Comments on: July 4th is a Scam

By: Klaatu Fabrice Aquinas

Klaatu Fabrice Aquinas — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 22:00:00 +0000

Well………………… all well and good. Except, What happens when the net goes down in our next Carrington Event? Will things look like “Jericho,” “Revolution,” or even “Falling Skies.” Dare I propose a “Fallout x,” or “third option Deus Ex” scenario. Everyone one of those are plausible, including super mutant experiments and Y-17 harness in black labs.

The problem with direct (pure) democracy (even before “Skynet” et al), whether it is ancient Rome or a Star Trek Federation, as the astute Fred Reed posits, it is still tantamount to spitting in public and will eventually devolve into mob rule. Even if it is a super-majority (2/3), you still have 1/3 subjected to a form of slavery (or worse, summary execution) by the will of the 2/3s. Where are the checks and balances? Did any of us read Plato about real democracy? Democratic ideals (especially in a Febronian-Bellarminian democratic-republican CHURCH STATE) is not the same as pure democracy.

As another has posited, how long can we expect for the masses to be educated to the point of making informed decisions? I’m talking critical thinking skills/logic. As Gordon Duff (Senior Editor of Veterans Today, Vietnam combat Marine/sniper vet, multiple expertise [especially in nuclear weapons]) says, we at present have ~half of the American populace either institutional idiots, and the other ~half educated morons (including most Ph.Ds), with probably less than 1% genuinely informed and trained in required critical thinking skills.

Our founders were not stupid. Jefferson implored us to reexamine our polices (govt.) every generation, which would basically constitute a convention or national referendum every 25 years. What is good and proper for the father/mother is not necessarily so for their son/daughter/grandchildren. Madison, along with Locke, and even Milton understood proper separation of church and state, and the necessity for “civil religion.” (which has nothing to do with faith [The Gospel], and everything to do with The Law)

We probably made a wrong turn post the Articles of Confederation. Public decisions are better made at the local level. Not at the national. What is good and proper in Houston is probably not much so in Boston. Don’t like it in Houston, then move to Boston. You vote with your feet. We can disagree, but not having to resort to kill each other.

Col. Douglas Macgregor has stated that this land is going to experience quite a catharsis very soon. A paradigm shift is inevitable. No one knows for sure what is going to ensue. But it probably will not look anything like the present or even the past (recent or remote). Most have no clue as to what are our true outside hostile threats to our — humanity. It is not Russia nor China, nor even Islam. Altucher, one thing you did get right is it is the District of Criminals, along with Tel Aviv, Berlin (some even say Trier and/or Bonn), The City of London, and — Rome (The Vatican).

A “One World” electronic electorate? I don’t think so …

For further study:

Read Veterans Today daily
“Rulers of Evil” by F. Tupper Saussy (Really explains the BrEaIndCo and Sun-tzu)

Everything you can devour by John Taylor Gatto (especially as that quoted what both Remarque and Bonhoeffer elucidate about the two “great wars.”)

“From Sea to Shining Sea” free download at itunes. Eight hours of lecture and discussion (seminar) on civic affairs and civil religion with Dr. Joel Biermann.
To get in deep with technology as it complements (and contrasts) theology, I recommend Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

This will keep your plate quite full for a year or so. Depending on how fast you read and comprehend.

By: grega711

grega711 — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:08:00 +0000

Hey James — Great post. Really got people talking. But how do you deal with what you said above in paragraph 1:

“The Founders, who were all male, white, landowners, didn’t trust the
servants. Several were on record saying the servants (and certainly not
women or slaves) should not vote since their votes would just go the way
of the landowner. (Noted HBO star, John Adams said, “…men who are
wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public
affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to
have a will of their own”.) So they wanted to set up a system where
even if the masses were against an issue, the landowners could force it
through.”

You seem to ignore what the Founding Fathers concluded after studying pure democracies in the past. You summarized it well. Then seemed to ignore it in your suggestions.

I’d appreciate it if you’d explain why.

By: Bob Richards

Bob Richards — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 05:03:00 +0000

kind of like the average idiot in Congress. The people in Congress are no more or less intelligent than the general public. Those who vote on issues will be the more intelleigent anyway.

By: Bob Richards

Bob Richards — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 05:02:00 +0000

Every aspect of abolishing congress is superior to the current situation. I am happy to debate with anyone. What’s the next step? What is the process by which this would happen?

By: mlk12

mlk12 — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:04:00 +0000

Absolutely it should be allowed, the percentage of Congress members who actually read a bill being voted on is something like 17%. And since they all are liars, I think the actual percentage is more like 0.5%.

