What some now call Direct Democracy was originally known as Democracy. The term "Democracy" is taken from the name of a type of government used in ancient Greece, in which all citizens were allowed to vote on the laws. The term comes from the Greek word δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people."

The Founders of the United States government specifically stated that they did not form a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin stated, "[i]t's a Republic, if you can keep it." Nevertheless, many of our political leaders insist on calling the United States a democracy. George Orwell noted in Politics and the English Language, "[t]he words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. . . . . . [i]t is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fears that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearers to think he means something quite different."

Others call consensus decision-making Direct Democracy. Consensus decision-making is much closer to democracy than Representative Government is to democracy. While Wikipedia lists "representative democracy" as a form of democracy, "representative democracy" is an oxymoron; that is, it is a self-contradicting term. One cannot have a Representative Government and be a democracy, at least not by the original definition of democracy, that is, democracy is "rule by the people." At the very least, for the people to rule, they must be able to vote on the laws that rule them. Otherwise, the people merely elect leaders to make decisions for them.

As Rousseau stated, "[s]overeignty [of the people], for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented; it lies essentially in the general will, and will does not admit of representation: it is either the same, or other; there is no intermediate possibility. The deputies of the people, therefore, are not and cannot be its representatives: they are merely its stewards, and can carry through no definitive acts. . . . . [i]n any case, the moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free: it no longer exists. " Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). Social Contract & Discourses. 1913. The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. Book III. Chapter XV. Deputies or Representatives.

"Representatives" cannot represent the people, and thus their vote cannot substitute for the people’s vote. The representatives' will is not the peoples' will.

Why Democracy is a Human Right

Direct Democracy is more than an understanding of how to best run a government, and more than a collective right; Direct Democracy is an individual right. We have a right as individuals to vote on the laws that rule us. No one should have laws imposed on them by others without, at minimum, a vote.

We are worthy enough as individuals and as a people to vote on the laws that rule us. The greatest crime we commit against ourselves is to believe that we are not worthy of voting on the laws that rule us. It is in effect saying that we want others to make life-altering decisions for us because we are incapable of ruling ourselves. To believe one is incapable of ruling himself is a form of self-negation.

This belief negates our choices in life and gives our life-altering choices to people whom many say are corrupt, dishonest and working for corporate or special interests. We are more than capable, and in fact deserving, of voting on our laws.

We have a right to vote on whether we wish to chain ourselves with a law, or free ourselves of it. It is us whom the law controls; it must be us who has a vote.

To believe otherwise is to strike at the heart of human rights. All human rights derive from the concept of self-determination. We understand that we have the right to choose for ourselves our speech, our privacy, our protections, and yet all our rights are nearly meaningless unless we have a choice in the selection of the very laws that affect all of these.

Further, even laws that do not directly affect our rights, often affect us in much deeper ways. These laws often dictate to us our actions in the little things, the day-to-day activities we all take for granted. For better or worse, these laws dictate when we can go to a park, what we can eat, where we can drink, if we can smoke, the length of incarceration for an offense, if any, and practically every aspect of our behavior during the day. In many ways, these laws are much more important to us than what we now call our human rights. When we lack choice in these laws, we lack our ability to self-determine what type of world we live in. Our world is controlled, if not created, by laws. To deny ourselves a vote on our laws, is to deny ourselves a vote on our own life.

Laws affect our bodies and our lives. The last people we need in control of our bodies and our lives are strangers pursuing corporate or special interest. And yet, that is exactly what Representative Government does. Representative Government gives control of our bodies and our lives to representatives pursuing the interests of their moneyed sponsors, e.g., corporations. We the people deserve at least a vote before a stranger is given power over our bodies, our movements and our lives.

Little details often control us more than broader rules. As a friend recently showed me, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “[i]t must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without possessing the other. . . . . [s]ubjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions only exhibits servitude at certain intervals and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.” Democracy in America, Book I, Chapter VI.

Laws affect everything. Laws even affect our character, our lives, our bodies, and our fate. Intrinsically, we know that without control over our laws as a people and as individuals, we have no control over our lives. This right is inherent.

Counters to Anti-Democracy Arguments

And yet, some people still insist that they would rather allow others to make decisions for us. Here is a list of counters against those anti-democracy arguments:

First, what about the argument that the people are not capable of deciding the laws which rule them? The elite made this argument about women, blacks and other minorities. And yet like minorities, we the people have shown that we are more than capable of deciding our laws. In fact, over a dozen states in the United States allow citizen initiatives, that is, they allow citizens to submit proposed laws to be voted on during the general election. Switzerland, the most stable country in Europe, if not the world, also allows citizen initiatives.

