If Mike Gravel is the candidate for the Libertarian Party, I will leave the party and never return. PERIOD.

I'm a Gravel fan, and I've been talking to Libertarians about him lately.  What you must know about him is that his entire campaign is based on the National Initiative for Democracy (www.ni4d.us www.vote.org www.citizen-power.us).  So if the people don't want Mike Gravel's healthcare or energy plan when he gets into office, it won't happen.

One of the Libertarians I was talking to has nearly become a Gravel convert because of something I said to him that really made him think.  This is what I said:

"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."

I'm not a Libertarian, not a Democrat, not anything - just a Gravel fan.  And I mean that literally.

But are you sure you're not just having a kneejerk reaction to Gravel, seeing as how he came from the Democratic party?  Take some time to look at who he is, where he stands on the most important issues, what the National Initiative is, and how it would affect the nation.  Maybe read his book.  Check out www.ni4d.us and www.vote.org.

What's your response to my quote from another forum?

Look, do you live near Swarthmore, Muhlenberg, or U of P?  Because if you do, the best way to work out these issues would be to come see Mike Gravel talk.  And I'm not just saying that.

Also, less importantly, did you read my post from the other forum?  What's your reaction to that?

Once again, please come see Mike Gravel.  He's the best person to explain this to you.  That goes for everyone else, too.

Sorry about that.  Wasn't sure if you would want to read the whole thread.  Here it is - http://www.gravel2008.us/node/3441.

Seriously, if you can, go to one of the Gravel events.  It's the best way to continue this discussion.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

As a member of the minority, no thank you.


Djahn, as far as going to Denver is concerned, I am afraid that my work schedule is not going to allow me to travel much at all for a while. I just started this job, so I don't have any vacation yet.

For someone who has been surrounded mainly by Liberal Democrats for their career, I think Mike shows a lot of Libertarian Indications. Supporting Democracy is in no way anti-liberty, the choice between whether it is more important: to pass good laws or to prevent bad ones from being passed, will ultimately decide whether you are for Total Democracy or for Limited Government. I do not share Mike's faith in the American people, but I do believe his ideas are based on a shared value, that there is a fundamental disconnect between what our government is doing and the interest of the American People. Unfortunately, the American people have voted for George Bush, twice. If Mike can explain how a Nation that can re-elect George Bush is ready for full Democracy, maybe I'll change my mind.

When Mike was speaking here in Philadelphia last week, I brought to his attention the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution and its Council of Censors. I think that it is possible to combine the idea of Direct Democracy and Censoring the Government. Rather than give the people the ability to pass laws, lets give them the ability to repeal them, and censure Politicians and Judges.

While Mike is out of step with the Core of Libertarian Activists, which is why I won't support him as the standard bearer, he is much closer to us than most of the boobs in government today, and we need to expand our appeal.

I believe that Root and Barr are the best capable of the field in bringing a Libertarian Message to the Voters, and I will support one of them for the nomination. I think I can say safely that very few long-time activists will support Mike for President, but I would consider him for Vice President and do support inviting him to the Debates at the Convention.