Why Switzerland Is Still Free and America Is Not

The American Time magazine article headline asks, "Will Switzerland Vote to Ban Minarets on Mosques?"

Swiss citizens are becoming concerned about the threat that Islam presents to their traditional culture, economy and religious institutions. As an American, I know how I would vote were I Swiss but the decision will be made by the Swiss electorate as they have this referendum right on all issues.

In Switzerland, the people still rule and have the ultimate right to decide decisions above the government or parliament. Through the right of referendum they can cancel legislation and with the initiative they can pass or create legislative action on issues parliament refuses to act upon.

The bias and closed statist views shown in the article is business as usual for the US media elites out to protect the American political establishment and are so evident in this headline and article. It isn’t the question they asked but rather the question they didn’t dare ask is the "700-lb gorilla in the room."

Quoting from the article, "Critics say the SVP, the largest party in Switzerland's coalition government, has taken advantage of the country's unique brand of direct democracy to push its populist, anti-immigrant agenda on the Swiss electorate. Citizens have the right to propose new laws in Switzerland – the only thing they need to force a nationwide vote on an initiative is a petition of 100,000 signatures."

The question not asked is why doesn’t the American electorate have oversight over legislation and unpopular government regulations in the United States like in Switzerland? Imagine if 4% of the American voters signed a petition requiring a nationwide vote "yea or nay" on the banking bailouts, going to war in Iraq, auditing the Federal Reserve, nationalized health care or on the trillions in new Washington debt added because of the financial meltdown. The United States would still be a decentralized republic with limited government had we had the political option to hold back Washington and the special interests.

How America would be different if we had Swiss-style political rights to restrain government where the people rule instead of the special interests. Imagine an America where the billions in graft and political influence that control Congress could still buy legislation but not ultimate control if we as a people could overrule their actions.

What if the will of the people still ultimately controlled the political system and direction with true limited government at the federal, state and local level? Imagine the American electorate overriding Congress and demanding a strong dollar backed by real gold reserves, an audit of the Federal Reserve, a rollback of the bailouts, a declaration of war for foreign military intervention, the abolishment of the Patriot Act and a return to banking privacy.

Yes, a Swiss political party (The Swiss Peoples Party) promotes a nationalist agenda to the Swiss voters and they will ultimately decide in referendum yes or no on the issue. This is currently impossible in the United States but Swiss direct democracy and limited confederation government have worked in Switzerland for hundreds of years.

This is far superior to the two-party monopoly in America where the elites controlling both parties can push their self-serving agendas without restraint. Currently, short of the Tenth Amendment movement, state nullification or outright state secession, there is no real effective way to push back against Washington.

Until the American people can find a way to restrain the Federal government, the bureaucracy and the judiciary, the best place for Americans to secure and safeguard their wealth is outside their own country. Switzerland is one of the best jurisdictions to consider because their political system has preserved the rights and freedoms we once had as Americans. Still the ultimate problem for Americans is the necessity to restore our liberties at home because history has shown that wealth without liberty is only a temporary condition at best.

I say, it is time to take a real look at direct democracy in the United States or else Americans who value their property and liberties will have little choice but to first transfer their wealth to safety outside the US as it will be lost in the coming crash of treasury debt and the dollar. Next we must stand and fight the Washington leviathan through the political tools of the 10^th amendment and John C. Calhoun’s political ideal of nullification both of which the Feds will probably just ignore. Our final democratic political tool is to exercise the political right of state-by-state secession with all the political and historical baggage this entails.

Trust me, Swiss style direct democracy in the United States would be an easier way to control Washington and the special interests but we only have a few years before the Washington debt and dollar collapse is upon us. Therefore I’ll close with a question. Is anybody here for secession?