By: mlk12

mlk12 — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:59:00 +0000

Actually if politics were not what it is today and we did not need the media to inform us of what the laws being introduced for a vote were, this would not be a problem at all. This is because today, the majority here HATE and I mean HATE with every ounce of their being having to deal with even the mention of politics. Even though the minority of us can try and tell them till were blur in the face that it is those things that control your every aspect of your life. Why don’t you want to know about this stuff? They just don’t care about it because they have better things to do with their time than argue over so much pointless BS that in the current realm of politics seems so distant and removed from our lives. Once a one person, one vote means it gets counted that way for electing the president or changing laws, the amount of interest in the politics of the country will be much much more. How to run it so it too is not just an electronic method of manipulating the actual votes cast to turn out the way the bankers and other 1% desire is the real trick to get right and honest. So far though that is an impossibility it seems.

By: James Altucher

James Altucher — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:09:00 +0000

You say “most people don’t understand about politics” as a reason we shouldn’t want them to vote directly on issues. it turns out that almost 99% of congressmen didn’t read the healthcare bill before they voted on it. It also turns out that most congressmen trade stocks in issues related to bills they are currently debating. Hence their returns as a group have been up 30% per year during the financial crisis.

I think you don’t give enough credit to the America people and too much credit to the people ripping us off.

By: Richard Dykiel

Richard Dykiel — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:27:00 +0000

I’m a bit puzzled by this; at the time we were framing the US constitution, democracies and republics were considered to be historic failures: the greek, roman, dutch experiments had devolved into oligarchies, tyrannies, monarchies. So the US constitution was designed after many debates and a lot of thinking went into it (see Federalist Papers). It’s been working for 200+ years and IMO provides the best framework that I know for my own pursuit of happiness. You may criticize with reason the bad things we dis in the past, but we’re not the only evil ones: everybody oppressed, massacred, colonized and took advantage of weaker cultures. Granted the Brits got rid of slavery earlier than us, but have a look at how they tamed India: not pretty either. And they invented the concept of the “white man’s burden” if I recall.
Now for your suggestion of Internet voting: I seem to recall that our system of representation was intentionally designed to put a distance between the people and the legislators, so that making laws would be difficult, and long, so that passions could be cooled down with time. Also, the intention was to provide a way to protect the minority opinion from the tyranny of the majority. Technology won’t change human nature: how do you propose to preserve this with your direct democracy? We already have flash mobs roaming the streets, financial trading at gigahertz frequency wrecking our economy, I’m not sure I want to add high-frequency legislating, driven by the latest fads, to this mix. Somebody said that the best laws are the most general, and the most remote from particular situations. We want to avoid the tangle of mega-laws running hundreds of pages that nobody can master, and that everybody ends up violating unwittingly. How would we avoid these pitfalls with Internet legislating? Granted, the current system produced monsterlaws also. I don’t know how to improve this, other than voting for people pushing for smaller government.Finally about corrupt congress – ah.. .human nature…. Ultimately we are responsible of this if we keep re-electing them; with the Internet we have no excuses for ignoring their behavior. These last years I have seen more primary challenges against incumbents and I think this is a good thing. I hope we have more of these.

By: Ben Hanke

Ben Hanke — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:13:00 +0000

James,
Why do you use disconnected imperfections to support a disrespect for existing institutions?
You are young, I am young. The internet is new and exciting, and both of us has used it to his benefit, and become enamored with its potential.

Some points:
– Most people don’t understand most of what’s going on in politics. Letting everyone vote on everything would be a nightmare.
– The option to “only vote on issues that we cared about” would not be a solution. The majority of people would vote emotionally without understanding the significance of bills, or not vote at all on the complicated bills.
– The Declaration was a pledge to the ideals of the Enlightenment, which was all about natural rights, and freedoms, and rational thinking. The signers didn’t necessarily have the same motivations, but they made an important and revolutionary document nonetheless.
– A war on slavery would by no means have been avoided by the colonies’ continued union with Britain. The reason the colonies revolted was because they were being told what to do by a far-off assembly which they didn’t identify with. It would have been no different if the 1833 decree had been applied to the southern colonies.

We must be certain not to throw out the order of the past in the excitement of new ideas. The Constitution is just as applicable today as ever, and the existence of young idealists like ourselves is part of the reason it’s difficult to amend.

By: Cory Suter

Cory Suter — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:37:00 +0000

Please visit http://www.DirectCongress.org

We are working to develop the trustworthy online voting website that you so passionately describe here. Eventually, we will be able to replace Representatives with the informed and democratic vote of the people.