Anarchy/self-government

Direct Democracy? Mob Rule?

This is a viable solution?

You do realize, of course, that a direct democracy necessarily oppresses dissenters. Of course this is true, to a greater or lesser degree, of any form of government, and it is among the most important reasons why I oppose the rule of man by men in any form.

I oppose the idea that any man or group of men can claim a natural right to the monopoly of the use of force in order to expropriate privately owned property. No government of any form can exist without necessarily imposing a claim to this right.

 

Yet under direct democracy for that to happen first a motion has to passed by a majority which you would have the right to vote for or aginst.

 

viva la revolution!

 

Right, I have the right to vote for or against. I vote against. I am in the minority, so the motion is carried. I am oppressed. But since "I am the government" in the direct democracy, I am oppressing myself.

To cite an extreme example:

"... any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part."

Obviously this type of reasoning is utterly ridiculous. In any type of Democracy, the majority always and necessarily oppresses the minority.

 

Sure but you can still put limmitations on the goverment like the consitution is suppose to do with the US republic also if you barricade your self on your property and we are talking a volunter police force then odds are the police won't risk their neck to expropriate your land as they can just go help the fire department save some cat out of a tree instead.

Unless the majority yeilds to the minority.

 

Anyway, FreeDawg, your anarchy supposes some form of democracy. Don't forget you're talking about a society without state, but with some form of cooperatives who are supposed to carry on the functions which today are atributes of state and state administration. To make such organisations function you need a leadership and therefore some form of democracy within the cooperatives themselves (if the leadership will be a dictatorship, then soon it will regenerate the state).

But all this debate sounds a little like the question who was first, the egg or the chicken. You say mankind had evolved enough to live in your ideal society without reinventing the state. I say that the evolution of mankind since the Dark Age and the non-state structures existing then, and very close to the society you describe, is more about technology then psychology, so the history would just repeat itself with the cooperatives and communities evolving again toward the state. There is no possible conciliation here.

But if you're right, then the historical evolution will naturaly create the anarchy you talk about (I repeat that because it exists also the Bakunin idea of anarchy, which is a sort of commmunism; also Marx was talking about the final disolution of the state in the ideal communism). But what I see happening in reality is a certain socialisation of capitalism and democracy, not the evolution toward a minimal state who will finaly disappear. Dictatorship, no metter it's ideological background, prouved to be a total flaw. Some socialist experiments in economy (like the Labour Party polithics in the UK during the '70s) also prouved wrong. But, on the other hand the state is becoming more and more involved in social issues and economy regulation. You quoted me some typical American example like civil militias or neighbouhood watch, but actualy this are a sort of historical living fossils, from a time, before FDR, when the US were a true minimal state. And we don't know how much time they will last. Remember, the existing militias are already an FBI objective, with the agreement of the majority of the country population. Also, there is preasure for increasing social polithics of American state, banning of weapons and so on.

 

If it was a decentralised direct democracy you could move to an area where you weren't in the minority in any of your opinions. How can you espouse anarchy - no government whatsoever - but be against direct democracy. You want the corporations to rule everything? What's the difference between that and a government running everything except that a government (especially a direct democratic one) has been given a mandate by (or is) the people.

 

i believe in change
in socialism
but anarchy has its time
and can futher the change needed

lovenpeace from saff

its capitalism thats stunted our human being
with wars profit etc

 

Socialism, if you mean communism, is smoken cigar. And it produced cancer.

 

Anyway Freedawg. Maybe you don't know this but are you aware first, that eating is generally good for you (I realise you americans have a bit of a skewed perspective on that), and second, at the moment american and european farmers are subsidesed depending on how much land they have NOT growing crops, in order to keep food prices high enough to make it a commercially viable crop. Food is massively valuable, in fact essential, yet virtually valueless. I think food is the first thing that should be free, for precisely those reasons. If you take too much of it you will get fat and live less long. Unless you burn off the excess energy which can't be a bad thing can it? YOu can always put more into society if you're well fed.

 

I actually bothered to read this garbage and the only thing I can say is your English teacher needs to smack you upside the head. Stay in school and learn how how to speak, spell and use grammar. You actually think anyone is going to take you seriously besides a few people on this message board?

Good Grief!

Flame on!