This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Do We Need Politicians, Or Can We Cut Out the Middleman?
American Politicians Are Bought and Paid For
Virtually all independent economists and financial experts agree that the economy cannot stabilize or recover unless the giant, insolvent banks are broken up (and here and here). And the very size of the big banks is also warping our entire political system.
Politicians are wholly bought and paid for. As famed trend forecaster Gerald Celente writes in the current Trends Journal:
Politics today is little more than legalized prostitution. While a streetwalker gets busted for selling her body to a john, politicians get rewarded with campaign contributions for selling their souls to a corporation or lobbyist. With all of the whoring going on – the money exchanged and the pleasures lavished – the only one actually getting screwed was John Q. Public.
But the chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University (Donald J. Boudreaux) says that calling politicians prostitutes is inaccurate – because it is being too nice. Specifically, Boudreaux says that it is more correct to call politicians “pimps”, since they are pimping out the American people to the financial giants.
So the state of banking and politics in America is grim, indeed. But do we really even need banks or politicians? Or can we cut out the middle man?
This post looks at whether we can use Direct Democracy to cut out the corrupt political middleman. In a separate essay, we look at whether we can use alternative financial arrangements to cut out the big banks as financial middleman.
Do We Need Politicians … Or Can We Cut Out the Corrupt Middleman?Gerald Celente writes in this month’s Trends Journal:
For some years we’ve been seeing the promising stirrings of a global Renaissance; a “new order” that would reject the gross materialism, excessive consumerism and glorified militarism that has dominated contemporary western societies. But each initiative undertaken to retrofit and change the failing system has had its momentum blocked or sabotaged by the entrenched agents of “no change.”
***
Therefore, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only solution is to take that control from the handful of “them” – the power possessors and power brokers – and put the power into the hands of the people. But how?
***
I propose … of Direct Democracy – a potentially globe-changing movement that would replace today’s “representative democracy.” Positive change will not and cannot occur until power is taken away from the power obsessed.
While, in 2011, no one would dream of reinstituting the divine right of kings, what is passed off today as “Democracy” is little more than a structure to clandestinely
support an ersatz nobility that perpetuates that very divine right practice.
The Direct Democracy solution I propose will not only transfer power to the public (for better or for worse!), it will make “we the people” fully responsible for creating the future. The choice is stark. Either we take action to create our destiny, or others will continue to create it for us … and judging by past performance, we’re not
going to like what they create.
***
Regardless of who is elected – Republican or Democrat – the only solution I can see at this time that could save America (and be applied worldwide) is to take the power out of the hands of politicians and put it into the hands of the people.
In Switzerland, where this is practiced, it is called “Direct Democracy.” The people vote on major issues that affect them locally and globally, and the elected officials (whether they agree or not) perform their duties as “public servants,” carrying out the will of the people.
The US and other nations that call themselves “democratic” have “representative democracy.” In theory, elected officials pledged to carry out (represent) the will of the people. But, in practice, at least in modern memory, most elected officials carry out the will of special interests whose “campaign contributions” (a.k.a. bribes and payoffs) assure their subservience. While most everybody knows this, it’s both tolerated and accepted as political business as usual.
***
Given today’s dire socioeconomic and geopolitical conditions and our forecast for them to dramatically deteriorate, I believe that changing from a faux-representative democracy to Direct Democracy would be a giant step in the right direction. If the Swiss can do it successfully, why can’t anyone else?
***
WHERE TO START Understanding the tremendous power that social networking played in galvanizing the revolutions of the “Arab Spring” and the uprisings and protests raging through Europe, I propose using the same model to bring about a Direct Democracy revolution.
***
It should never be forgotten that no law is immutable. Laws are made only to be superseded by new laws. No clearer example can be given than the wholesale raping of the Constitution by the Supreme Court and successive presidents. What better time to write a new one? If the Founding Fathers could pull it off with horses, sheer will and quill pens, surely 21st century revolutionaries can make Direct Democracy a reality with the strokes of a keyboard. Not only can the Internet serve as the galvanizing force
to bring about Direct Democracy, it can also be used as the 21st century ballot box.
