[UnusuallyUsual]

I.e. "direct democracy"? I feel that it is time what with technology and levels of education to begin experimenting much more with these. We as liberals believe strongly in the ability and right of the population to govern themselves do we not? Well what better way to achieve this than by attempting to get around the "middle men (and women)" called politicians. How do we do this? Of course through referenda! Let the populace vote on the ISSUES themselves (at least start out with a few very major and well-known policy options). This, to me, will help greatly make people feel more connected with their state , empowered, loyal, and will reduce at least the perception that "politics is all corrupt and phony".

[One Degree]

I agree technology allows us to dispense with representative democracy to a great degree.
I believe it should not be a simple majority however.
I believe laws should be based upon a 'substantial' majority not a simple majority.

[UnusuallyUsual]

Define "substantial". But again why not simple majority? I guess I feel that even rules governing the entire system ought to themselves ultimately be founded on principles of democratic choice. I.e., I don't agree with a small minority of elites creating a "Constitution" which then binds the entire system in restrictive ways. Ultimately it is an ethical question: who ought to make the decisions? I feel that it is always preferable to let MORE people instead of LESS make the decisions.

[One Degree]

If the vote is 51% against 49%, then it is obvious there is no consensus and should be left to individual choice if applicable.
Not that it matters, but I would say at least a 2/3 majority if not a 3/4.
I believe we need fewer laws and better laws.
Simple majority and special interest results in a whole lot of really bad laws.

[annatar1914]

Truth and Reason are not dependent on the will of 51% of the populace, or any other percentage for that matter, nor should the illusion that it is even possible be fostered. Look around you and you will see why; you neither trust the people around you politically, nor believe that they have your interests or even their own at heart.

So ultimately, one man, and the men around him carrying out his orders, must decide, and it has always been thus everywhere, and always will be.

[UnusuallyUsual]

If the vote is 51% against 49%, then it is obvious there is no consensus and should be left to individual choice if applicable.
Not that it matters, but I would say at least a 2/3 majority if not a 3/4.
I believe we need fewer laws and better laws.
Simple majority and special interest results in a whole lot of really bad laws.

"Consensus" is arbitrary.

Who is to say 2/3 or 3/4 is superior to 1/2? You? Let us also put that question to vote.

The entire concept of democracy is that it is SELF-CORRECTING. If the people decide they made a bad choice they can always UNDO that. Basically it is a matter of the morality of allowing human beings to decide their own fates, writ large.

[UnusuallyUsual]

Truth and Reason are not dependent on the will of 51% of the populace, or any other percentage for that matter, nor should the illusion that it is even possible be fostered. Look around you and you will see why; you neither trust the people around you politically, nor believe that they have your interests or even their own at heart.

So ultimately, one man, and the men around him carrying out his orders, must decide, and it has always been thus everywhere, and always will be.

Truth and Reason when it comes to purely subjective decision-making regarding the makeup of society are misplaced ideals.

[annatar1914]

Truth and Reason when it comes to purely subjective decision-making regarding the makeup of society are misplaced ideals.

Hardly. Without Truth, peoples as well as individual persons perish, even in merely pragmatic endeavors. Your trust in the majority vote assumes a great deal concerning human nature, and it is this which is 'misplaced ideals'.

[One Degree]

Who is to say 2/3 or 3/4 is superior to 1/2? You? Let us also put that question to vote.

I must really be bored to respond to this statement.
You do not believe a law with a 2/3 or 3/4 majority is likely to be a more just law for the community than one that only has 1/2?
The purpose of laws is to promote the communities welfare.
The more consensus it has the more it reflects the true wishes of the community, rather than a whim of the moment.
Why pass laws that you may need to undo later, as you suggest?
Why not simply refuse to pass it until you are sure the community is behind it?
Yes, even then people will make mistakes, but I find it preferable to 'might makes right'.

[UnusuallyUsual]

I must really be bored to respond to this statement.
You do not believe a law with a 2/3 or 3/4 majority is likely to be a more just law for the community than one that only has 1/2?
The purpose of laws is to promote the communities welfare.
The more consensus it has the more it reflects the true wishes of the community, rather than a whim of the moment.
Why pass laws that you may need to undo later, as you suggest?
Why not simply refuse to pass it until you are sure the community is behind it?
Yes, even then people will make mistakes, but I find it preferable to 'might makes right'.

