1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

A Global Manifesto as crafted by Occupy++

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by White Elk, May 11, 2012.

  1. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,611
    Location:
    Scotland
    What examples of each system are you comparing?

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


    A buffer zone between what and what?
     
  2. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    It was a California ballot proposition. Is that not direct democracy?
     
  3. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,611
    Location:
    Scotland
    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.
     
  4. Benefactor

    Benefactor Beneficial

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    902
    Location:
    Rov'Rum
    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.
     
  5. Flying Pig

    Flying Pig Utrinque Paratus

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    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.
     
  6. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,611
    Location:
    Scotland
    How so?

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

    Surely that represents a failure of representative democracy as much as direct democracy?
     
  7. Flying Pig

    Flying Pig Utrinque Paratus

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    No; direct democracy, enshrined in law and custom, allowed slavery to continue.
     
  8. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,611
    Location:
    Scotland
    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.
     
  9. kramerfan86

    kramerfan86 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,572
    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.
     
  10. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton Awake

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,207
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
    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.
     
  11. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    :coffee: Dunno and don't care, because this thread isn't about the Tea Party.

    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.
     
  12. Gatsby

    Gatsby King

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    655
    Good, I'll take that as a yes :beer:
     
  13. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    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.
     
  14. Gatsby

    Gatsby King

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    655
    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.
     
  15. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    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.
     
  16. Gatsby

    Gatsby King

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    655
    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...
     
  17. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    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.
     
  18. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,611
    Location:
    Scotland
    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?

    Are you saying you don't vote?
     
  19. Leoreth

    Leoreth Prince of Blood Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    34,477
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    House of Hades
    Can we claim that you're chickening out then instead?
     
  20. kramerfan86

    kramerfan86 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,572

    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.
     

Share This Page