An awful lot of this just smacks of 'yes, we'd all love that, dear, but how do you intend to pay for it?'
Who gets to decide which states are "free", and which are "oppressive", I wonder?In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran.
Who gets to decide which states are "free", and which are "oppressive", I wonder?
It's inappropriate, and in fact dangerous to human freedom, for the Occupy movement to be listing "demands". Doesn't matter what those demands are, and in fact I didn't even bother to read the links. The links are unimportant. In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran. In free nations, political change MUST BE the sole prerogative of voters cloaked in the anonymous safety of the voting booth--where the demonstrators can't scare the voters or take revenge on people who vote "the wrong way".
So dumb that all the flaws of solely focusing on representation become irrelevant? How exactly did you reach this conclusion? Especially if we consider the vast myriads of ways representation sucks and the negligible experience we had the chance to collect with direct democracy? Ah I see, you don't have any actual coherent reasoning, but I understand how cool it is to have yourself appear aware of the dumbness of the masses and it is a trendy argument to make against direct democracy. Especially in the USA, where arguments seem to be all about fashion, especially with the masses.Protip: People are actually too dumb for this to be a good idea.
Do you have any objections to direct democracy that don't amount to gut-instinct and misanthropy? Nothing in the above post suggests that you do.
I don't understand the alleged relationship between direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority". Would it be possible to explain to it me, preferably with minimum references to your contempt for the swinish multitude?
Politicians are a buffer zone that sort of cools down the primal emotion of the voter before it becomes law. Imagine right after 9/11 when people were terrified and angry what sort of direct votes we would have had on muslims.I don't understand the alleged relationship between direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority". Would it be possible to explain to it me, preferably with minimum references to your contempt for the swinish multitude?
Politicians are a buffer zone that sort of cools down the primal emotion of the voter before it becomes law. Imagine right after 9/11 when people were terrified and angry what sort of direct votes we would have had on muslims.
I commend your irony, sir.
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.