Source: LewRockwell.com

The Tyranny of Democracy

Whenever I hear someone call America a democracy, I inform that person that we are actually living in a republic. I usually get a blank stare in return. Sometimes that person will ask what the difference is between a republic and a democracy. I explain that a republic is an indirect form of democracy where elective representatives vote on certain legislation. Most of the time I get another blank stare, but there are occasions where that person asks "why aren't we a direct democracy, where everybody in the United States gets a vote?'' These questions make me feel like I was the only one who paid attention in social studies. For starters, America is too massive to include everybody in the legislative process. There are towns that practice direct democracy, but they usually take place in areas with small populations. We also have to make sure that our rights are never compromised by the majority. To paraphrase Mel Gibson's character in the Patriot, "An elected legislator can trample on a man's rights just easy as any king."

This has proven to be the case in San Francisco. About two years ago, the residents voted for two of the worst bills ever conceived. One of them was a ban on handguns within the city limits. The other bill barred military recruiters from setting foot on college campuses. Keeping military recruiters off of college campuses seemed more absurd then oppressive. The banning of pistols on the other hand, was a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. People who defend these laws say that they are legit because they represent the will of the majority. Whether it was a majority that brought about these laws or just a select few is irrelevant. Bad laws are never legit, especially when they violate constitutional rights. The right to keep and bear arms is a god given right (natural right if you're an atheist) and cannot be overruled by a majority vote.

On the other side of the coin, conservatives try to justify the bans on gay marriage by claiming that it is the will of the people. In California, the opponents of gay marriage would have the masses vote a bill into the state constitution that would permanently ban gay marriage. Personally, I believe that the government should stay out of the issue of marriage. They shouldn't have the power to decide the legality of any union between consenting adults. I had a constitutional law professor who said that if you allow the government to define marriage, then it can define almost any other aspect of your life. That is why the government shouldn't be allowed to define any union between consenting adults, even if it is following the will of the majority.

There was another instance where people tried to use democracy to impose their will on others. In Riviera Beach, Florida, the people voted for a ban on saggy pants. This law would be tested when a seventeen-year-old kid was jailed overnight for wearing jeans that exposed the top of his underwear. This prompted a Circuit Judge to overturn the law. Many people in the town were outraged by the judge's decision. I would hate to be the one to break it to these people, but the judge was right. It was a bad law.

I don't like saggy pants myself. I hated that style even when it was considered fashionable back when I was in high school. I always hoped that style would die out. To my dismay, there are people who still like to wear saggy pants. There is one thing I hate more then saggy pants. It is the idea of any government telling me what I can or can't wear. What else would they ban? Piercings? Tattoos? Thong underwear? Miniskirts? Cleavage shirts? I wouldn't be surprised if the prudish people of Riviera Beach decided to ban the wearing of white after Labor Day. While they are at it, why don't they create a special task force and call it the "Fashion Police?" One of the main problems of this law is that it falls under the same flawed logic as speech codes on college campuses. They are based on the premise that people have a right not to be offended. I hate to be the one to burst their bubble, but that right doesn't really exist.

I can't remember the last time that I wasn't offended. I get offended every time I see the Obama administration getting brown nosed by the mainstream media. I get offended whenever the TV networks pollute the airwaves with some lame reality show. I get offended every time I see a Will Ferrell movie on top at the box office. Most of all I get offended whenever I see some idiot wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt. Every time I see this, I want to slap the fool over the head and ask him if he even knew who Che Guevara was. I am more offended by the notion that people are ignorant enough to walk around with the face of a mass murderer on their shirts, then I am of saggy jeans. As much as these things offend me, I still have to tolerate them. Like I have said before, part of living in a free society is tolerating the things that you don't like.

What people don't seem to understand is that our government was never meant to be a direct democracy. The founding fathers hated the idea of direct democracy because they knew that it could be used to oppress the minority. This can happen on any level of government. People seem to forget that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Venezuela's own little tyrant, Hugo Chavez was also brought to power through democracy. Without limitations, democracy can lead to oppression just as easy as any dictatorship.

Source: The Libertine Enterprise