“Voting online could be subject to hacking and fraud,” the entrenched parties will argue. But casting a vote online is no more susceptible to “irregularities” than casting a vote at the polling place … be it stuffing the ballot boxes or rigging the voting machines.
In fact, voting online, with full transparency, would prove more secure than any polling place run by party operatives. I say, “If you can bank online, buy online, gamble on line, you can vote online!” Going to vote should be easier than going to the ATM. And if you don’t have your own computer, there’s always the polling place.
It is due time Thomas Jefferson’s vision that “… in due time the voice of the people will be heard and their latent wisdom will prevail,” prevails.
***
Publisher’s Note: “Representative Democracy,” the form of government we adhere to in the West, is no more than a cruel sham, a bone thrown to the proles following the overthrow of the aristocracies of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. The restive public was gulled into believing that, by voting for members of political parties pledged to represent their interests, their voices would be heard.
While attractive in principle, in practice, political parties come to represent the same very rich and very powerful interests that have ruled throughout history. Only the names and ranks have changed. No longer called Kings, Queens, Czars, Dukes and Barons, the new aristocracy is called the “too big to fail.”
***
Thinking people everywhere are recognizing that Direct Democracy can provide a blueprint for revolution in the New Millennium. Non-violent, intellectually and philosophically sound, emotionally empowering, and potentially inexorable … the greatest obstacle to Direct Democracy is to do nothing.
Celente also includes in his latest newsletter an article on direct democracy from Thomas H. Naylor. Naylor is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Duke University. For thirty years, he taught economics, management science, and computer science at Duke. As an international management consultant specializing in strategic management, Dr. Naylor has advised major corporations and governments in over thirty countries.
Naylor writes:
Taking note of the unsustainable, unfixable, gridlock nature of the US government and its inability to fix the American economy, Gerald Celente has proposed that the United States turn to Swiss-style Direct Democracy as an alternative way to resolve such divisive issues as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the magnitude of the government’s budget deficit, how to finance health care, the size of the defense budget, and national immigration policy. He envisions this being carried out on the Internet.
***
Over the past 700 or so years Switzerland has developed a unique social and political structure, with a strong emphasis on federalism and Direct Democracy….
Switzerland has a coalition government with a rotating presidency, in which the president serves for only one year. Many Swiss do not know who of the seven Federal Councillors in the government is the president at any given time, since he or she is first among equals. In Switzerland a petition signed by 100,000 voters can force a nationwide vote on a proposed constitutional change and the signatures of only 50,000 voters can force a national referendum on any federal law passed by Parliament.
Among the high profile issues that have been resolved by Swiss national referendums are women’s voting rights, abortion rights, creation of a new canton, abolition of the army, and Swiss membership in the League of Nations, United Nations, World Bank, IMF, and the European Union.
***
Most political scientists agree that the Swiss have taken the concept of democracy to levels heretofore unattainable any place else in the world. In his excellent book Direct Democracy in Switzerland (Transaction Publishers, 2002), Gregory Fossedal describes Switzerland as “a Direct Democracy, in which, to an extent, the people pass their own laws, judge the constitutionality of statutes, and even have written, in effect, their own constitution.” That’s a lot!
All of this is in stark contrast to the United States in which our government is owned, operated, and controlled by Wall Street, Corporate America, the Pentagon, and domestic and foreign lobbies. Whereas the primary role of Swiss Direct Democracy is to protect the Swiss people from the Swiss government, the US government is more concerned with protecting its powerful clients from the will of the American people. In Switzerland the people own their government. In the
United States the government owns us.
[Given how much larger the U.S. is than Switzerland, and our different politicial system, it would be challenging to institute Direct Democracy in the U.S.]
But the alternative is a nation whose government has lost its moral authority and is tightly controlled by a self-serving military/industrial/congressional complex accountable only to itself – a nation that has become unsustainable economically, militarily, socially, environmentally, and politically. The United States is so large that it may no longer be governable and has possibly become unfixable.