Another common dismissal of Direct Democracy is, if we allow other people to vote, we may not like how they vote. Of course, this argument is as effective against Direct Democracy as it is against Representative Government. Let me say, that if we don't believe our neighbor should vote on laws, why should anyone else, including ourselves? Will a politician do better?

Further, liking how someone else may vote has never been a requirement for voting in a free society, just as liking what someone’s speech has never been a requirement for free speech in a free society.

Moreover, can citizen initiatives be worse than the laws the Quebec parliament passed to hinder student’s ability to effectively protest? Could the results of citizen initiatives be worse than laws allowing for the indefinite detention of citizens, and even tacitly allowing their assassination? To paraphrase a speaker in a documentary, [i]f the present laws allow our government to indefinitely detain and assassinate us without trial, what else is left that's illegal for the government to do to us?

Another expressed concern about Direct Democracy is the "tyranny of the majority" argument. Again, this argument is as effective against Representative Government as it is against Direct Democracy. That "tyranny" can take place in Congress and Parliament as well as on Main Street. The "tyranny of the majority" we most commonly see, is the "tyranny of the majority" of representatives in Congress or Parliament failing to do the will of the vast majority of people in the country.

If one is worried that voters will not read the laws before voting, are you aware that our representatives do not either, and especially not on important issues like the Patriot Act, etc. Representatives often state that they do not read the legislation, nor do they have time to before they vote on it. In most states of the United States, citizen initiatives must be in months before it is voted on by the people, and in Switzerland it must be presented years before a vote. During this time, the people are given booklets containing the initiative, and the initiative is available online. At least we'll have a chance to read the initiative before it is enacted.

Representative Government promotes political decisions designed to perpetuate problems rather than solve the problems. Why? Because representatives and political parties realize that as long as the issues survive unsolved, they will be able to receive votes, money and political power based upon the disputed issues. However, once the political problems are solved, many voters may not vote, donate or give voice to that representative and his political party anymore. This is one reason so many of our countries’ current problems remain unsolved. The representatives and the parties do not want them solved.

Further, in Representative Government, we are forced to select Platform A or Platform B solutions for dozens if not hundreds of issues. If we vote for candidate A, then we vote for a candidate offering some solutions we like and others we do not like. For example, a candidate may be pro-environment, and against higher taxes on the rich. Whatever our issues are, it is fair to say, that even if we agree with a representative on some issues, we probably will not on all. Thus our will is silenced or contradicted on the issues where the representative disagrees.

Representative Government forces us to accept as representatives someone with whom a large percentage of citizens completely disagree. How are we or our vote, represented by a “representative” who says and votes exactly opposite of how we would? We are not.

As far as the arguments about the “dangers” of allowing the people to vote on the laws, remember that legislatures have legalized the worst mass murders in world history, or stood aside while they took place. Like the Communist and Nazi party, the capitalist-controlled parties believe that only they are wise enough to do what is right for the people. The capitalist-controlled parties, the Nazi party and the Communist party all agree, that the people left to decide for themselves, would too often decide wrongly.

Also, please remember the wars commenced by legislatures; wars that if the people had to go to the ballot box and vote for or against, may not have taken place. If push came to shove, how many people would vote to place their life, or another’s, in harm’s way? How many would vote to put his son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter in harm’s way? And imagine the meaningful debate that would occur in households and meeting places around our world, if we had to vote whether the gains the politicians promise us were worth the lives of ourselves or fellow countrymen. Are we not valuable enough as human beings to have a say in whether to place our lives at risk for a cause?

Some argue that electing a group of wise and experienced leaders who have the best interest of the people in mind, is better than allowing people to decide for themselves. Regrettably, the point is moot. Few, if any of us, agree that our leaders are wise or have the best interest of the people in mind. Most of us believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are corrupt. Perhaps at some point in the past they had our best interests in mind. But, in fairness to our elected leaders, they are very much hemmed in by the system that greets them even before they arrive at the capital. And this is part of the problem, even if our leaders wanted to do the right thing, so often times, they simply cannot. Best case scenario for representatives in Representative Government – they want to do the right thing but they cannot and it is not their fault.

But, if we really believe that the representatives are bought and paid for by special interests, why would we want them representing us?

