Get ‘Read In’ On The Mission

“My Freedom, My Vote!”

Direct Legislation as a Right

The Democracy, Straight-Up! Project, through its flagship program, the CRCL Initiative, is implementing a system of Connected Legislation and Connected Representation nationwide. 

We call it ‘connected’ because it better describes the system of legislation that arises naturally from an individual’s basic right to self-determination in a free society. There is another term that is sometimes used (and sometimes used pejoratively), namely ‘direct legislation.’  It’s also used to describe initiatives and referendums (somewhat less pejoratively).  As you’ll see, the term isn’t exactly wrong, but ‘connected legislation’ better captures the spirit of the thing, and it’s all wrapped up in this new idea we call ‘connected representation’.

With all that in mind, let’s take a look at the argument for the necessity of ‘direct legislation.’

We want to see if we can understand it as a right, as opposed to seeing it as a solution to a problem (or to many problems), or as a way to improve the efficiency of self-government, or as a way to make the world a better place. Make no mistake–what we are proposing will do all those things, and more. It is just that in this particular approach to the idea, we’re talking about how direct legislation is a right, even if it were unclear what the eventual benefits of implementing it were. 

A right always stands on its own as a self-contained good, without needing to be ‘justified’ by the anticipation of the positive results we hope to achieve by respecting it. More importantly, by that token, its luster can’t be tarnished by dark predictions of the terrible things that may ensue once it is taken seriously. If it is a right, then, come what may, good or bad, we must find a way to honor it without impinging on the right itself–to the extent possible and practical.   

Luckily, in our quest to frame direct legislation as a right, we can start with the same premises that the founders of American democracy used in order to argue in favor of things like ‘equality’ and ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’–all those good things we now hold dear as Americans.

 

The Strange History of “All Men are Created Equal”

The Declaration of Independence, as the reader is no doubt aware, asserts, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” before adding, for clarification, that they are ‘endowed by their Creator’ with various rights, including, but not limited to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.  It’s that phrase, ‘all men are created equal’ that has always been a source of confusion.  

There was a short story written by the author Kurt Vonegut, who was quite popular back in the day. It’s about a dystopian reality where, in order to ensure that everyone really is equal, people of high intelligence are fitted with an annoying alarm that goes off in their brain if they try to have smarter-than-average thoughts. Excellent dancers are fitted with weights so that they will perform just as well as dancers who are awkward and out-of-shape.

The story attempts to be profound, but is it really? Isn’t it just based on a misinterpretation of the phrase under discussion?  The idea is not that everyone is born equal in terms of capabilities, talents, etc.  The goal of equality does not imply that talented people should be ‘held back’ to accommodate the feelings or the social position of the untalented.  

What, then, does it mean for human beings to be ‘created equal?’  

The confusion is clarified by a bit of scholarship.  The phrase ‘all men are created equal’ was most likely borrowed from the 1776 version of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which said that “all men are by nature equally free and independent.” Now, that makes a lot more sense!  Most likely it was Thomas Jefferson who lopped off the ‘free and independent’ part of the phrase. Why he did it, who knows for sure, but it is easy to see why he would refrain from hitting too hard upon the theme of ‘the equal rights of all

humanity’ in a country where human slavery was practiced. In fact, some outspoken slaveholders, in the lead up to the civil war, cried out against the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ as a wretched ‘falsehood’ for exactly the reasons you would suspect. But in 1776, Jefferson’s wording of the concept was accepted as a tolerable compromise: we can still all be equal (say, in the eyes of our Creator) and not be ‘free’ (in the eyes of society).  Or some such hinky logic. 

Equally Free and Independent

 

What we can do here, though, is doff the hinky logic and stick with the original idea, uncontaminated by America’s ‘original sin.’  That idea, updated to reflect modern reality, is that ‘all human beings are created equally free and independent.’  

Now, before confusion sets in, we need to clarify two possibly confounding notions.  The first has to do with babies.  

We are all, of course, born helpless. Human beings have an incredibly long apprenticeship before they become mature adults capable of sustaining themselves ‘independently.’  The existence of childhood has profound implications for how we shape our society, but, for the purposes of clarifying the logic of direct legislation, we don’t need to fret over the definition of ‘free and independent’ as it applies to children.  What we mean by an ‘equally free and independent’ human being can be defined to suit our purposes as ‘a legal citizen that has attained the age of 18.’  We can do this without tainting in the least the principles underlying the right to direct legislation, since that right only inheres to those empowered to vote in the first place.  

