In defense of direct democracy.

Economics Political Theory
1

People who criticize direct democracy and then go on to praise representative democracy are hypocrites to the fullest extent. They don’t realize that when they’re justifying representative democracy they are giving the politicians-- the political elite justification for them making laws-- that don’t really represent us… and they also don’t realize that they’re just giving justification to let the government have control over the laws because they’re somehow representative of us. Now… we might need some structure in a society. A direct democracy would be anti-state. It wouldn’t be a state. It would be a real reflection of the general will. Of course-- there would be some safeguards-- like you couldn’t say a person isn’t a person-- or take away their rights… but what we have now is not representative. I urge everyone that thinks that we live in a representative democracy to read up about the history of this nation and you’ll see that it clearly isn’t one.

Our politicians aren’t idiots. They go around each election season bragging about the regulations they’ve passed, or, talking about issues to distract the public. They distract the public from focusing on the real forces driving our nation-- the CFR, the trilateral comission, and the political elite likes to label anyone who wants sovereignity as a republican. A real direct democracy would be voluntary. It would only be mob rule if there was an uneducated public.

But-- we can inform the public to think critically-- and we can inform them about all that they had taught about politics was a lie… in school we’re taught that a dd would be mob rule, then, we’re taught that we should have these politicians to guide us into more and more trouble and that they’re somehow representative of us. We would get rid of the state-- and establish a direct democracy and we could do it with libertarian principles-- and we could have yearly elections on issues, a local city council which people from the town could vote on… and it would not have the coercive power of the state. Those that argue for a representative republic just want to give all the power to the hands of the state. This would do away with that. It’s not anarchy-- because anarchists are opposed to all forms of structure. But this would certainly lessen the hold that our government has on us.

What do you think? I believe a DD is possible.

2

Sure, it’s possible, but not desirable. It fails to address the key problem; democracy itself. A key libertarian goal should be smashing the myth that Democracy = Freedom. Once that has been accomplished, we will be that much closer to a stateless society.

3

Echoing SicSemperTyrannis, who cares if it is possible? Democracy is about political control of property rights. It is the exact opposite of liberty and individual freedom. It reinforces that we only have rights in a group, and that our rights and freedoms and property can be taken away by the group at any time.

Down with democracy. It’s a lousy, tyrannical system.

4

I know that a government (in reality) takes away our property rights and our rights to own things… but I believe if we are to have a government that a direct democracy would be the best form of government. There would also be safeugards preventing the country (in my world) that has a direct democracy from taking control of your property rights. You can say it’s utopionish but I think that people can work together and handle problems themselves and they don’t need politicians to tell them what to do all the time.

5

Well intentioned, but look how long minarchy lasted in the United States - a grand total of 6 years. How long would it take for your ‘direct democracy people’s republic’ to start having ‘direct’ voting of whos property they will steal?

6

I prefer no state, thanks.

What if someone wants something that is against the “general will?”

7

Whoever would run the courthouse in between the yearly elections would re-establish the state.

8

So you realize that government takes way property rights & ownership, but believe if we are to have a government, as if it were inevitable, that a direct democracy would be best?

I tend to get confused by contradictions, and you are not calling a spade a spade by exempting ‘direct democracy’. Define direct democracy then, & I gurantee that that the majority that “votes” it in will have a different perception & definition of “direct democracy”, and you’re back to the top of the slippery slope again.

I’m sure many would consider Fascism a more expedient form of democracy (which can be inferred by direct), and other’s would consider Socialism to be more levelled & direct democracy. Funny, since that’s all the two major parties adovcate… maybe if PDA’s were around to enforce 3rd Party Voting rights without getting killed off by the Civil Waring of other factions via the 2 other parties, things would be different (for a while) ?

Thus voluntaryism and/or anarchism; I have no clue why you are advocating any form of democracy, then.

9

Okay, let me explain what I would mean by a stateless direct democracy.

Everything would be voluntary. There would be town meetings everywhere deciding what to do in the future. They would do it out of their own free will. If someone decides to go against the majority their views would be considered.

There would have to be safeguards on it. I know that there is nothing stopping judges from becoming a state… but here is my idea and I want you to hear me out on it. It would be completely locally based… but we’d all be still connected as a country…

But it would not be centralized. The only task forces would be local… and they could contact other people from other places if they wanted to… but it would be more of a local thing across the whole country.

They say a direct democracy is only possible in small towns-- so-- my idea-- why not allow all towns/cities direct democracy?

It wouldn’t be statism because the state wouldn’t be there. There would be no centralized things. Things would come up when they come up…

10

It would be great. People would be at each other’s throat in a couple of weeks and ‘democratic’ government would collapse into chaos…but most likely the system would revert to a less direct form of farce, sorry, government.

11

Democracy is probably a worse system than a Republic and a Monarchy. Should I also make the argument that international socialism is better than national socialism, it’s a big who cares in my view.

