Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Anarchy only works (as you showed) on a micro level. Anarchy doesn't work on a macro level.

Until we all achieve self sustainability any ways. After that point, Anarchy would have just as good of chance as any other political system.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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.

There has never been a scenario where a group of people didn't have a set of rules. Even if it was a single family out in the middle of nowhere you did as dad says or else.

As for historical precedence, how about feudal Europe. When the Romans left feudalism spread across europe. What was it? Might makes right.

Was it anarchy? No anarchy only exists if you are alone or in a group that respects the idea. As soon as that person or group encounters a group that is willing to impose itself upon them and subjugate them then it's all over.

I can see too much tampering that would be done. I mean look at how easily things can be faked now with ID fraud and that is just involving charges on credits cards to be reversed, imagine the headache of voter fraud if it was web based.

Another thing that always is troubling to me when "democracy" is touted, how will that impact our Constitution? Democracy is organize mob rule, so will our liberty guaranteed by our birth then be subject to mob rule?

Personally I think that dumping the primary election system, or election rigging as it it has become, and to just run with a general election would solve a lot of headaches. If we can could get to the Moon (supposedly) with late 1950s tech, why do we have primary elections in America any longer? Beyond the obvious election rigging where characters are assassinated by TPTB if those characters won't "play" ball?

Derek

Originally posted by peck420
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.

All checks and balances of constitutional government can be present in direct democracy.

People here seem to have a warped view of direct democracy. The difference is that its direct, instead of representative, and not that it does not have a constitution, which requires more than simple majority to change.

reply to post by peck420


The Swiss just updated their constitution in 1999 and it includes elements of direct democracy. It was considered an update to their constitution of 1848. 12 years later and I have yet to hear anyone claiming that the Swiss have been stripped of their rights. In those same 12 years the US has gotten the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and TSA groping.

Originally posted by daskakik
As soon as that person or group encounters a group that is willing to impose itself upon them and subjugate them then it's all over.

I cant relate to this desire to rule for rules sake. Maybe I'm a different species or something but it doesnt make any sense to me why a government would send armed men at an outrageous expense to assault an individual for causing no harm at no expense. This I find repugnant.

Is it for kicks? It's not like these targets are sitting on oil reserves or tons of gold bars or anything.

Oh, and being without a government doesnt mean there arent any rules. Lacking a violently enforced policy or recognized authority doesnt mean you dont have rules. Nobody has to press a gun to my head to prevent me from stealing, killing, raping or defrauding anyone.

reply to post by Maslo


The problem with direct democracy is that checks and balances can be removed with a simple vote. No more, no less...anything other would no longer constitute direct democracy.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by peck420

 

The Swiss just updated their constitution in 1999 and it includes elements of direct democracy. It was considered an update to their constitution of 1848. 12 years later and I have yet to hear anyone claiming that the Swiss have been stripped of their rights. In those same 12 years the US has gotten the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and TSA groping.

edit on 22-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

I bolded your own words to show you the fallacy of your argument.

Elements of direct democracy, not direct democracy.

I don't think people appreciate the power of direct democracy or the consequences.

reply to post by peck420


Fallacy? How is people having the power to veto laws and call for constitutional amendments not direct democracy? They are the elements that you are calling dangerous. Switzerland shows a variant of direct democracy that proves all your fears as wrong.

What about some sort of hybrid constitutional republic and direct democracy?

reply to post by daskakik


Fallacy #1: Using a small country with an even smaller demographic profile as a template for a very large and diverse country.

Fallacy #2: That they used 'some parts' of direct democracy over a short term, direct democracy doesn't cause problems over the long term.

reply to post by mnmcandiez


A noble idea, but exceptionally hard to implement.

With direct democracy you are always 1 vote away from a system without balance. It doesn't matter how many 'checks and balances' you think you have, you are always 1 vote away from change.

Although, change is not bad by default, it opens the door to a pure majority rules system.

Rethink America's history for the past 100 years...now insert direct democracy and imagine what would have happened. How many blacks would have the right to vote in a majority white population? How about the reverse.

Many will claim that you can set the checks and balances in stone, but that is impossible in a direct democracy as the direct democracy can always vote to change the system dynamics.

At some point, it will end up as a pure direct democracy, that will quickly transfer into tyranny of the majority.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by daskakik

 

Fallacy #1: Using a small country with an even smaller demographic profile as a template for a very large and diverse country.

That would just make it harder to get a majority to vote one way or the other so while it may be a fallacy it only weakens your argument.

Fallacy #2: That they used 'some parts' of direct democracy over a short term, direct democracy doesn't cause problems over the long term.

We don't know what it would do long term because it has never been tried so your fearmongering is just as fallacious.

reply to post by daskakik


You have never taken a history class have you?

Direct democracy has been tried (repeatedly) and do you know what came out of it after they picked up the pieces?

Democratic Republics.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Maslo

 

The problem with direct democracy is that checks and balances can be removed with a simple vote.

The same is in essence true for constitutional republic. The difference is, in constitutional direct democracy, its the votes of the people, in constitutional republic, its the votes of the representatives.

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
What about some sort of hybrid constitutional republic and direct democracy?

Constitutional direct democracy. Republic with no representatives.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by daskakik

 

You have never taken a history class have you?

Direct democracy has been tried (repeatedly) and do you know what came out of it after they picked up the pieces?

Democratic Republics.

When has true direct democracy been tried? Maybe in ancient Athens. Since then, it was only monarchy, aristocracy and representative democracy.

reply to post by peck420


I see it's a matter of semantics. Direct representation within a constitutional republic can be no worse than representative government within a constitutional republic.

Pointing out authoritarian governments that sprung from supposed democratic movements when in fact the plan was to remove all power from the people once the old government was removed is a poor argument against direct democracy.

reply to post by Ethericplane


Here is the great HBO doc on how our current system of voting is utterly unreliable and needs to be changed any way. We might as well go for more democracy; instead of none.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Maslo


No one is recommending only direct democracy, just more of it to counter bribery within our republic. Read.