“New Paradigm of Human Governance” – 2008 LP POTUS candidate Senator Gravel to Speak at Contact in the Desert Conference

Former United States Senator and unsuccessful 2008 candidate for both the Democratic Party and Libertarian Party Presidential nominations, Mike Gravel is scheduled to present a two-hour lecture on Sunday, 21 May 2017, titled “A NEW PARADIGM OF HUMAN GOVERNANCE” at this year’s Contact In the Desert conference near Joshua Tree California.  Contact in the Desert is described as, “A weekend of exploration into ancient astronauts, extraterrestrial life, human origins, crop circles, UFO sightings, contact experiences and the need to know.” Other speakers include Graham Hancock, Erich von Däniken, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Jacques Vallee, Laura Eisenhower (a great-granddaughter of President Eisenhower).  Tickets are available HERE.

A Press Release by Contact In the Desert organizers titled: “For the First Time in History a US Senator Will Speak Publicly on the UFO Issue!” can be found HERE.

Senator Gravel’s presentation is an apparent expansion of the ideas he first presented in his 1971 book, Citizen Power which was updated and rereleased for his 2008 POTUS campaign.  A description of his presentation states, “The new paradigm is direct democracy, where citizens are empowered to make laws at all levels of government. Lawmaking is the central power of government. Had the people been endowed with this power the government would never have been allowed to keep UFO knowledge from the people. The only way we can strip this power from government censors is to empower citizens with the sovereignty of governance by enacting the National Citizens Initiative for Democracy.”

In 2014 Senator Gravel joined former LP Presidential nominee Governor Gary Johnson’s Cannabis Sativa company.  See prior IPR coverage HERE.

In May 2013, IPR ran an article titled, “Mike Gravel Interviewed About The Citizen Hearing On Disclosure” where the former senator was quoted as saying:

“Something is monitoring the planet, and they are monitoring it very cautiously, because we are a very warlike planet,”

The article is available HERE.

In September 2010, IPR ran an article titled “Mike Gravel: Both US major parties are corrupt, so let’s try direct democracy” available HERE.

 

 

 

12 thoughts on ““New Paradigm of Human Governance” – 2008 LP POTUS candidate Senator Gravel to Speak at Contact in the Desert Conference

  1. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    “The new paradigm is direct democracy, where citizens are empowered to make laws at all levels of government. Lawmaking is the central power of government. ”

    I’m sure it will be interesting. Of course, direct democracy to be libertarian-oriented must be Super=Majority: involve votes by MOST eligible citizens (say 95%) and only pass “laws” by say 90% of them. Then you wouldn’t have a lot of special interest laws. And there should be minority repeal where if, any time after 3 -6 months, depending, a repeal referendum could be initiated that might need only 30 percent of 50 percent of eligible citizens. Between those two proposals, special interests don’t have too much hope of passing anything.

    Of course, the other issue is “levels of government.” There are FAR too many and they all mean more confusion and ignorance by voters and more opportunities for tyranny and graft by special interests, including politicians and bureaucrats themselves.

    Libertarians believe in the right to secession. Most people DO want to live in communities of some type. Self-determination of local counties, towns, cities, neighborhoods as relevant will lead to the primary level of any governance to be the locality. These will network and confederate as necessary, according to the issues, regionally, continentally, worldwide. Hopefully direct democracy will be used to deal with issues on this level too. Obviously it’s all an experiment – just like Jefferson said the Constitution was.

    The main thing is for individuals to recognize their are always apparatchiks, bureaucrats, power mongers and deep staters trying to increase their power, their control and all there profits and perks and resist them. A confederation of communities – if you can keep it!!

  2. Andy

    The title of this article should be changed, because it makes it sound like Mike Gravel was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President in 2008, when he was actually just a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination in 2008.

  3. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Andy,

    I thought about that in the headline and believe there is a distinction between “candidate” and “nominee.” Gary Johnson (or back in 2008 Bob Barr) was the Libertarian Nominee for President; there were multiple candidates. Rather than change the headline, I’ll alter the text to make it clear that Senator Gravel was an unsuccessful candidate for the LP POTUS nomination.

