On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55:23PM -0300, Juan wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:48:27 +1000 > Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Direct democracy is where somehow everyone gets to vote on literally > > everything, throwing out any and every law not wanted, and also > > having freedom over when such votes are done - if "leaders" are able > > to constrain voting by saying something like "you voted this year on > > the options to reduce or increase taxation by 5%, and you chose to > > decrease taxation by 5%, and so now you can't vote again for 10 more > > years" that of course is nothing like direct democracy. > > > > Thought folks round here were clear on the concept. > > > Well I think there are a few unclear details, but yeah the system may > be better than 'repersentative' democracy, either because it will limit state > power somewhat, or will cause more chaos... > > > > > > > > (which is just another for of statism anyway) > > > > well there you're presupposing it as a negative thing > > statism? I'm not presupposing it is a negative thing. I'm looking at > the facts. > > > > > > is there no possible middle ground between statism and anarchy, where > > people can reasonably make collective "agreements" and say the > > individual conscientious objector is still respected, > > Well, if you don't force dissenters into those agreements then yes you > have something that is not ordinary statism and gets closer to anarchy. > > So let's say some people vote to set taxes to some %, BUT people who > don't vote have their taxes set to 0%. Or some people vote to close the > borders but people who don't vote can go through the borders freely etc. > > But I'm not sure that's what direct democracy means. > > > > > and the > > oligarchs don't game/control the system into a state of tyranny > > > > > > > you are not saying much, if anything. > > > > Sweden is quite a poor example - some sort of federated "Democracy" > > as far as I can tell - "direct" on small irrelevancies like whether > > flip flops must or must not be worn around the public pool (but I > > have not research the Swiss system in any depth...) > > > > actually the swiss do vote on some interesting stuff. I think we've > covered it before. > > just one example > > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2014/11/30/swiss-voters-reject-increasing-gold-reserves-in-referendum/ > > "78% voted against expanding central bank gold reserves" - i.e. voted > even against a partial gold standard....
Interesting. They may soon come to regret that decision/ vote.