The second clarification to be made has to do with the word ‘free,’ and its noun form, ‘freedom.’ We are accustomed to talking about ‘freedom’ as it applies to the effect of a law or rules laid out in the constitution.  That is to say, a law or the constitution grants us a certain freedom, such as ‘freedom of speech.’  In this sense of the word ‘freedom,’ however, we are not ‘free’ to, let’s say, go around stabbing people.  Here, the law places a limit on our personal freedom, and, most would agree, rightly so.  This leaves us with the need to distinguish between the concept of freedom before and after a society enacts and enforces rules for human behavior. 

The kind of freedom the framers were talking about when they said (or at least implied) that we are all born equally free and independent, is the kind of freedom that exists before human laws kick in, and in order to distinguish this ‘natural state of freedom’ from ‘freedom under the law’ we should give it a different name. 

Agency 

 

Here we will use the term ‘agency’ and refer to individuals as ‘agents.’  An agent, broadly defined, is anyone (or anything) that performs an action upon something else.  More specifically, as applied to conscious beings, it tends to mean that an individual is capable of performing actions that affect the environment and the other beings in it, including other humans. 

So, when it comes to human beings, we should take note that we all have ‘agency.’  That is, we have the ability to act, to engage in activity, to perform actions–however you want to phrase it.  This is really just an observation, more than anything else–a fact, really, that is just lying around in plain view and seems hardly worth mentioning.  

While the fact that we are all ‘agents’ may seem trivial, taking it seriously has profound implications–at least as far as the present discussion is concerned. Focusing on the existence of agency before the intervention of any social conventions allows us to contrast the two types of ‘freedom’ under consideration.  We are, in fact, ‘free’ to go around stabbing people, in the sense of freedom-as-agency–but, we are not ‘free’ to do so without serious consequences in the sense of freedom-under-the-law. 

It is upon this freedom-as-agency that we will base our argument for direct legislation as a right.  

So, our agency implies that we can act upon the things of this world. It is traditional when discussing rights to begin by imagining human beings living in a pre-technological age, before the advent of civilization. In that context, we see a fallen tree, we drag it out of the forest, and we burn it to make a fire. We take a branch of that tree, we make a spear. We see an animal, we kill the animal. We cook the animal on the fire, and we eat it.  Just another day in paradise.

And, now that we have a spear, we can also use it in other ways–perhaps to defend ourselves against one of our enemies–real or perceived.  That means we can kill other human beings–perhaps for good reason, perhaps for no particular reason.  

We could, if we’d a mind to, cook them on the fire and eat them, too.  

Now, the point that is often made at this juncture is that this is a deplorable state of affairs. It leads to what is called ‘the war of all against all,’ to expressions like, ‘nature

red in tooth and claw.’ At the risk of shamelessly condensing a vast literature on the subject of humankind in a ‘state of nature,’ it will simply be asserted here that those of us reading this document really don’t want to live like that.  

We take it as given that there is no option to ‘go back to nature.’ Civilization is here to stay. We can’t unring that bell. 

So, within that context, let’s try to drive home the argument about agency and how it relates to the concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ as they are being used here. Our ‘natural’ agency is something we possess. Furthermore, each of us possesses it in equal measure (again, we are not measuring and comparing the outcome of human actions, but simply noting that we all have the ability, as ‘agents,’ to act.)  And here comes the point that we will drill down on: if we accept limitations on our freedom-as-agency, which we all possess equally, then we must have control over how exactly that agency is limited–and that control must somehow be equal among all citizens.  

It’s useful to think, first, of how our current system allows the voter to control specific laws. We live in a country that does a very good job of honoring the right to ‘freedom of speech.’  But we all know that anyone with a media outlet at their disposal has a much louder, more penetrating voice than any individual. Thus the complaint that public opinion is ‘controlled by the media’ and that the media is controlled by–pick your poison. Fox News, George Souros, the Illuminati, or just plain ‘corporate America.’  

