A Global Manifesto as crafted by Occupy++

[Traitorfish]

Put bluntly, if you ask 'the people' to make all of their own decisions, they make some horrifically stupid ones. Politicians in general are better at making decisions than the average voter, which is why representative democracy tends to get a better outcome.

What examples of each system are you comparing?

I was going to use a hypothetical example, but I Googled and found a more concrete one.

Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.

Basically, panicked property owners grieved by something called the Rumford Fair Housing Act wanted to amend the California state constitution to allow them to discriminate against non-whites. I have an absolute belief that gay marriage is a right and consider Proposition 8 to be a similar example.

This was just a quick Wikipedia dive, but take it for what it's worth.

EDIT: Linky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(1963)

I'm afraid I don't follow. What does this have to do with direct democracy?

Politicians are crap, but they are a buffer zone. As bad as some of the post 9/11 laws were it would have been even worse if panicked average citizens were voting on things.

A buffer zone between what and what?

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm afraid I don't follow. What does this have to do with direct democracy?

It was a California ballot proposition. Is that not direct democracy?

 

[Traitorfish]

Fair point; what I mean is, what does that have to do with the sort of comprehensive direct democracy proposed by the manifesto? Simply pointing out that people have voted for objectionable things doesn't say anything more more conclusive than pointing out that they've voted for objectionable people or parties.

 

[Benefactor]

Direct Democracy erodes some of the checks and balances we have put in place in our current Representative systems, it's just people voting for or against laws. While I do believe in a direct democracy people would be more invested in the what is happening and make more of an effort to educate themselves on the issues they are voting on I don't think they would do it to the extent necessary for it to be better than the current system.

 

[Flying Pig]

What examples of each system are you comparing?

Shall we say Athens in 480 BC versus America in 2001? Alternately the 'popular sovereignty' over slavery in 19th Century America, which allowed slavery to persist in much of the country thanks to the unwillingness of the political classes to interfere with the direct wishes of the voters.

 

[Traitorfish]

Direct Democracy erodes some of the checks and balances we have put in place in our current Representative systems...

How so?

Shall we say Athens in 480 BC versus America in 2001?

If we're going to take into account that there was a greater difference between the two than just the system of government, sure.

Alternately the 'popular sovereignty' over slavery in 19th Century America, which allowed slavery to persist in much of the country thanks to the unwillingness of the political classes to interfere with the direct wishes of the voters.

Surely that represents a failure of representative democracy as much as direct democracy?

 

[Flying Pig]

Surely that represents a failure of representative democracy as much as direct democracy?

No; direct democracy, enshrined in law and custom, allowed slavery to continue.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why wasn't it challenged by the elected governments, then, if they were as stoutly anti-slavery as such a claim would imply? After all, if they were pro-slavery too, then there would be nothing much unique about the role of direct democracy in maintaining the institution, so by the fact that you're making a big deal of it, I can only assume that they were not.

 

[kramerfan86]

A buffer zone between what and what?

I believe I said in an earlier post a buffer zone between people's raw emotions and the law. I am not that concerned about direct democracy in relatively good times, but as soon as something bad happened I just dont trust its ability to prevent panicked mob mentality, especially against groups too small to effect the vote.

Representative democracy is of course flawed, but Ill take its checks and balances over a potential emotional free for all.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sorry that I made you so angry.

That honors you, though your pre-edit post read a little different Direct democracy is in general a quit emotional topic for me but your in my eyes totally misplaced arrogance was the trigger, however "cutesy" you want to portray it in the aftermath. But well, now I had my share of arrogance and arrogance quickly gets stale and bitter (not to mention unproductive).
If you are further interested in discussing with me, I'll make my stand down below.

which is why representative democracy tends to get a better outcome.

This isn't established the slightest. Also, we argue in very unrealistic and unproductive ways. Which is to assume some extreme form of direct democracy and its supposed horrors.

Instead I think we should focus on what works well in indirect democratic ways and what may benefit from more direct ways. Meaning how about incorporating both systems? For instance, to rule out tax schemes as a means of direct democracy strikes me as a good idea. kramerfan86 articulated his fear that the right of minorities get stamped on, so did AlpsStranger. And I think those are good points! (though this isn't actually tyranny of the majority, just as we don't have a party tyranny) So, have a constitution that prevents that and make representative components a necessary part of any constitutional change. It really is not that hard to think that far, is it?
But in many cases it isn't that clear-cut what direct democracy actually would mean, all we have is baseless fear mongering like we have it since the very introduction of democratic thought. But we didn't never give direct democratic elements an actual shot. I wonder why? It can't be because it is so obviously wrong. There simply is no basis for this assumption. Freaking none.

Of course, there is Switzerland. And they did some stupid things. Minaret ban, woman suffrage quit belated. However, first of Switzerland is of course not able to represent what various possible ways of direct democracy in various different nations actually would mean. It is just one tiny country and in various ways very special. What it can demonstrate is that direct democracy is not actually the end of the world, that it can cause political parties which are way less partisan (Switzerland is quit unique in this instance from what I have gathered), that it can also screw up (no surprise there, every political system will do that) and that it can also excel.

