On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 05:42:49PM -0300, 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 everyone are classed as statists (and most are well entrained in such belief/thinking), direct democracy is literally everyone voting, on every law, every clause separately if they wish. Would most vote for or against parking fines, petty speeding fines? Would most vote for or against taxes? Oligarchs gaming democracy is about illusion of choice - dichotomies of "this party or that party" and now you have "chosen" and have "freedom". 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.
unless you give some actual specification for 'direct democracy'
fair enough
(which is just another for of statism anyway)
well there you're presupposing it as a negative thing 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, 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...)