If there is a way out of our nation’s death spiral, Direct Democracy just might be one of our last remaining viable options. We could do a lot worse than emulate the Swiss.
If American politicians have become so corrupt that they are beyond redemption, maybe we should use Direct Democracy to cut out the middleman.
And see this analysis by Yves Smith of how the direct democracy-like process involved in the Wall Street protests is one of its greatest strengths.
Wouldn’t Direct Democracy Lead to Mob Rule?Some have expressed concern that direct democracy would lead to “mob rule”. In response to such fears, Gerald Celente responds:
Mob Rule? That’s precisely what we have now. The Wall Street Mob Rules. The Republican and Democrats? They’re nothing more than the White Shoe Boyz version of the Gambino’s and Bonnano’s.
Mob rule? “We the People” are too stupid to think for ourselves? What self respecting individual would look up to a House of Weiners to make life and death decisions for them? A Congressional Gang of 535 controlling the lives of 312 million … that’s mob rule!
We’re too stupid? We should bend over and suck up to The Gang of 535 … the DC Drama Queens and the Beltway Circle Jerks that put on a summer long Debt Ceiling Soap Opera … the inept and incompetents whose public spectacle was cited by Standard & Poor’s as a reason for the downgrading of US debt?
Those opposed to “Let the People Vote” are either party operatives, entrenched interests or little minds that can’t think … or are afraid to think … for themselves.
»
- advertisements -
All due respect, Dolly, but we don't need any thug rulers at all.. and that includes the crowd-thug of democracy.
The state is a scam and always was a scam.
Except in the unicorn land of Randers like you, thugs tend to appear and take control even if we don't want or "need" them. See Hitler, Stalin, et al. But I'm sure you'd say this time it will be different. Let's abandon a Constitutional democracy in favor of everyone pointing a gun at each other and saying "leave me alone or I'll shoot" What could go wrong?
The United State is NOT a democracy. It is a REPUBLIC. There's a difference. Educate your self. You have no excuse.
Do you like crackers, too? "JB wants a cracker. JB wants a cracker. Pretty bird."
...
Exactly. And that's all anyone need understand.
Oh, boy! Mob-rule of the highest level. That'll make it all so much better.
While I agree that substantial change in most political system is direly needed:
"Direct Democracy" = MOB RULE.
Not the way I want to go.
Certainly the elite have long spread the notion of "mob rule" as such a negative thing.
Everyone who thinks direct democracy would always end up with lots of giveaways to the majority should do some research on Switzerland. Switzerland is less socialist than many countries without direct democracy. They tend to use the referendum the most, and usually the politicians fix the egregious bill before it ends up being voted on by the people. They use their initiative process the least, and tend to only pass conservative laws that way.
Then also realize that if we had some direct democracy at the federal level, we probably would not have bailed out the banks. It was wildly unpopular at the time.
How about using direct democracy to end the Fed? How about California's prop 13 to keep property taxes from rising wildly with huge increases in property values? How about the legalization of medical marijuana in California? Many good things have come from the direct democracy in California. Open your eyes and see it. Don't just accept what the elite spread about "mob rule."
I've opened my eyes and read a lot of history. Democracy devolves into mob rule.
Your small examples have little relation to a giant system over time. However bad a republic may be, democracy is worse.
I'm curious: what examples of democracy did you look at?
Greeks in general, Athens in particular, others in passing.
Note also that the economies of that time were based upon slavery. That made every voter a property owner and tax-payer, which prolonged the stable period. Democracy in the current situation - where a near-majority of voters are net takers from the pot - would degenerate MUCH faster.
I've never investigated vivisection but the dictionary definition alone makes me want to avoid it.
Please do give examples. I'm sure I don't know about every example of direct democracy. I do know that in Greece the birthplace of democracy, they did not actually have a sysetem where everyone got to vote in their direct democracy. Only military men got to vote, and it ended up falling apart from excessive warring, which is not so surprising given that the only people with a vote were the military. I'd love to hear more examples if you'd tell.
dolly: See my comments above.
