Direct Democracy

This is called an evidence. On the other topic, you just said:
"Evidence? What if you have none, it's not like you were following the guy with a camera all day."

Once again, there is no such thing as executions in an anarchist society.

Nobody suggested that. We could have added other options to the direct democracy vote but nobody suggested that.

By the way, we already tryed to find a middle ground before thinking of a ban. Remember when we modified the "who are we" text to ask everyone to center on what unite us instead of what divide us ?

There is ALWAYS some person who would object, stop being so irrealist and think farther than your small community. A community consist of thousands of persons, they will never all agree together. Even in the worst situations, like murders.

it would still be what you call the "tyranny of the majority" (liberal quote)

Look, i will explain you one last time how direct democracy work since you can't even do your own searches, then after i give up with you.

Direct democracy would be preceded by a long debate. You can't just start a vote without explaining to the peoples what is going on. So during this debate, let's say we start the topic by saying we want to exile someone. So so far we have two choices: yes or no. Obviously some peoples would disagree and wouldn't want an exile. So maybe some peoples will suggest other things, like warning or consequences. So now, we can just add a new option to the vote. Let's say after the debate we will have three options : exile or not, and warnings.
But how to decide which one of the three options we choice ? You suggest that it should be disallowed to think about choosing between two options between three options using the pretext that it would be the tyranny of the majority ? Well i say that imposing one option while disallowing three options would be the tyranny of the so-called consensus.

Even following your theory of so-called consensus, how to know if this the option suggested by a consensus would be accepted by most of the people ? You still need a direct democracy vote to officialize a consensus.

And like i have said, there is a lot of situations where a consensus would be impossible, i can give many many examples...

That's exactly what was done with NGNM85, sherlock.

 

Dictatorship of the majority... haha... sounds really funny to me..

I think some of you see authority and dictatorship everywhere.

Following your ideas, anarchism itself would be the dictatorship of the majority since we all know that it will NEVER happen that 100% of the population will agree to anarchism. Sure, an anarchist revolution will only happen if a majority of peoples support it, but there will always be a minority who disagree to anarchism. So, anarchism is dictatorship ? Anarchism is tyranny of the majority ?

 

well you said
"It's true there is a certain amount of dictatorship in the fact that the majority can decide over the minority"

so logically "there is a certain amount of dictatorship" in anarchism since anarchism is the dictatorship of the people over the bourgeoisie, the big companies, the proprietaries, etc... Still tyranny of the majority.

No this is dictatorship of the minority.

In canada at the last elections there were more than 40% abstention

then winning party won with like 55% of the voices

55% of 60% is like 32%

so democracy is the dictatorship of 32% of the population, but anyway in fact it is the dictatorship of ONE party since the 32% of the population who elected a party doesn't even partitipate to the decisions.

And i don't even count the peoples who doesn't have an electoral card and are not registered (like me). Let's say only half of the population is registered at the elections, then it would mean that the current political party is elected with the support of only 16% of the population.

And yes, "tyranny of the majority" is a term comming from at least three different liberal philosophers, look on wikipedia.