In addition to the above listed flaws of Representative Government, Representative Government: promotes the party system; places the party's interests above that of the people; denies a citizen a vote on laws; creates a "looking for a leader mentality;" forces citizens to beg and plead with representatives to have his view considered in government; promotes favoritism to representative's friends, family, allies, etc.; promotes political corruption, bribery, graft, etc.; promotes political intransigence; prohibits effective movement building because each party tries to either co-opt a movement or to destroy the movement; centralizes power; creates citizen alienation from the decision-making process; creates citizen alienation from decision-making; and enforces verticalism over horizontalism.

Any argument one can make against Direct Democracy, one can make against Representative Government. But Representative Government is much worse than Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy enhances human right's essence, that is, self-determination. Representative Government strips the people of their will and gives it to leaders.

Our Present Situation

Some backers of Representative Government come with an inflated sense of their own worth and a diminished view of the people’s worth. Like Kings and nobility of past ages, they convince themselves that without them and their ilk, the people would be in much worse condition. Only their wisdom, they think, saves us from ourselves.

Such hubris would be comical if not so widely accepted among the populace. Once, women and other minorities believed the sexist and racist things said about them and their inferiority. Now, we believe the negative things the elite say about us and our ability to govern ourselves. This sense of inferiority stifles us from realizing our rights and deciding our own fate. Instead, we are allowing others to decide our fate for us. We, like those who struggled for civil rights in the past, must realize the lies said about us. We must realize what we know inherently inside; we are worthy enough as human beings to vote on the laws that rule us.

Contemplate these questions: [i]f we are a nations ruled by laws, then why can't we vote on our rulers? What are we if we do not believe that we have a right to decide the laws that rule us? And what are they, if they refuse to allow us?

A Remedy and a Better Future

Choose Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy envisions this nation and world ruled by the people through the power of citizen initiatives: that is, proposed laws submitted to the people and voted upon by the people. It does not necessarily exclude a continuation of legislatures, but rather legislatures may pass laws and the people may pass laws. Over a dozen states in the United States allow citizen initiatives. Constitutions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensure the protection of our rights. For over a hundred years, states in the United States, and in Switzerland have practiced Direct Democracy. It is a safe system that allows the people to counter the power of the elite.

Why is this needed in governments around the world? In the United States, the Founders designed the Constitution with checks and balances to prevent too much power from concentrating in too few hands. But the power elite have overcome these checks and balances of power via the two-party system. On the international stage, the legislatures repeatedly show themselves subservient to the banking and corporate interests, even to the extent of going deep into debt bailing out the banks to the tune of trillions of dollars, while demanding the people suffer under austerity: that is, cut backs to services to them.

In Greece, the money purportedly given to help Greece is transferred to banks and the wealthy to ensure that the banks and the wealthy get paid. The people of Greece are left with the bill and austerity. Our rulers ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Those with less, get less; those with more, get everything.

If you have any doubts about the validity of Direct Democracy and corruption of Representative Government, just ask the people of Greece if they would have chosen their fate. And if the Greeks would not have chosen their fate, then why are they forced to accept it. The Greek people's fate and suffering was chosen for them by others. The elite’s fate was chosen for them by themselves. And such a scenario is expected in Representative Governments.

Giving to the rich while taking from the poor is not the hallmark of a fair or healthy government. Governments should not take money from the people, in debt the people, and transfer that money to the wealthy. Obviously, our systems of government are run by those who believe they have the obligation to take funds from the poor and give it to the rich.

It is fitting, if not a portent, that the fate of the EU comes down to the success or failure of one country - Greece. The Greeks are the mother of the system of government called democracy, but they are also the mother of something much more important. They are the mother of our human right to self-determination as a people and individuals and the right to vote on the laws that rule us. Many people do not attribute to the Greeks any contributions to the field of human rights. Those people are blind to the obvious one. They are blind to the most basic human right of all; that is, the human right to choose our own fate as a people and as an individual with a vote.

Over two thousand years ago, a few people on a small peninsula recognized this right of self-determination. And in defense of this right to self-determination, a few inspired Greeks defeated the greatest invading army the world had ever seen. It is amazing what we the people can do when awakened to a human right.

To establish Direct Democracy, some nations may need a constitutional amendment, others may need a change in statute. But whatever the legal requirements, let us ensure our methods are peaceful.

When push comes to shove, we must ask ourselves, do we want corporations making life-altering decisions about our bodies and our lives, or ourselves? We the people must bring balance back to the government. We can do this through the people power of Direct Democracy.

From the Mind of Occupier Michael Hudson