As a sovereign individual I have the freedom to make all my own choices about my own life. In a democracy I trade that freedom for a one in 300 million say in what everybody will be forced to do.
I have no desire to tell others what to do and if I did then having a one in three hundred million share in the decision making process would be rather unsatisfying.
Why do you want to give others control over your life in exchange for a minuscule amount of power to make other people do what you want them to do?
I would say the problem I have with what you say is that I don't think it is going to happen. I don't think enough people will support it. Because most people are uncomfortable with too much change at one time, I think they will not choose what you propose. However, because adding processes for initiative, referendum and recall to the Federal constitution is not that big of a change, I think there is a chance that people may go for it, and it is enough to stop much bad.
Perhaps if we do not change things soon enough, they will fall apart very badly, and then more people might be open to ideas like personal sovereignty.
Bingo.
And exactly how is it that you don't think a warlord society of might makes right would not appear if our democracy were to go away? The minuscule amount of power that you bemoan is aggregated in a Democracy to prevent a few with really big weapons from controlling everyone else through whatever rules they chose at the moment.
How would living under warlords be any worse than living in a world where my own president can blow me up by remote control without a trial?
To speak practically of the world in which I live, my neighbors have never tried to kill me and the few strangers who have robbed me have taken far less from my pocket than the government has taken. People want peace and security and they are willing to behave in a manner which encourages that end. Free people are also willing to protect their lives and property when they are threatened. They are willing to help neighbors do this as well.
No market participant has ever tried to hunt me down and kill me with a missile. No market participant has ever committed any crime that compares with the crimes committed by government. Can you name one entrepreneur responsible for anything approaching the Holocaust or Hiroshima?
All of the good things you just observed about our society exist precisely because of the democracy you detest. Or even if you won't accept that, they certainly all exist in the democracy you detest. So it seems what you want you already have. Ironic, isn't it.
So now you're just making nonsense arguments? I suppose that it's hard to defend the murder of a quarter to a half a billion people by governments during the course of the 20th century.
So let's hear a clear, rational argument why you think it's good for the government to kill innocent people and why I should be happy to pay for it.
And let's hear the name of the businessmen who have hurt more people than those with government power have. Show me the Holocausts and Hiroshimas of the free market or remain in cowardly retreat.
LetThemEatRand's comments are not valid. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. Many people have lost sight of that fact, due to our State sponsored education obfuscates that fact. LetThemEatRand is just one more sad example of the lack of education in this country, which is even more sad when you think about the fact that due to the internet, we have the greatest depository of knowledge in the history of the world literally at our fingertips.
But wait, I thought you guys hated scholars? All that book learnin' is dangerous. The article describes at length the distinction you make, and the entire discussion that you dismiss out of hand because of the use of the word "democracy" (the definition of which includes, by the way, a government "by the people"), is a debate about the merits of a true direct democracy instead of the representative government in which we democratically elect representatives. Get over your talk radio talking points, clown. Of course once you guys get beyond the silly fights over these sorts of issues, you've got nothing left. So carry I, on suppose. Rush would be proud.
Where did we learn about Ayn Rand and Objectivism if it wasn't in books?
Quite right, Crockett, in any type of democracy your life is fully subject to the wills of others.
Freedom, it ain't.
We do not need direct democracy to eliminate the Fed. Read the 61st article of the Magna Carta. All we need is a LEGAL Grand Jury of 25. Juries do not merely judge on guilt or innocence, juries ALSO judge the law, and juries' decisions are irreversible. there are numerous cases in which the accused absolutely was guilty of the accusations, yet was acquitted BECAUSE THE JURY DETERMINED THE LAW TO BE WRONG.
We HAVE the power. All we need to do is take it back. The Tax Code and IRS are criminal fraud. Al Capone was NOT found guilty of income tax evasion. He was found guilty of not paying taxes on the alcohol he smuggled into the States. Figure out that, and why the BATF and IRS are T:E SAME THING, and you will figure out why every politician is guilty of fraud and why a LEGAL Grand Jury of 25 could issue a presentment, followed by an indictment, followed by a judgment.
