Direct Democracy


Elitists are terrified of direct democracy and want to pretend the public has no idea what is good for themselves.  Men like Friedrich Nietzsche characterized what he perceived to be slave and master mentality and clearly had a very sinister “master” mentality himself.

Again, people know what’s good for themselves overall.  If they make a mistake, then they suffer and learn their lesson.  Looking at the world right now, it’s obvious people who call for elitism have absolutely no idea what they are doing and never have.

If some people do not care one way or another about a particular issue, all they have to do is indicate that somehow and those who do care can decide.  However, minorities cannot just assume others do not care.  Such things must be formally indicated.

If people don’t feel they understand an issue, they can always do research, ask somebody they trust, etc.  A healthy, educated, and well informed public should be able to make correct decisions for themselves.  People who think they are SO much brighter than everybody else just need to find a way to explain their thoughts/plans/ideas to the public.

The Elite Fit to Rule


The only elite fit to rule over humanity are those who understand the value of direct democracy, in my opinion.  They are the truly sane human beings who must push back any force that tries to enforce a minority will on the majority.

This “elite” supporting TRUE democracy can (and hopefully does) include the majority of people.

People’s emotions are more accurate than what elitists define as “logic/reason.”  Every person who pretends to be pure logic/intellect supports imperialism, military power, oppressing other groups, and—in many historical cases—slavery, racism, sexism, rape, torture, etc.  People who say they are pure logic/reason also despise direct democracy despite supporting invading other countries using the phoney excuse of spreading democracy.

People who pretend they are of advanced intellect always need to be extreme elitists who justify the worst abuses of power because in reality they aren’t reasonable or logical in the slightest.  However, if they talk in a condescending manner, create the illusion of intellectual sophistication, and support the oppressor, it makes no difference how stupid or nonsensical they are.

People’s emotions are LOGICAL and accurate the majority of the time.  For those times intuitive instinct is not accurate, logical extrapolation of commonly held truths to broader situations, allowing the maintenance of logical consistency, is helpful.

People who think pure logic can guide all actions are not logical at all in most cases.  They just don’t want humans to trust their gut instincts and want to enforce elitism using excuses designed to sound logical.

People should trust their instincts and temper it with a little bit of logic here and there for greater accuracy.  People who want humans to be PURE logic are typically asking for humanity to be wrong/inaccurate the large majority of the time under the illusion that such actions make sense from some special realm of advanced intellect (which in reality does not exist.)

Anti-Democratic Anarcho-Capitalism: Total Scam


I’ve never heard of anything dumber than anarcho-capitalism which opposes democracy and the current state system, but thinks all property/wealth gained under the current, unethical system should be preserved even after it is abolished.  Many use the terms “voluntaryism” or “anarcho-libertarianism” to mask a system solely revolving around rich people unfairly owning everything and the majority having no ability to reclaim the earth as free, voluntary association.

In their minds, the rich have the right to defend unfairly acquired wealth using machine guns and personal armies, but the majority using democracy to reclaim property they never consented to conceding in the first place is categorized as “theft.”

I was completely wrong when I said there was a split in the left.  These phoney-leftists opposing democracy have one basic argument: “As long as you leave rich people’s stuff alone and don’t use democracy to take back what rightfully belongs to the public, you are free to do whatever you want.”

Direct Democracy


Ideally, there would be direct democracy for urban centres existing side-by-side with self-directed spiritual communes in the countryside (with roughly ten thousand people per commune.)

The urban centres would utilize high-efficiency capitalism where VERY limited inequality maintains competition rather than any poverty.  In order to maintain this inequality, extra output could just be given to the communes rather than destroyed through war.

Problems with Voluntaryism


One problem I notice with voluntaryism is that it doesn’t take into account the natural elitist tendencies of human beings.  Without true democracy, majorities often have a natural tendency to defer to a minority elite.  (E.g. the popular clique in high school vs. the larger student body; the amount of attention models get from the general population etc.)

Voluntaryism that does not utilize democracy, requiring elites (of all fields) to make sure the general public is well-fed and educated, might result in the exact same problem it sought to eliminate.

A split in the left.


Update (Dec. 12, 2014): I realize those who oppose democracy are complete scammers trying to defend the property of the rich against the will of the public.

Anti-Democratic Anarcho-Capitalism: Total Scam


There is a very problematic split when it comes to true left-wing ideology, in my opinion. There are those who favour direct-democracy and regard it as a form of anarchism and those who think even direct-democracy is not true anarchism (ie. those supporting voluntaryism as the only form of true anarchism.)

This is problematic because two groups opposed to elitism and state control are in serious conflict.

Direct-democracy advocates think current voting within representational democracy is basically “rigged” by multiple forces that only give voters the choice between “night” and “later that night.” However, the answer to such things is greater public involvement and demands for more direct voting on issues.

Voluntaryism advocates seem to move in the exact opposite direction. They want to cast off the shackles of any form of control including that of the general populace altogether. They want people to abstain from voting as a way to protest unfair control. However, in order for voluntaryism to work, the majority of people must naturally adopt the same basic principles and assumptions (which is not impossible seeing as how people are so good at conforming to popular ideology.) Voluntaryism works on unstated assumptions: certain ground rules must be naturally assumed and agreed upon by enough people wielding enough power to maintain a framework where people act like a single organism in their willingness to respect one another as individuals. It might be the truer form of anarchism in that sense (and a form of unconscious democracy, in reality.)

However, from voluntaryism, people have the natural right to congregate and form democratic establishments that hopefully respect those who choose not to participate in such things.

At the end of the day, the public still needs to be made highly aware of the possibility of this type of set-up to the point enough people stop listening to the current establishment.

(The fact I oddly already feel in-tune with such a notion says that we as organisms are likely able to adjust to multiple forms of social organization.)