reply to post by DirectDemocracy
I've been reading more & more about Direct Demoncracy lately. And, unlike you, I am less optimistic in terms of my faith in the motives of others
(guesstimate 200M voters).
For instance I imagined a piece of legistlation that prescribed voting rights--something that required a written commitment to a political party as an
example. Maybe 51% opted to yea the legislation while 49% nayed, and those 49% were reduced to second-rate citizens of the political process by
majority rule. This idea, roughly, stems from an article by Butler Shaffer about the "51% Hooey" (lewrockwell.com...
a worthwhile read if you can stomach viewpoints that challenge your worldview.
What next? Some abstraction we call legislation that prescribes, in one form or another, behavior will be honored by the 49%? Doubtful. Furthermore,
the process doesn't appear quite so unlike present-day representative government.
Worse case scenario, I know. But here's the rub (in my opinion): mainstream intelligentsia, technocrats, bureaucrats, & politicians go to great
effort to form consensus within their spheres. It's not as though these groups simply take controversial action without support; doing so risks
alienating their base and permanently weakens long-term agendas.
This sort of arrangment is, in my opinion, fundamental in terms of human collaboration. Direct Democracy appears to do little more than exchange one
form of collaboration with another under the guise of self-determination, despite that you may determine nothing in favor of your interest because an
overruleing majority decided otherwise (in effect, how Congress operates). And to make this point clear I emphasize that TPTB (one acronym I really
dislike, but will use in this rare instance) strive to mold opinions to favor their purposes. This is not substantially different from Direct
Democracy, to the extent that it is impossible to form 100% consensus. Someone will always get screwed, despite that that someone is not doing any
screwing (risque innuendo intended). I'm just not that permiscuous.
Democracy--let me just say that democracy has been aptly described as soft socialism, and I'm inclined to agree with that description. And, you
know, I realize that statement is going to pinch some readers' nerves. Sorry. Until exit right, property rights, & nonaggression are esteemed &
codified for all time as the law of the land there is no point for me to participate in a process whereby I may come to prevail over the freedom of
others, or become subject to the vicissitude of a majority decision. Frankly, my vote ought not fundamently impact your choices anymore than yours
ought not impact mine. Is that not a sensible form of collaboration worth exploring? Does that not sound like a civilization worth being a part of?
It does to me.