But this is not a fixable problem.  We must not stand in the way of media companies plying their trade. We must not stand in the way of voters consuming whatever media they choose.  What this means is, in the society at large, we can’t manipulate the landscape so that every voter has an ‘equal say.’ (As a parenthetical, it just so happens that the Straight-Up system creates a calm spot in the center of the media storm, where voters all really do have an equal say.)

The other feature of the current system is that we can vote every two years for any candidate we choose to represent us in The House.  This system is a far cry from the direct control over exactly what the law says that we seek in realization of our fundamental right to control the limitations on our freedom.  We can only elect candidates based on a platform of issues they support, some of which we may personally disagree with.  The final decision is up to the House Rep, and they vote against the will of their own constituents about 35% of the time.  Candidate choice is greatly circumscribed by the two-party system, and the need to raise money to fund a campaign. The list goes on, and we will assume the reader is savvy enough to add to it themselves.

Given this backdrop, where do we land on our proposal to give equal control to every voter? 

Every voter must have a direct vote on every bill.  All other proposals are half-measures.

Now, it might be that we must content ourselves with half measures based on considerations of practicality and ‘the art of the possible.’  But before we rush to that conclusion, can we just ask ourselves: what would it look like to try? What if we took full measures?  What would those full measures look like? 

This discussion focuses on direct legislation as a right, but the short answer to that question is, “It would look a lot like our flagship program, The CRCL Initiative. 

So, this is where we land: living in a society necessitates the sacrifice of ‘personal freedom’ which we are calling ‘individual agency.’  If it is my freedom that is being impinged upon, then I should have an equal say, and an equal vote, in whatever rules are in place. This line of reasoning leads us directly to the necessity of direct legislation as a right.

Now, there is a question that has been tacit in our discussion thus far, and let us now address it explicitly: sure, a state of nature has its downsides, but why should I trade it for living in a civilization, where the downsides might be even worse?

 

The Inevitability of Human Society

 

Two responses can be made.  The first is that human beings live in social groups.  Yes, of course, a hermit living out the woods has, in some way, shaken off the constraints of society. But that does not describe the vast majority of human beings and it never will.  There is no system of social organization where we all live as hermits and stay out of each other’s way at all times.  In any case, that hermit had, at a minimum, a mother and was raised by her or some other human being.  That is to say, we raise children, which means that we tend strongly to form families, and families lead inevitably to social groups, and here we are: all up in each others’ business and no avoiding it.  So, that is the first response the above question: a true ‘state of nature’ isn’t just an individual against the environment–human nature entails that, by and large, we live among other humans, forging bonds and engaging in some form of cooperation and that we face our

environment, typically, as a group.  Every such group develops rules, traditions, conventions, and whatnot, whether explicit or implicit.  These necessarily place limitations on individual agency to some extent.  As a result, we are always living in some kind of ‘civilization,’ even if it is very small and relatively ad hoc.  

Which actually leads to the second response–since we have to trade some of our agency no matter what, why not trade it, not just for safety, security, fellowship, etc., but for a greater state of agency? A better set of living conditions, to be sure, but also a whole slew of freedoms that would be unimaginable in a state of nature–that is in a pre-civilized society without the benefit of some form of government. 

The only question now is what form that government will take.

 

Democratic, Majoritarian Self-government

 

Of course, since the advent of civilization, by far the most frequently-encountered form of government has been the monarchy.  No need to go into too much detail here: by hook or by crook, someone (eventually some family–see above) secures power.  They take charge of making the rules, enforcing them, and punishing infractions.  There’s a constant struggle by those with power to hold on to it.  There are consistent attempts by others to wrest that power away.  We all know how that goes.  

Now, what follows might seem like a digression to those of you not steeped in the literature on social theory, but it’s worth underscoring that we are going to steer away from positing any sort of historical theory as to why certain forms of government exist at certain times.  All we need to do is observe that certain groups of people behave in different ways at different times.  Comparatively small groups living in a state of nature, both now and in the past, can be found to behave in a range of ways, from peaceful to warlike, and their internal organization may be relatively democratic or lean more strongly towards authoritarianism. At the same time, large groups living in a state of civilization can be found forming all sorts of hierarchies, some of which are relatively benign and functional, and some of which are relatively malignant and dysfunctional.  

