Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
does anyone really think that pure, unchecked democracy is a good thing?

---

Quote:

---

iglou said:
It is also important to note that no system, political or economic, will ever be perfect.

We must balance out the negatives and positive aspects/effects of the said system.

I say representative democracy has some good aspects, but they are far outweighed by the negative. The problems that are found in direct democracy theory/practice are outweighed by the positive aspects (individual responsiblity, active decision-making and participation in our own lives, no spectacle, doing what is best for ourselves and our community).

---

Quote:

---

iglou said:
what if the majority of the people wish to establish a state religion and persecute those who don't comply? what if the majority wish to make political protest illegal? what if the majority wish to reinstitute slavery? what if the majority wants to ban certain plants and incarcerate anyone found in possession of such plants? what if the majority wants to ban certain consensual sexual acts between adults?

The principles that are required for direct democracy are free-association (non-binding decisions and the ability of the individual to not participate) and self-defense as well as near-consensual decisions.

Basically, decisions are made by those who are most effected by the outcomes of the decisions. Decisions must be made in consensus (or majority vote as a necessary last resort). If someone does not agree with a decision made by majority vote, that can opt out. Decisions are not binding (especially for the minority).

However if such a decision is coercive and the democracy has devolved to point of coercion, that is where self-defense comes into play.

---

Quote:

---

iglou said:
i'm in support of this system here, but it's not democracy, it's freedom.

Yes, it is freedom. It is also the absense of authority and heriarchy. It is the activiation of free-association and rudimentary democratic principles ("rule by people").

what it doesn't address are situations that call for a decision that affects everyone that can't be opted out of... what if they can only go to eat at one place?

Well, what would you do in a similar situation?

Again, that is where debate, compromise, and free-assocation come into play. Never should coercion take place. As long as principles are enacted, they'll figure out what is best to do. I say self-governing and self-responsible individuals are creative enough to figure their lives out.     

---

People come down . You are talking about anarchy. But, first  things first. The first thing is e-democracy, the system that will move the people to start thinking by their own head. That is the first step to the new era.

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
totally unhindered, pure democracy? any public policy supported by a majority becomes law, no matter what it is? 

---

We have stuff that is so called democratic puffer. Second thing, though the e-democracy is not instealled yet, it has to pass the testing period. To make some basic postulates such as freedom of speech, and other stuff made by concensus.

Main principles + constition will control mob effect. Though, nowdays, oligarchy uses this mob effect against the mob. Now, when poeple will really deciede, it is not their interest to act ahainst themselves.

Though, testing period is necessary. And it is happening right now .

Quote:

---

Though, constitution can be changed. Not by majority, but by 4/5th.

---