Direct democracy cannot selectively
exclude people.
The elitists are a minority by definition.
If they vote themselves out from the
collective decisionmaking, we may have
fun to see how they manage on their own.
Eva
> Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager, I was a
> little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would
> Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience that
> most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by idiots for
> idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only themselves, the
> idiots, to blame'
>
> With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon desire
> for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich comes to
> mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask whether
> you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or not). If
> you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys
> itself. Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind
> of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists?
>
> Colin Stark wrote:
>
> > At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed
> > >>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones.
> > >>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic,
> > >>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure.
> > >
> > >Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best
> > >skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience --
> > >not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea.
> > >
> > >Jay
> >
> > Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A
> > broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a
> > DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be
> > more likely to make a "stupid" choice.
> >
> > But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability
> > of the leader".
> >
> > In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not
> > accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every
> > 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick
> > the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally
> > UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also!
> >
> > Hence the concept of Direct Democracy:
> > " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can
> > directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws"
> >
> > Colin Stark
> > Vice-President
> > Canadians for Direct Democracy
> > Vancouver, B.C.
> > http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
>
> --
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
> UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
> French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92
> Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13
>
> L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151
> _________________________________________________________
>
>
>