WE HAVE THE POWER. WE ARE THE PEOPLE. The government, despite its opinion on the matter, IS SUBJECT TO THE PEOPLE. This is the law of the United States. Period.
Right. And who will enforce the ruling of the grand jury against all the power of the police state and military of the USSA?
You?
We the People will enforce it. There are 300 million of us. The deer hunters of the midwest comprise the largest militia in history. We the People are Literally the largest army in the world.
Am I advocating violence? Absolutely not. But if it comes to that, the People WILL win. Our military might can't even put down insurrection in Iraq. They would never be able to stop us.
(Yeah, nuclear option, I suppose, but who would want to live in a country they just nuked?)
If that was true, we would already have tried and hung about 99.9999% of the officials and employees of the federal government. Understand this. I agree that what you propose is what SHOULD happen. I see ZERO evidence this will happen.
I keep hoping we're simply a hair short of "the hair that broke the camel's back", and next week hundreds of millions of armed liberty patriots will exterminate ALL "official" predators in government and corporations.
I agree the predators-that-be could not handle millions of armed americans, and I suspect that a large portion of the military would join "the people" against their supposed masters. The problem is, I don't believe many "real men" remain, at least none that are willing to collaborate in any coherent manner.
Unlike previous times in history, the predators-that-be have technology that can cement their enslavement of the masses and make it PERMANENT. Therefore, this is the LAST CHANCE for mankind to avoid becoming PERMANENT slaves of the predators. Unfortunately, even pro-liberty people are so confused that they no longer have the clarity of conviction that is required to motivate them to dangerous action. What is missing is not guns and ammo. What is missing is intellectual clarity and dedication.
State National Guards, working in conjunction with Sherriffs, who, if granted the authority similar to that held by the position under Scots Law, would be responsible for much of the civil courts authority, while under ultimate authority of a Grand Jury, and indictable for misfeasance or nonfeasance.
Lost in the discussion here appears to be the two salient points which GW managed to make in the end:
and
Exactly. The reduction of authority to it's logical and sustainable base of support, the county, is the true means of cutting off the head of the hydra. From that base, States can begin to reform themselves into possible multi-celled organisms that don't metastasize into malignant form from the corruption of low level players.
For that to work of course, it's essential that all those tasked with enforcement(eg National Guardsmen and police) know exactly where their paychecks come from.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absence of foreign threat made for the perfect opportunity to start the process of collapsing the federal octopus and reassigning control into responsible hands...the so called war on terror was designed to abort that process.
+1 Excellent analysis, Joyful.
As an anarchist, I'd like to see no government -- but I realise that we are at least a few generations away from being able to educate the welfare mentality into the benefits of free association and "local solutions to local issues". So, your interim step from the status quo -- of reverting back to manageable sovereign states -- is a step in the right direction. SECEDE NOW!!
tru nuff dat...but allow me one rejoinder...I would never call myself an "anarchist" in this day n age, cause that subspecies was rendered extinct by the left n right "a few generations" back...last known authentic sighting being the stupidly brave souls who stood up to the CFR/CIA's Castroite Coup and died for their effort(see http://www.scribd.com/doc/16121207/Dolgoff-Sam-The-Cuban-revolution-A-cr... - for the story)
...no tactical gain from putting oneself voluntarily on the 'endangered species' list. Besides which, the giants of a past era, Mahkno, Durruti, et al, will never be duplicated...it behooves us to stay humble, in honoring their legacy, and simply call ourselves ENEMIES OF THE STATE.
imho.
I like you JB. I had considered this when on GJ duty in NJ a couple of years ago but had no idea what to do.
We have quite a bit of Direct Democracy - via the Intiative process - in Mexifornia. See how well its worked.
Please say how you think it hasn't worked in California.
If it's working in Switzerland, that's a good thing.
The "system" is much too entrenched for it to work in the US. That would require revolution.
I agree it would require revolution.
RT: "YAAAy! TwitTer DeMoCraCy everyone!"