To illustrate the last one: Social contributions are capped in Germany. Why? It literally means that once you have reached a certain wealth, you have to give up a smaller share of it for the common good. Where in God's name is the sense in that? The better you are of, the less is the share you contribute. Ha, those representative elites and their wit, I can not even grasp it.
In Switzerland, they also had it capped, but a popular vote ended it. Horrible tyranny of the majority? Well in this case it seems to me Germany has a tyranny of the minority (not that anything of that is real tyranny to begin with, I happened have made a post on what this actually means, or at least orginial meant when it still made sense here). Alright, I get a little populist here, but I think you get the idea.

But we again argue in extremes. One system is good, the other bad. The to me most likely truth lies in between. And instead of getting hooked on imagined horrors, we should get on our way to find this position in between.

 

[BasketCase]

Would this rule also apply to Tea Party demonstrators and hate-spewing "news" pundits?

Dunno and don't care, because this thread isn't about the Tea Party.

Who gets to decide which states are "free", and which are "oppressive", I wonder?

It's obvious: just observe the voters. A nation is free if voters don't get arrested and shot when they vote "the wrong way" (which, for example, happens in Iran fairly frequently). I know the United States is free because American voters haven't been getting arrested and shot for opposing President Bush Jr., President Obama, or any of their predecessors.

 

[Gatsby]

Dunno and don't care, because this thread isn't about the Tea Party.

Good, I'll take that as a yes

 

[BasketCase]

Nope. You can only take it as a "yes" if I say "yes", and I didn't.

I will not be answering the question you asked, because that question was a "pointing-the-finger" debate fallacy: an attempt to put the bullseye on somebody besides the Occupy movement. This thread isn't about the Tea Party. It's about Occupy.

 

[Gatsby]

Nope. You can only take it as a "yes" if I say "yes", and I didn't.

I will not be answering the question you asked, because that question was a "pointing-the-finger" debate fallacy: an attempt to put the bullseye on somebody besides the Occupy movement. This thread isn't about the Tea Party. It's about Occupy.

I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone. I was just wondering if you had any interest in applying your edict fairly and consistently regardless of whether the group in question holds views that you agree with. However it sounds like you're happy to go down the cognitive dissonance route. Yet again.

 

[BasketCase]

You can only claim cognitive dissonance if I actually answer your question. I have not, and will not.

I already said I didn't read Occupy's manifesto. Most likely there are a few things in there I actually agree with. But that's the thing: whether I agree with any given item in the manifesto is irrelevant. Occupy is a political, and frequently violent, movement. Therefore, regardless of what the manifesto contains, any political material in it should not be presented as unilateral demands.

 

[Gatsby]

You can only claim cognitive dissonance if I actually answer your question. I have not, and will not....Occupy is a political, and frequently violent, movement. Therefore, regardless of what the manifesto contains, any political material in it should not be presented as unilateral demands.

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you simply choose to be in denial and bury your head in the sand. Fine whatever. But I would hope that in the interests of not being a hypocrite you would apply the same principled standard to a manifesto written by, say, Tea Party types who take their loaded guns to public rallies and get all riled up about fake birth certificates. Not trying to derail the thread here, just saying...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And know that these ideals will set free the free market, such that capitalism and democracy will flourish unlike the world has ever seen. This is not "attack of the socialist anarchist neo-hippy drop outs". This is Global Solidarity! This is human. This is for real. And it is happening now.

If that's what all this hubbub is over, defending that system of oppression, then the Occupiers really have no clue. Do you realize that if Occupy resorts to "defending capitalism" then it's no different, just as reactionary, and just as bad (I might even say worse[/]) than the Tea Partiers. Fortunately much of the American Occupy movement seems to be shedding its liberal roots, I suggest you move with them, if you want to remain relevant.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's obvious: just observe the voters. A nation is free if voters don't get arrested and shot when they vote "the wrong way" (which, for example, happens in Iran fairly frequently). I know the United States is free because American voters haven't been getting arrested and shot for opposing President Bush Jr., President Obama, or any of their predecessors.

So you would regard China as a free country, given that citizens are free to vote for candidates who are not members of the ruling party?

Occupy is a political, and frequently violent, movement.

Are you saying you don't vote?

 

[Leoreth]

You can only claim cognitive dissonance if I actually answer your question. I have not, and will not.

Can we claim that you're chickening out then instead?

 

[kramerfan86]

If that's what all this hubbub is over, defending that system of oppression, then the Occupiers really have no clue. Do you realize that if Occupy resorts to "defending capitalism" then it's no different, just as reactionary, and just as bad (I might even say worse[/]) than the Tea Partiers. Fortunately much of the American Occupy movement seems to be shedding its liberal roots, I suggest you move with them, if you want to remain relevant.

Oh please, by nature almost all systems invented by humans have lead to oppression. If you are going to be hyper-optimistic and ignore history, suggesting idealized capitalism is not inferior to suggesting idealized socialism or communism.