Direct Democracy

Aside

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.

Property Rights and Academic Titles

Aside

All things must be accepted by the general public—not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.

Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.

I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things.  Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.

One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.)  This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people.  If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.

Another idea is to not even have formal academia.  People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts.  People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes.  If they do not, their creations will flounder.  It’s as simple as that.

Direct Democracy

Aside

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

Aside

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.

Aside

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.)

Aside

Though it might be stating the obvious, I want to clarify my stance on Zionism vs. compensation for Aboriginals:

I disagree with Zionism, but support heavy compensation in land and resources for the Aboriginal people.  Obviously, it would have made more sense had America and Western powers funneled everything they had into creating a Jewish state into creating a high-quality living environment for the Aboriginal people.

The reason I disagree with Zionism is the same reason I don’t agree with the Hakka diaspora annexing a plot of land near the Yellow River to create a state for themselves at the expense of the people currently living there: roughly 2000 years is just too long a period of time, in my opinion.  The people settled there likely having nothing to do with those who were responsible for the original loss of land.  It’s too psychotic to commit slow genocide against an innocent population for crimes they are not connected to.

Img377082897

However, the Aboriginal people are still being victimized by the same overall energy (ie. general diaspora of people, general cultural mentality, etc.) that caused untold destruction and suffering to their populations upon its arrival to the Americas not that long ago.  It’s a circumstance where one group of people seriously damaged the lifestyle of another group of people, are able to provide compensation, and probably should.