[TOUGH QUESTIONS] State or individual - which should be master? - Zerowedgie

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55:23PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:48:27 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> 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.