All in all, human behavior has a lot of tricks up its sleeve.  It is hard to know what those tricks will be in advance, but it is the task of government to try to anticipate them anyway, and have rules in place to deal with them.  Now, in a relatively arbitrary form of government, a citizen might learn only after the fact what actions are and are not permissible. But a less arbitrary form of government will give you fair warning as to what will and will not get you tossed in the dungeon. 

In any case, there is only one form of government worth contemplating, and, fortunately, it is the form of government we citizens of the United States currently enjoy: that is, democratic, majoritarian self-government. However, even that describes a general category of the phenomenon of government that can take many specific forms.  

Again, we are not, at the moment, trying to make the argument that direct legislation will ‘improve democracy.’  We can, and will, make that argument elsewhere.  For now, we are only trying to make the argument that direct legislation is a right.  In order to understand what we mean by the word ‘right,’ we had to dig into what we meant by the word ‘freedom.’  In order to better understand freedom, we had to draw a distinction between freedom before and after the establishment of some form of government.  And the ultimate take-away of the discussion above is that some form of government is inevitable, and unavoidable, in the modern context, the only debate being the character of the government that should be put in place.  Paired with that is the foundational underpinning of our argument for direct legislation as a right: we are all free to act as we please, but, at the same time, we must live among other people; that means some sort of rules will inevitably arise; such rules place conditions on our freedom-as-agency; and, if my actions are being controlled in some way by those rules, shouldn’t I have the right to the maximum amount of possible control over how those rules take shape.  

 

“My Freedom, My Vote”

 

The project has a way of summing up this relationship between personal agency and the rules that must necessarily limit that agency. 

The phrase is, “My Freedom, My Vote.”  The vote, here, is not for the representative who, in turn, votes on the proposed legislation.  It is not the representative that is, potentially, placing limits on our freedom–it is the rule, that is to say, the bill that may become a law.  Our argument here is that, by all rights, we should each be voting directly on the law itself, since that is what directly limits our freedom.  

 

What to Do About It

 

If we adopt the reasoning that led us to this point in the argument, then we are only left with one question, “What do we do about it?” 

We could start by contemplating that, perhaps, nothing can be done about it. It’s true that direct legislation is a right, but we are already implementing that right to the extent possible and practical. What’s being described here is an ideal, and we live in the real world.

Only that is not true. Not all lawmaking goes through legislatures. In many countries, and even in some US states, voters can, on their own ‘initiative,’ write a law, put it on the ballot, and vote on it. And if the majority approves it, it becomes law.  It’s called ‘an initiative!’  So, direct legislation does exist, in a form that is more direct than our current system. That takes care of the argument that ‘nothing can be done’ about it. 

If direct legislation had been ‘tried out’ many times before and, each time, resulted in chaos and social disintegration, a naysayer might have good grounds for saying, ‘it’s just not possible.’  But, here’s the thing: it has been tried out in a small way, through referenda and initiatives, and while one might quibble about the process or the outcomes, it is very, very clear, we are not living in a wasteland because of it.  The system in Switzerland often comes up as an example in this context–they have a number of mechanisms in place that employ direct democracy in ways other nations don’t. And Switzerland was doing okay, last time I checked.

What’s more, how often has a system of direct legislation even been attempted in a modern democracy? Can you think of any examples? Have we really given it the old college try?  

 

The Straight-Up Revolution

 

This reasoning is a part of the foundation for the Straight-Up Revolution.  We start from the premise that voters have long been denied their fundamental right to direct legislation, and that they must rise up and seize control of the means of lawmaking.

But not really. We are advocating a smooth, peaceful transition to the voter-centered legislative system.  And we are advocating a system that makes sense.  Voters need to know that the vote totals they will be looking at reflect the actual vote of legitimate voters.  Voters need to have access to avenues for persuading other voters to vote a certain way, and each voter needs to be in a position–either directly or through a delegate–to be persuaded in turn. To do this they need ‘a better marketplace of ideas,’ one that is completely under their own control, and existing alongside the larger marketplace of ideas characterizing a free society such as ours. These constraints dictate the form that the District Legislatures we are proposing must take, and the process for implementing it.

Which is what we will achieve through The CRCL Initiative.