Eric Sundwall Interviews Mike Gravel About Libertarian Party
Submitted by lastmovement on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 20:51
Eric Sundwall is a member of the Libertarian Party National Committee. He also has a cable TV show in New York state. This is the Sundwall interview with Mike Gravel, conducted April 1. Gravel has long been intensely interested in changing the U.S. form of government so that ordinary people have more.
http://blog4paul.blogspot.com/2008/04/eric-sundwall-intervie...
Gravel says the right things sometimes. Just make me wonder.
»
He Helps Convert
I we can get even a few thousand liberals to come check out the libertarian party then I am glad he has come over.
The very far left need to realize we have the same goals. They just have the realize that government will not fix the problems. I am sure there are alot of us younger people who were on that side.
My hope is that Hillary gets it over Obama. His millions of younger voters will be very pissed and give Barr, of whoever the nominee is, a serious look.
I hope Hillary gets it and then gets beat
I really don't want to fight with Obama's black supporters. Whoever beats them is going to be considered mud for years to come for them. If she beats them, they will not go vote for her afterwards. They probably won't vote for anyone, but they won't vote for her. Their wounds will be too fresh. Obama's supporters vote on the color of skin. I don't want to try to reason with people who vote by skin tone. I have absolutely nothing against the idea of a black president or a woman president-but I have a huge issue with socialism/fascism/communism. Most of Obama's supporters have no idea what is wrong with the government giving them money. They see it as taking it away from rich billionaires and giving it to them. That is so narrow sighted.
Gravel us a Ultra-liberal Socialist, not
a Constitutionalist who supports a strong Republic. He is totally the opposite of Dr. Paul, so if you like Gravel, you need to leave this site. Besides Bob Barr is going to be the Libertarian presidential candidate, who definitely follows and is a good friend of Dr. Paul.
Gravel us a Ultra-liberal Socialist, not
a Constitutionalist who supports a strong Republic. He is totally the opposite of Dr. Paul, so if you like Gravel, you need to leave this site. Besides Bob Barr is going to be the Libertarian presidential candidate, who definitely follows and is a good friend of Dr. Paul.
No, I don't think if you like Gravel, you need to leave the site
I am kind of tired of people saying, "You need to leave this site." But if they like Gravel, which I can hear things that I like, then what they need to do is keep listening. I like Hillary, I like Obama, I like McCain, I like Bush, I like the Republican party, I like the libertarian party, I like Democratic party--but not on very many issues for each of these. But take the statements and put them on paper without watching the person or knowing who said it and they can all convince me in 10 minute bites that they are the one to get the presidency. Not so if you give them two hours, compare and contrast and think about how they are going to implement their "wonderful" ideas. Sure college for everybody, health care for everybody-etc., sounds just peachy. How is it implemented? No go. It all falls apart. I think democrats have a short attention span. They don't want to hang in there and figure out what is behind the promise.
Gravel is a joke
First of all, he is a socialist and thus a sworn enemy of libertarians. I hope libertarians teach him something about the zero aggression principle.
Also, his direct democracy idea is just a nice name for mob rule. The powers of government are illegitimate (because they are coercive), even if the citizens are in control.
A republic is hardly better: the mob is restrained but they are still looting.
___________________________________
Ron Paul is only the beginning
I really enjoyed what he had to say
Maybe im in the minority here, but I enjoyed what he had to say and truly believe that he considers himself a libertarian now and not a democrat. He really does want to return the power of this nation back to the people. I didnt agree with everything he said, but I feel he is correct that in this modern society the libertarian party must adapt. Just as I considered myself a democrat for years before I was educated and then changed my party when i learned what libertarians/true republicans stand for. We have to accept that there are pros and cons with every party's ideas in modern society, even ours (republican/libertarian) and we must learn from our mistakes and missteps to better ourselves.
Libertarian Party is Lost -- They'd drop him like a bad habit if
RP wanted to run Libertarian :)
Can we avoid Gravel's name in this forum, unless he dies or RP supports him.
Octo
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
The LP must adapt?
I agree with Barry Goldwater.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
A name only has so many uses and only so much power of
meaning -- then it must be changed. The word "natural" (at one point) used to be Organic -- The word "organic" used to mean well "organic" now it does not. The world "liberal" used to be synonomous with Republican, Free-Markets, and small government -- not it does not!
The word solo flying word "libertarian" used to mean small-gov't, but I'm afraid now it is used as a justification for pornography and NAMBLA --- with people like Howard Stern as it's champion, who needs enemies. Remember when CATO Institute was one of the bastions of liberty -- did you know that Murdoch sat on its board for a few years not too long ago!!
No We are in need a phrase that can't be jacked up, by definition.
"RP Repulicans" or "RP Civil-Libertarians" or maybe just "Civil-Libertarians" with a powerful yet short list of "who's in" and "who's out" based on "the list."
1) 100% Constitutional Voting Record
2) An opening phrase by every member that swears fealty to that, like "I rise to stand on my Constitutional Voting Record and truly Free-Market principles and address you today."
3) Every politician will keep a private website with an explanation behind every vote they made and whether it was constitutional or did they seek to amend if it wasn't.
I will end with this counter quote:
“A coward dies a thousand deaths... a soldier dies but once.” Tupac
Octo
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Ron Paul
is my definer. That name is the standard bearer for me. They can talk all day and sound too wonderful for words, but in the end, I say, "Who did you vote for?" If they don't say, "Ron Paul." The conversation is over.
This country was founded as a REPUBLIC!
A Republic is based on individual right and is not compatible with a democracy which is based on majority rule.
But a republic involves does have majority rule...
it is albeit limited by a constitution.
As far as I can tell your statement is just factually incorrect.
