Forum Post: A question to OWS protesters and supporters.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 1:53 p.m. EST by Thrasymaque
(-2138)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Direct democracy is being proposed by OWS. Every system has advantages, disadvantages, and pitfalls. We've heard OWS protesters and supporters discuss the advantages of direct democracy, but I would like to hear them discuss the disadvantages and pitfalls. NOTE: I'm asking OWS protesters and supporters because I imagine they are serious and have explored all the facets of direct democracy, good and bad. I'm sure they have already thought of the potential disadvantages and pitfalls and have thought up solutions to these problems. These are indeed very important considerations which must be taken into account before implementing the system nation wide. What are OWS leaders saying about this? Your thoughts?
(I'm asking because I want to know if direct democracy is being discussed in utopian fashion as the perfect system, or in a practical realistic way as another system with its merits and weaknesses. This will help me better understand the mindset of OWS practitioners.)
A concept of direct democracy like any other "system" is fine except who defines it? We have a republic. it is "the rule of law" it was invented in reaction to the monarchies.
Our republic might be just fine except it is not. We most assuredly are NOT ruled by laws. WE are "managed" by the men who control our monetary system. These men rule our media and politicians. I suppose if you needed to define our current state of affairs, it would be an oligarchy. Couple of rich folks keeping the rest in line.
We have identified the people who rule us and we have identified the system they use. I suggest we form state owned banks and take the monetary system back from the oligarchs. Political change is far easier on a state level. Local legislators aren't rich and protected by the news media.
Before condemning the current system and suggesting something new to ameliorate things, identify what is going on now.
A recent segment of the radio show On Point featured author Glenn Greenwald. GG gave a compelling account of the descent of the rule of law to virtual non-existence, first with respect to high government officials, then to high officials in the world of finance. He recounts this process since the 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon for his felonies and continuing through today.
I agree with your political outlook.
To answer your question as to who would define the system of direct democracy, I assumed it would be the people using the direct democracy itself in a crude form and then slowly improving upon it through propositions and votes when holes are found.
direct democracy allows a majority of idiots to rule and is a terrible system.
I'm an OWS supporter and admirer from afar. From here it appears that the OWS method of dd is working brilliantly to keep the group together and keep its mission undefined or at best loosely defined, which is the right strategy for now in my opinion. I can't see it working in a much larger group, and indeed I have heard of dd proponents contemplating a move toward a representative system in larger groups. I don't what the threshold size is, but beyond it, I think it would simply become too complicated, cumbersome, and time-consuming to get anything done.
It seems reasonable to expect a scaling problem. Thanks for your input.
One question. I heard some supporters were complaining that only a few were able to make it to each general assembly resulting in the situation that these few had more voting opportunities than others. Some members have jobs and cannot always attend. Is this a problem you heard about? If it's true, have they found a solution?
I don't know. I'm too far away. I can only pick up bits and pieces on line.
I agree. Its a scaling problem as the Athenians quickly learned. Works ok in small New England towns etc., but once u get above a certain no. it doesn't work so well. Could such a thing be done electronically? Maybe, but here's the problem as I see it, democratic legislative bodies should be somewhat contemplative, not reactive. When they're direct they become more easily targets of demagogues. Roberts rules of order exist for a reason folks. We need some extensive reworking though of the present Representative system which obviously fails to represent "we the people" and is now almost wholly a creature of the Oligarchy / Plutocracy / Corpocracy. I'd eliminate the Senate entirely, nothing more then an American version of the House of Lords with actual power. A 28th Amendment is also needed now because of the corrupt SCOTUS we have. The Citizens United ruling needs to remedied with such an Amendment. Corps. must be returned to being merely business entities licensed and severely limited by the State. They've essentially become the State @ this pt.
I would hesitate to predict what might come from the ingenuity and dedication of folks I have seen in action with OWS.
But jingle fingers isn't hard to learn.