Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

reply to post by The Old American


There are no hard and fast rules. You could make it so that a 90% vote is needed for something to pass. Besides it would still be a constitutional republic which means well armed sheep. Which is still better than what we have today, six hundred wolves and 300 million sheep but only the wolves get to vote.

reply to post by The Old American


Do you have a better system than democracy? There are only two options - either majority rules, or minority rules.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

We are not subjecting ourselves we are subjugated.

It's called reality. Living under pimp rule is the reality. If you did away with all government then you could still be subjugated by local pimp. Government is not needed for one man to enslave another.

It sure helps though, doesnt it?

I cant accept slavery as reality. There is no reason for me being subjugated other than the tried and true "that's always how it has been" and that's not good enough for me.

These sociopathic oligarchs create fear and dependence to fill their coffers and get you to thank them for their abuses. Life doesnt have to be this way. Life shouldnt be this way.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by The Old American

 

Do you have a better system than democracy? There are only two options - either majority rules, or minority rules.

Why does anybody have to rule?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Because anarchy is impossible utopia.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It sure helps though, doesnt it?

Sure makes it much easier.

I cant accept slavery as reality. There is no reason for me being subjugated other than the tried and true "that's always how it has been" and that's not good enough for me.

Sure you can, you do it day in and day out.

These sociopathic oligarchs create fear and dependence to fill their coffers and get you to thank them for their abuses. Life doesnt have to be this way. Life shouldnt be this way.

I don't thank them but I know that unless I want to feel the firmness of the pimp hand then I have to follow the rules or at least not get caught breaking them.

Life is always that way. Nature is survival of the fittest. The strongest and more violent have the upper hand. The only option to counter that is to unite but this requires rules which you seem to not want. You seem to be in a catch 22.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Because anarchy is impossible utopia.

The "utopia" part of it is subjective. Humans lived for thousands of years without any established government.

There's no reason an individual or a community can't just be left alone. Except that maybe others will see that person or those people get along just fine and realize they could do the same.

Direct mob rule ? No thanks.

IF people just can't get it in their heads that this is a Constitutional Republic when minority rights are protected then there is no hope or future for us.

It's all about the Constitution where we are protected from Government and the people themselves where no person right is more important than any other.

Direct Democracy is crap.

Originally posted by daskakik

Life is always that way. Nature is survival of the fittest. The strongest and more violent have the upper hand. The only option to counter that is to unite but this requires rules which you seem to not want. You seem to be in a catch 22.

This is basically natural law now. All that violence and strength has just been consolidated into a mock-righteous force that is impossible to defend against.

Being an individual who has never caused harm to any other individual in any way I find it appalling that I still have this entity over me stealing from me and regulating my private harmless actions.

All because the majority accept it.

reply to post by neo96


Who has real power in US constitutional republic, in practice?

And how is representative constitutional democracy (which is US) better than direct constitutional democracy?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
This is basically natural law now. All that violence and strength has just been consolidated into a mock-righteous force that is impossible to defend against.

Very true.

Being an individual who has never caused harm to any other individual in any way I find it appalling that I still have this entity over me stealing from me and regulating my private harmless actions.

All because the majority accept it.

Wrong, you answered it above. It is a force that is impossible to defend against. You want to be left alone but how can you fight against that force if you are on your own or in a small group. You can't so you are forced to accept it on a personal level regardless of what the majority accept.

Originally posted by daskakik
Wrong, you answered it above. It is a force that is impossible to defend against. You want to be left alone but how can you fight against that force if you are on your own or in a small group. You can't.

The dissolution of government would negate that force. At least a force that sizable motivated by the causes it trumpets.

Without that force nobody is going to climb a mountain to kick a kid in the face for using a drug and nobody is going to climb that mountain to steal a bag of grain.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It wouldn't negate it. It would decentralize it so that any group that feels they can flex their muscle will try taking over. Gangland wars result until the citizens call for law and order to be established and you right back where you started.

reply to post by daskakik


You're assuming a scenario will come to pass.

A scenario that doesnt even have real historical precedent unless you count behaviors that arose from government meddling in the first place like sanctions and drug-wars.

You cant use a government created bad situation to justify the existence of government as protector in that situation since that situation wouldnt require protection from had government not created it in the first place.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Show me an example in history where anarchy worked for longer, instead of just a temporary phase before another government emerged.

I don't know what is more sad:

The situation we are in or the situation people see as the cure...

Direct democracy will remove your rights faster than any other form of government.

History has proven this.

reply to post by TupacShakur


It would also put pressure to provide a good educational system, since no one would like to have dumb people making important decisions.

Originally posted by peck420
I don't know what is more sad:

The situation we are in or the situation people see as the cure...

Direct democracy will remove your rights faster than any other form of government.

History has proven this.

Why should direct democracy remove your rights faster than representative democracy?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Show me an example in history where anarchy worked for longer, instead of just a temporary phase before another government emerged.

It never stopped working.

Whether it's in a persons home or a neighborhood or an entire rural region there are millions of people right now breaking a plethora of "laws" and ignoring the rule of their government and living perfectly well with it.

Until the next raid or sweep crushes them.

Under any and every government there is anarchy. But that anarchy is sitting under an unnecessary knife waiting to be plunged into their heads just to accomplish the perpetuation of the state.

People believe it "doesnt work" because it isnt allowed to and when it is brought out it is demonized and slandered to keep the opinion of the mass in line.

reply to post by Maslo


Because there are no checks and balances in direct democracy.

Well, none that can't be remedied with a quick, democratic vote...

The best term for direct democracy is mob rule...and we all know how that turns out.