RT: "RT for FREE HEALTHCARE"
Yaaay...all we need is one vote more than the minority to force the 49% to give us a service!
For free!!!
Yaaay!!!
Yaaay...all we need is one vote more than the minority to force the 49% to give us a service!
For free!!!
Yaaay!!!
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
After two hundred of experiences, We the US citizens have decided that we have determined the better system is when five per cent of the population vote themselves transfer of wealth to them from the 95 pc other.
It is the conclusion of our remarkable unique experiment in the history of mankind.
Interesting that people who believe the "free market" is some kind of panacea, believe that a direct democracy would be the worst hell on earth. Last time I checked, the same group of sheep would be participating in both the free market and the direct democracy. Or do you envision that most people will simply be controlled by force or threat of starvation by the wealthy elite in the Randian "free market" utopia?
A free market is free because the people involved are free to act in any way they chose as long as it doesn't hurt another person or his property. No version of democracy can claim the same thing.
Why are people so afraid of being free to make their own choices? Why are they so intimidated by others who wish to be free?
A free market is free because the people involved are free to act in any way they chose as long as it doesn't hurt another person or his property.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It means nothing.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Why are people so afraid of being free to make their own choices? Why are they so intimidated by others who wish to be free?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If those people who want to be free (US style of freedom) makes sense, maybe, well...
Problem is that US citizens propaganda has been growing cheaper by the day, so it is less and less enticing.
Claiming that an idea means nothing because you fail to comprehend its meaning is not a successful strategy for understanding the diversity of the world around you.
You are stating a distinction without a difference because you are merely repeating back what you've read from your Dear Leader and you haven't thought it through. Even in your Randian Unicorn world there must be police officers, armies and laws. If you believe the entire population will self-govern effectively through your Free Market, then why could it not do so through direct democracy which is the ultimate free market of political will? Unless -- as is true -- you realize that the uber wealthy will effectively run the place in Randworld and that is the true goal. What is probably not true is that you will be one of them. Yet all of you Randers believe you will be on top of the heap.
Rand was a minarchist. She said that the proper role of government was to provide internal and external security. You agree with her on that and I do not. How long has she been your leader?
I am an anarchist. I can procure any service I desire including security and adjudication in the market.
If direct democracy is identical to free choice then would you accept having a direct democratic vote to determine your meals, your wardrobe and your sexual partners? If not, why not?
Your argument that direct democracy would result in a vote on my meals, wardrobe and sexual partners is rather ironic. In our current system, all of those things are actually controlled in a very real way. I cannot go nude into the street. In most places, I can only marry one person of the opposite sex. Until recently, ethnicty was a restriction in many locales. I cannot eat anything with a substance that the government has decided is illegal. In your anarchist world, anyone with a bigger gun and more ammo will make those decisions for me if he wants to bother (and unless you have a stealth bomber in your basement, don't tell me you have the biggest gun. Those WMDs and high tech weapons don't magically disaappear even if our government were to do so). So what's left? Your system sucks, the current system sucks.
In your anarchist world, anyone with a bigger gun and more ammo will make those decisions
The same old stupid canard. Fear-mongering.
Right now, one gang has all the big weapons and all the authorization to use them. They make the decisions. You like this arrangement. You defend it, at the expense of people looking for better ways to live.
Then, you define yourself by being against someone who spent most of her life trying to define what was good and right.
Like Jefferson, I'd rather deal with the problems of too much liberty, rather than those of too little. You evidently see it differently.
What you seek is an illusion of Liberty. Jefferson saw the value of government and helped found what you detest. Like most who follow idealogical celebrities (Stalin, Keynes, Marx, Rand), you fail to account for human nature in your preferred answer to the world's problems. You advance a solution that history has proven again and again and again will not occur. Most human beings for whatever reason want to rally around a King. Ask the Russians who want Putin. Ask the voters who elected Bush and Reagan. Ask the Germans who supported Hitler. You simply ignore that reaity in favor of an idea that has never worked throughout the entire history of our species. So to that extent, yes, we see it differently.