On 07/23/2018 04:42 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 12:03:18 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
∙ the state direct democracy anarchy/ism
so what is 'direct democracy'? A bunch of statists who can 'directly vote' on how to abuse their betters?
unless you give some actual specification for 'direct democracy' (which is just another for of statism anyway) you are not saying much, if anything.
As I understand it, direct democracy means people banding together to exercise political power "by hand", using whatever kind of force necessary to get the results they want. That makes direct democracy very nearly a synonym for anarchy, especially as the term usually describes dissident movements pushing back against one or another kind of State authority. Like anarchy, direct democracy does not define or describe a form of government in the usual sense of the term. Tactical options for direct democracy include propaganda (publications, protest rallies, etc.); strikes and boycotts; occupations and expropriations; sabotage and physical intimidation; or even armed conflict. Because they fill roles more usually taken by the State, both local charities and 'frontier justice' would also fall under the direct democracy banner. So would local governance by a consensus process, as seen in some tribal councils, and oddly enough, the administrative process of traditional branches of the Religious Society of Friends, a.k.a. Quakers. My limited information suggests that the Zapatista controlled bit of Mexico qualifies as a "direct democracy" because meetings modeled on a traditional tribal council process where all may be heard, and decisions are made by consensus, directs the actions of their military/police force. In this instance, one could consider direct democracy a form of government now in place - and to date, a highly successful example. Neither petrochemicals nor narcotics cartels have managed to steal their land. :o)