You keep saying "why not refuse to pass until YOU are sure the community is behind it" but who is YOU in this? You = The Community. That is the whole point. You want to treat most people like little kids who need their hands to be held and told when they are permitted to make their own decisions FOR THEMSELVES. The overall society can decide for itself what is best, it is not up to "me" or anyone else to determine these rules. That is the point

[UnusuallyUsual]

Hardly. Without Truth, peoples as well as individual persons perish, even in merely pragmatic endeavors. Your trust in the majority vote assumes a great deal concerning human nature, and it is this which is 'misplaced ideals'.

I don't even know what this means.... "without Truth, peoples and persons perish even in pragmatic endeavors". What does that even mean? I have no idea. All I know is that when it comes to political decisions, what is or is not the right thing to do is not an objectively discoverable "truth" and hence it is ethically sound to permit the greatest number of humans' preference to prevail.

[One Degree]

You keep saying "why not refuse to pass until YOU are sure the community is behind it" but who is YOU in this? You = The Community. That is the whole point. You want to treat most people like little kids who need their hands to be held and told when they are permitted to make their own decisions FOR THEMSELVES. The overall society can decide for itself what is best, it is not up to "me" or anyone else to determine these rules. That is the point

This is just 'ranting' that does not address my points in any way.

[annatar1914]

I don't even know what this means.... "without Truth, peoples and persons perish even in pragmatic endeavors". What does that even mean? I have no idea. All I know is that when it comes to political decisions, what is or is not the right thing to do is not an objectively discoverable "truth" and hence it is ethically sound to permit the greatest number of humans' preference to prevail.

People are easily misled and manipulated, mistaking even in 'pragmatic' issues what is useful versus a mere personal hedonistic calculus. Since you don't seem to believe in any kind of absolute truth that can or even should be known, you substitute the 'truth of the majority' for it instead. What you would get is the 'tyranny of the majority'.

[UnusuallyUsual]

This is just 'ranting' that does not address my points in any way.

? I believed it did address your points. If you would be specific about what you are still stumped on I could try again I guess.

[UnusuallyUsual]

People are easily misled and manipulated, mistaking even in 'pragmatic' issues what is useful versus a mere personal hedonistic calculus. Since you don't seem to believe in any kind of absolute truth that can or even should be known, you substitute the 'truth of the majority' for it instead. What you would get is the 'tyranny of the majority'.

"Tyranny of the Majority" is nothing but an artifice invented to try to propagandize in favor of a tiny elite holding power.

[Dystopian Darkness]

The population has no right to vote on anything other than representatives. I don't want people voting on economic policies, rights, duties and priorities. It was already a bid deal when my government allowed a referendum on abortion because it is related to fundamental rights. Imagine the result:

Referendum 1 - Do you agree with increasing healthcare expenditure (public healthcare)? - Yes

Referendum 2 - Do you agree with raising taxes - No

See the incoherence?

[KlassWar]

That's very much a non-argument: Absent those referenda, people just plain vote for politicians that promise them increased social spending and decreased taxes :P.

What really worries bourgeois folk like Dystopian Darkness is that people could hold a referendum to abolish private property and win it.

[Dystopian Darkness]

That's very much a non-argument: Absent those referenda, people just plain vote for politicians that promise them increased social spending and decreased taxes :P.

What really worries bourgeois folk like Dystopian Darkness is that people could hold a referendum to abolish private property and win it.

I seriously doubt that would happen at least in the western world, provided that you explain people the pros and cons of having private property.

And even if you're right, you are simply pointing out the reason why referendums are generally a bad idea - My constitution says "no referendums on fundamental rights", and since private property is a fundamental right - No referendum, deal with it (the reason for this is that rights shouldn't be up to the people to decide, just imagine most humans voting for slavery)

[One Degree]

rights shouldn't be up to the people to decide

People should not decide?
Don't you mean only the 'superior' people should decide?
Someone has to decide.
I have seen absolutely no evidence that our 'representatives' are any more capable of making a good decision than the homeless guy in my neighborhood.
Actually, from conversations with him, he would make much better decisions.

Please spare me this elitist crap.

[Dystopian Darkness]

To an extent you are correct, but why would you allow the people, for example, to hold a referendum to decide if slavery should be legal?

I completely agree that there are ignorant western politicians (many) but I'm talking about abstract models of society - Assuming we live in a democracy with freedoms, rights and also duties - Why do you think the people should decide anything other than representatives? For example, economic matters are a no brainer specially if the people doesn't understand how the market, taxes, public finance and monetary values work. I am open to referendums on issues that should be decided by the people and don't severely impact other people's rights - For instance, to join the EU a referendum would be acceptable, and maybe to decide on some minor economic issues and things like affirmative action