12

Contradiction.

Contradiction.

Why not allow all people to be free?

Why re-invent the wheel?

13

How does that make them hypocritical? Couldn’t they view the political elite as simply better rulers than the masses?

When has any form of democracy ever been anti-state, if anything it is the state at its worst, despotic mob rule. And if this direct democracy is so great, why are safeguards needed at all?

So the masses won’t vote for rights infringing laws, even though they already overwhelmingly vote for politicians who pledge to do that very thing?

All elections are for is to determine whose property rights will be infringed. All direct democracy will do is make it harder for the individual, as its far easier to bribe/threaten a politician than the masses.

14

Insofar as democracy a) applies to individuals who do not consent to it and b) is used to violate the property rights of others not only is it not desirable, but I find it abominable. The label “democracy”, unless it’s an alias for autarchy, is something I want to know nothing of. Direct democracy which did not apply to non-consentors, OTOH, would be fine but I see no reason for it. Anarchists are not opposed to structure but all involuntary, imposed forms thereof.

15

in the vein of having to have a government a libertarian autocracy would be best. the only universal enforcement would be the non-initiation of force. [:D]

16
17

The more people with the ability to vote the worse.

18

The problem with this is that democracy is just a way to make group decisions. This notion of direct democracy could apply to a family which decides all matters by vote (I do not advocate this), or a worker owned production facility (industrial or agricultural) that makes and approves its plans by vote, or a club which both elects officers and considers the big questions by vote, the key feature being that no person’s vote is any more powerful than another’s. What you are talking about, the question of the democratic government of The State, the distinguishing feature of the State is that it reserves for itself the right to achieve its ends through the initiation of violence and/or fraud against any person for any reason its decision makers decide upon. All you’re doing here, if I’m reading you correctly (and there’s a good possibility I’m not, so I ask you to clarify in light of my comments) is changing the identity and meeting point of the people who decide whose rights we are going to violate.

That decision being made, this level of decentralization is extremely disadvantageous for anyone who makes their living over an area that spreads beyond the immediate, “democratically governed” area. If the local governments are limited, it isn’t that bad, but if every local community has a mass of incompatible regulations restricting trade, production, and personal behavior in a great variety of ways, the compliance overhead for intercommunal trade and production becomes nearly prohibitive. In addition, there’s no reason criminal organizations that prey upon the local communities have to restrict their sizes to sizes the local communities can deal with individually. So in response communities might form customs unions, trade federations, and what have you with each other, governing (for unity in regulation) these larger entities by representation… and now we’re walking down the very same historical process from which arose the modern state.

That said, for a little theoretical fun, there is a way to do direct democracy on a mass scale, now that we have computers hooked into a universal network. This need not necessarily be implemented by the State for its governance, but by any organization which makes its decisions by vote for whatever reason. For example, a corporation could be governed not by a representative board of directors, but directly by shareholders through the process described below.

You have a central protocol linking various regional servers into a single online discussion community. Ever voter has a unique account,with their unique identifier being some combination of biometrics, to prevent duping. When it is time to vote, every member has a chance to vote… but it is likely that not all members will have either the time or the inclination to do so. Thus, each member has the ability to create a list, however long they like, of other members they trust to make the right decisions.

When time expires for a vote, the vote of each nonvoting member is counted as being the same as the voter at the top of their list of substitutes. If that one didn’t vote either, it moves down to the next person on the list, continuing down until it either finds someone who did cast a vote, or it reaches the bottom. If it hits bottom, it returns to the top, and begins recursively checking their list until it finds a voter or reaches bottom, continuing this process until it finds someone who did vote.

It looks like yet another representative form of democracy, but there are a number of key differences. The first is that the “representatives” in this system do not serve for some term of arbitrary minimum duration; individual sub lists can be altered at will. Secondly, because the votes can “flow” dynamically through linked lists until it finds someone who did cast their vote, people need not vote for famous people just because they’re the only ones who “can win.” They can populate their lists with people with whom they are personally acquainted and can trust either to cast a good vote themselves, or to populate their own lists with people they know and trust. People can continuously edit their lists until they find that the vote flow tends to go the way they want… or they can take upon themselves the task of being on enough to know whats going on and cast their own votes.

But to bring this back up to the real issue at the top, the main problem with the government of the state isn’t its decision making apparatus. It’s the fact that its primary purpose is to serve as a medium by which we do things to each other that if we did them directly, both the public and possibly even our own consciences would complain.

19

No. It would simply shift the burden and scope of the state’s control.

That’s a market. Something where a majority can decide a common rule for all is not a market.

So I wouldn’t have to take part in it?

It wouldn’t be mob rule though. It would be majoritarian rule. Whether the public is “educated” or not doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that it is the will of “many” imposing their will on the “few”.

If it had no coercive power then there would be no reason to abide by it.

All coerced forms of structure.