    Jill,

    I’ll go if CITD accepts my request for a media credential.

  4. dL

    I’m sure it will be interesting. Of course, direct democracy to be libertarian-oriented must be Super=Majority: involve votes by MOST eligible citizens (say 95%) and only pass “laws” by say 90% of them.

    What in the heck is an “eligible citizen”? Political science equates laws passed at unanimity with decision-making rules: i.e., social contracts., constitutions, constitutional constraints. No liberal or libertarian conception of democracy vests direct democracy w/ the task of decision-making rules.

  5. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DL. Thanks for noticing I wrote something. 🙂

    DL: What in the heck is an “eligible citizen”?

    CM: whatever a community decides is one, though for democracy it’s pretty much everyone over say 16 years who agrees to basic community contract.

    DL: Political science equates laws passed at unanimity with decision-making rules: i.e., social contracts., constitutions, constitutional constraints.

    CM: No doubt. But 95% isn’t quite unanimity. There always be decisions you can’t decide by contract in advance, so let’s make it hard to come up with new ones unless really necessary.

    DL: No liberal or libertarian conception of democracy vests direct democracy w/ the task of decision-making rules.

    CM: So maybe it’s time they started to do it! Direct democracy (especially combined with super-majority voting) is A) way of keeping people who INSIST on democracy more more libertarian. I also do outreach to those types and there are lots of them; B) a way of dealing with above fact that not all contracts are perfect and unexpected issues often arise that need some process besides “if you don’t like what management decided, move out”. Though people CAN choose that option if they want, of course.

  6. LG

    Still super proud NV was unanimous for Gravel in 2008 and gave NOT ONE vote to WAR or Barr. 🙂

  7. Andy

    “LG
    May 14, 2017 at 20:18
    Still super proud NV was unanimous for Gravel in 2008 and gave NOT ONE vote to WAR or Barr.”

    I agree that neither Bob Barr or Wayne Root were acceptable candidates for the Libertarian Party, but neither was Mike Gravel. Gravel seemed like a nice fellow, and he was good on a few issues, but he was NOT a libertarian. It should also be blatantly obvious that he was attempting to use the Libertarian Party for ballot access, considering that he joined the party shortly before the presidential nominating convention, and then left the party right after losing at the convention. Gravel does not even qualify as a small “l” libertarian.

  8. dL

    No doubt. But 95% isn’t quite unanimity. There always be decisions you can’t decide by contract in advance, so let’s make it hard to come up with new ones unless really necessary.

    I disagree with your casting of direct democracy here. You want to make the barriers of democratic action so high as to preclude much if not all democratic action as means. And that’s not what “direct democracy” means. I think you are making an implicit equation of direct democracy w/ mob rule. Clearly, that’s not necessarily true. Someone like Gravel would say direct democracy is the only viable means to overcome the principal agent problem of representative government. Gravel’s original “citizen Power” viewed Direct democracy more as a partnership w/ representative government. His more recent version views it more as a grassroots adversary to entrenched representative government. IMHO…

  9. Tony From Long Island

    Carol: ” . . . . .Of course, direct democracy to be libertarian-oriented must be Super=Majority: involve votes by MOST eligible citizens (say 95%) and only pass “laws” by say 90% of them. . . . . ”

    So basically nothing will ever pass.

    Carol re: “eligible citizen” . . . . “whatever a community decides is one, though for democracy it’s pretty much everyone over say 16 years who agrees to basic community contract. . . . .”

    ummm “contract?”??!?? What, dare I ask, would this contract say?

  10. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    This is the libertarian way it would work. The more statist way obviously would have a lower threshold for percentage voting and percentage of vote necessary. The higher the percentage, the more special interests are discouraged from imposing purely self-interested and even tyrannical laws.

  11. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Libertarians assume self-determining communities will start with a contract, which would be a constitution of some sort. And most will allow for some form of amendment by members. Direct democracy with certain minimum number os members voting and some % of those votes needed for passage is an alternative many or most will come up with. The details will be worked out by communities. Our concern is keeping these as libertarian as possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *