Thread: Direct Democracy. Would you vote for it?

Originally Posted by MK27

Again, while this might provide a short cut solution to many contemporary, global imbalances/injustices (and I would support it 110%!) I think it would be at worst just too alien/unacceptable to most people and at best require a level of commitment and clarity which exceeds the real potential of the species (honestly). No offence . We is what we is.

In the contrary. That is what people always did. They are family based. They had a house, which they claimed their own. Tools/equipment to use. If the were farmers the land belonged to those who used it. If the land is big enough, everybody is happy. But people get greedy and start claiming the land as their own. The rest are forced to work for them. That is a result of a lack of law. But the idea of having a public wealth is not alien at all. You say "I belong to a company". The company is something everybody shares. If you tell them "the company belongs to everyone" they would look at you and say "ok, so what?". They don't really care. If you tell them "your house belongs to everyone" they will start punching you. "So the neighbor will be able to come inside? I hate my neighbor". That is usually what people think. They want safety and privacy that is why they want their own property. For most people I don't think the idea is alien. And you have one owner and a lot of workers. So the idea would only be alien to a small percentage. Which would still benefit more than the rest...

Originally Posted by MK27

This is unnecessary -- that's centralization/communism. You would have to find the necessary resources, which is still easy to understand under capitalism (it's real freedom, and not the profit motive, which inspires the greatest innovation). I suppose that might involve asking people for things tho. Nb. "people" is not synonymous with "person" (so you might also have to ask individual persons for "things"). People are free to make collective agreements under anarchism.

Communism is just an idea, it doesn't imply a very specific system. There are hundreds of systems that are based in communism. In any case, there doesn't have to be a label on things.
Most of the resources would be public. Asking people would probably result in "I don't have ten tractors to built your office". If they did, then you could start your own business. But at some degree you would need some public resources if we assume that most resources were public.
Centralization is also a form of coordination. Which is vital for a society. People alone simply don't coordinate that much. The key is not to centralize around people with power, but around laws and systems. I don't want John to be in command for all the wealth. But I would like for laws and agreements to distribute wealth, not the idea if you legally get it, its yous.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

In the contrary. That is what people always did. They are family based. They had a house, which they claimed their own. Tools/equipment to use. If the were farmers the land belonged to those who used it. If the land is big enough, everybody is happy. But people get greedy and start claiming the land as their own. The rest are forced to work for them. That is a result of a lack of law.

Only if the law that's lacking is the universal security of one's person (ie, no violence), and furthermore there is a "law" about controlling property and the right to exercise violence in it's acquisition (property exceeds personhood). Two people cannot plow the same ground at once until someone raises a fist, and who can claim the fruits of the earth as their own when they have eaten and another has not, except in so far as someone may be concerned with hoarding and another with acquiring their hoards? The hoard (harvest) is no one's and you cannot fit so much in your mouth anyway.

You are right, this is a fatal flaw in human history now firmly entrenched in the minds of modern westerners. But since I don't believe in God, C_ntua, I am not surprised by this -- no offence (and anyway I think Christianity actually contains within it a reflection of this "downfall" or tragic flaw, albeit fragmented and abstracted), so I am not trying to provoke here but only make you go "hmmm". My real point in raising this point is that for better or for worse there you go, this is "the real potential of the species" which is why idealistic philosophies like anarchism cannot be made to work on a very large scale (but that does not make them any less important to maintain, since "very large" is not the only scale).

Originally Posted by C_ntua

Centralization is also a form of coordination. Which is vital for a society. People alone simply don't coordinate that much.

IMO you only believe that last sentence because contemporary western society does not expect much from people in this regard, and people as animals are lazy and do not develop certain capacities without a conscious effort.

As for the second sentence, we'll have to disagree -- I think centralization is not only un-vital but detrimental to the economy. The further removed power becomes from a situation, the more prone it is to corruption, hypocrisy, and "internal" sabotage.