Anyone else what to chip in here with the answer?
The more accurate term is
"constitutional" republic. A constitutional republic does not have majority rule. The majority does not make laws. It does not rule over people. It is limited to voting on what officials to place in office. And, who is elected does not make the fundamental laws either. That would be the Constitution. The rule is the law, which already exists in the Constitution. So any statutes that are passed have to be in accordance with it. What our constitutional republic is trying to do is to prevent anyone from ruling, whether it's a majority, a minority, or an individual. Our constitution to was designed to liberate the individual from the collective, rather than to give power to the collective.
A republic is a state or
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people) have impact on its government, and that is usually indicated as a republic.
In most modern republics the head of state is termed president. Other titles that have been used are consul, doge, archon and many others. In republics that are also democracies the head of state is selected as the result of an election. This election can be indirect, such as if a council of some sort is elected by the people, and this council then elects the head of state. In these kinds of republics the usual term for a president is in the range of four to six years. In some countries the constitution limits the number of terms the same person can be elected as president.
Republics are often associated with democracy, which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives (see: res publica). This association between "republic" and "democracy" is however far from a general understanding, even if acknowledging that there are several forms of democracy.
So basically a republic is an Anti-Monarchy, although republics have developed into forms of it. The Roman republic was a good example.
This isn't a subject that can be boiled down to a few points, because there are several forms of republics, democratic ones included...lol.
Our version is solidified by our Constitution. So we need to get back to that before we become once again a monarchy... or worse..
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
Wow
I disagree with Gravel on so many levels, where could I begin? Direct democracy is mob rule.. and he completely ignores this because it would serve his ends.
There is no way those in power would give up their power without a revolution. Our way is slow, but by replacing those in power with individuals that care about liberty, we can adjust the laws such as voting laws, ballot access, campaign contributuons, etc. But to suggest an amendment is really foolish. The state legislatures would have to pass said amendment, but they're controlled by the very same power structure!!! Sure we can try to propose an amendment as the People... but it will go unheard, just as the Ron Paul revolution went unheard due to the media blackout.
But even if the amendment were ratified, it would be a horrible thing. The question was asked and ignored, what would stop the majority from ruling the minority... which is the exact question that would need to be answered. Gravel's answer was to suggest that laws would prevent such actions... but if laws were created by the majority and repealed by a majority, what the hell kind of answer is that? It would be insane to allow the majority to control the minority, especially when the majority figures out that they can bankrupt the minority through their laws and their associated threats of force.
The correct action to laws we disagree with is to vote out the representatives that are responsible for these laws... which is exactly what we're attempting to do right now. The other action is to spread the word about jury nullification... we the People hold the power to decide which laws are not valid. Civil disobedience is powerful and must not be underestimated.
put to rest that conundrum
...what would stop the majority from ruling the minority...
I'm not arguing in favor of direct democracy, but right now we have a minority (effectively an oligarchy) ruling the majority. I have to admit that I'd prefer mob rule to this situation. But truly restoring our Constitutional Republic would put to rest that conundrum.
"We don't have to start a brand new revolution...All we have to do is restore the original Constitution." -Ron Paul
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
I agree on direct democracy...but representative is no better
See my post below. Political democracy is coercive. Therefore it is immoral.
Voluntary democracy is the only acceptable form.
Aside from him joining the
Aside from him joining the Libertarian party, I think Mike Gravel was much better than both Clinton or Obama when he was in the Democratic party.
...
Mikey's direct democracy initiative?
According to the principles of liberty...
a)Democracy (rule by the majority) is fine if it voluntary.
b) However, coercive democracy is immoral. This is what democracy is in a political sense is.
Thus, the solution is not to transfer the power of political democracy...it is to abolish it.
8th
Gravel will come in 8th at the LP nominating convention. He doesn't know what the zero aggression principle is? He could never win the hearts of the hard-core libertarians who will be at that convention. He is NOT a libertarian. Some of his beliefs are libertarian and that's it.
Education is a Process
Libertarians will argue him into the right path. Don't worry.
I often say that liberals would be libertarians if they understood economics, and conservatives would be libertarians if they understood human nature. They're two sides of the same coin and can't be dealt with separately. (As Ron Paul says, somehow we tried to split freedom into halves.)
When liberals and conservatives mature and have had the life experience of trying to get government, in the form of voters, their elected representatives and government bureaucrats, manage economics and morality, they realize that libertarianism is the approach that works best.
Conservatives should be happy to have power over morality, charity and social values returned to religious and other institutions, and liberals should be happy to have government get out of the business of enslaving workers and depriving them of their self-sufficiency.
IMissLiberty
IMissLiberty
Gravel and the zero aggression principle...
wow, you could tell he wasn't entirely certain what it was.
Plus, was anyone else flabbergasted when he said he was now for competition in health care?
Did anyone else get the feelign that he was fibbing?
Gravel is clueless and not a libertarian
What is he doing joining the Libertarian Party is he's not a libertarian? He says he believes in majority rule. A fundamental libertarian principle is that the majority should not be allowed to rule over the individual. He's not a libertarian and doesn't understand constitutional republicanism.
Correct. Gravel is a waste.
Correct. Gravel is a waste. He's a pre-Clinton era Democrat, from what I can see. He certainly seems to be another in a long line of characters, like Bill Maher, who are more "Lib" than "Libertarian". And no, I will not vote for him.
Gravel's also too old for a general public that perceives John McCain as being much too old. (I know Ron Paul is also in his 70s, but he looks substantially more animated and alert than Gravel and McCain.)
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Yes, he doesn't know much about the philosophy...
plus is it just me or does he seem to be going senile at times?
He looks to me to be a very poor listener.