Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Direct Democracy

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Lunadimae, May 25, 2010.

  1. Lunadimae

    LunadimaeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    1

    Mar 1, 2010
     
    This topic is for anyone who wants to debate on this issue.
     

  2. Lunadimae

    LunadimaeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    1

    Mar 1, 2010
     
    Many people have been accused of crimes and have been sentenced/executed for it although they had been innocent. For example, if the accused person was with me the whole day when the murder took place, and yet people accused him as a suspect. What then?

    Let's take an exile for example, or NGNM85's case, that was done by voting using direct democracy, right? With consensus decision-making we could have probably tried to find an alternative to a ban, for example a suspension for a number of days, give him a warning etc... That would have been agreed to by the minority, and possibly the majority.

    I see.

    Check the link I put on the other post about consensus decision-making. A ruling should suit both sides, it may suit the majority more than the minority but the ruling wouldn't be as extensive. If it is around a murder with a given amount of evidence and the person's reputation, I'm pretty sure no one would object.

    True, but the minority in a consensus decision-making society wouldn't be as pissed off as one where direct democracy takes place, the minority at least get their share.


    Yes that is true, but it does not make it the best course of action in my opinion. Instead of an exile as a first-time punishment of a minor crime, why not give an official warning for example?
     
  3. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    It's true there is a certain amount of dictatorship in the fact that the majority can decide over the minority - but as long as the ideals of personal freedom we see in Anarchism is there, so that no one, majority or not, has the right to impose their will upon a person how they should live their life, as long as that person don't hurt others, there is some protection, and it will still be better.

    Today, there are to many minorities that can't protect them self in the parliamentarian system, because they can't get enough votes (due to being a minority) - immigrants, punks etc. And in reality, 51% of the population could ban piercings and punk music, just as they try to ban traditional muslim clothing. In an anarchist society, it wouldn't be possible, since it is a personal choice that doesn't affect other people.
     
  4. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,295

    43

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    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.
     
  5. punkmar77

    punkmar77Administrator Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    5,440

    82

    621

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Are we really going to go into another 12 pages of argument after this topic has been discussed to death on the NGNM85 thread? Please say it isn't so............ :@
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,295

    43

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    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 ?
     
  7. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    It's exactly my point that Anarchism isn't dictatorship because anarchism acknowledge the individuals right to live as he or she wishes, as long as no one else is harmed by it. Therefore, it isn't dictatorship. Also, in a classless society, there would be no classes sitting on the power, which means we wouldn't in the same way have one class in total control of the others (we might have some cultural stuff etc., but not a big rich upperclass in power).
    This would also mean, that a person who's ideas are turned down by the majority in one case easily can get the support of the majority in another case - unlike the political system today, with parties supporting each other, and putting the good of the political party over their individual opinions.

    But, dictatorship of the majority isn't just liberal bullshit, it's reality in todays society. 51% of the population can choose how 49% of the population are to live, and they've got the power to control what people wear, believe and can do, even if it's in no way harmful to society (or some would argue it is, like shitheads claiming rock music is depraving).
    In an anarchist there would of course be some deciding over others, and some that are able to get more of their ideas supported than others, but as long as the personal freedom is intact we will not see a dictatorship of the majority
     
  8. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,295

    43

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    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.
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,295

    43

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
     
  10. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    I'm aware of all of this, but that doesn't make it liberal bullshit - as in untrue. It is a democratic problem in the system today (as you point out here, only 16% can decide over others if the cards are played right). Tyranny of the majority is a reality, and few people seem to be taking their personal liberty up for discussion (in politics)

    And yes, there's a little bit of authoritarian dictatorship in the whole fact that some people can decide over others, but that's an absolute minimum compared to any other ideology. My point was that anarchy is the most democratic and that it protects people's right to living as they wish, without the majority having a say on it - but as all other systems, it does include the making of rules over some that might disagree.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Direct DemocracyForumDate
what is direct action and what does it mean?General political debatesJul 11, 2013
Documentaries on Direct Action GroupsAnarchism and radical activismMay 7, 2012
Looks like there may be a revival of a Trans direct action group after 10 years.Anarchism and radical activismMar 14, 2011
Direct Action - Trapped In A World - 1985 (Canada)Anarcho-Punk music albums downloadsFeb 26, 2011
Creative spin on direct action for hotel workers in San FranciscoAnarchism and radical activismMay 14, 2010