Questions about Direct Democracy

[Havet]

I have several pertinent questions regarding direct democracy and, more specifically, majority rule. I will give the possibility to anyone to prove how my line of thought is wrong, and therefore enlighten me in the subject.

But here's the problem. As I see it, majority rule cannot simply be the answer and the final rule to all the problems. There are certain objective criteria that cannot be put under majority rule, because if too many stupid people join together, then certain "rights" taken for granted under previous generations might fade away giving birth to more sinister and oppressive situations in society.

For example: Imagine that in a community who is under majority rule, certain personal liberties are banned, such as freedom to choose a religion, freedom to use certain substances, freedom of speech, etc.

Certainly that the values mentioned above are objectively worth having, even though they were subjectively chosen to be dismissed. So there's a problem. On one hand, we must not respect the majority's decision in this case, since they (the majority) is trying to ban communistic goals as shown above. However, again by communistic goals, we should always respect the majority's decision, no matter who suffers or who profits from this. And in another hand, one could try to make a constitution protected from the will of the majority, but who will enforce it? A state? Here we go again... And constitutions might not always be entirely correct, and even if they were, the State which is needed to protect it also has the power to ignore it, and here we go again...

So, how to solve this problem?:

- Nevermind potential majority problems and having faith on the majority always (imagine if they begin voting by majority rule on racism, xenophobia, slavery, etc) ?
- Restrict the majority through a constitution (with all the problems it brings) ?

If there's a third option i'm missing please share it with me. Or if you think there is not a problem with the two previous ones then go ahead and explain your point.

I'll grant that the odds of having problems by direct democracy might be lesser than the problems of current capitalism and/or more oppressive systems, but you cannot ignore that there IS a possibility direct democracy might degrade into these issues I was talking of.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

A consitution that with any luck will be culturally fetishized and communes refuseing to trade with communes that discriminate this will bassicly destroy there standard of living forcing them to reconsider.

Also if it gets bad enough the kkkommune will probably get slaped about.

[Havet]

A consitution that with any luck will be culturally fetishized and communes refuseing to trade with communes that discriminate this will bassicly destroy there standard of living forcing them to reconsider.

Also if it gets bad enough the kkkommune will probably get slaped about.

Shit, how could I not see this? Of course, that is an obvious solution. Thanks for sharing.

indirect action such as refusal to trade is a good way to make them reconsider. But suppose they already have slaves in the bad commune. How would you help this situation? Infiltrate and plant the seeds of revolt, help directly by invading from the outside or do nothing?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well if they have slaves then freeing them is a good idea although the thing is , is that communes probably wont be geographically large enough to be able to ensure a high standard of living without contact with other communes.

[Havet]

Well if they have slaves then freeing them is a good idea although the thing is , is that communes probably wont be geographically large enough to be able to ensure a high standard of living without contact with other communes.

Why won't they be geographically large enough? What will make them stay at a certain (low) size? The very nature of the commune, or an outside force, or what else?

[Green Dragon]

A democracy is the majority of the population ruling the minority of the population.

If the majority of the population is being denied from ruling the minority of the population, then democracy is being prevented.

Now, the scenarios established by Hayenmill is of course democracy in action. And it presents the problems indicated.

The solutions proposed by Comrade Joe may "work" but they are also highly undemocratic, as it seeks to sanction the majority from exercising its rights.

When it is said that democracy is a vital and unseparable component of socialism, what that really means is that the majority of the people have to enforce certain things, and be blocked from enforcing other things.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Why won't they be geographically large enough? What will make them stay at a certain (low) size? The very nature of the commune, or an outside force, or what else?

Well I imagine people would want to strike a balance between covering economically useful ground and having a more localized system of running things.

[Bud Struggle]

When it is said that democracy is a vital and unseparable component of socialism, what that really means is that the majority of the people have to enforce certain things, and be blocked from enforcing other things.

And the person that makes the decision as to what is enforced and what isn't, is called what?

[trivas7]

As I see it, majority rule cannot simply be the answer and the final rule to all the problems.
Indeed; to think that there is an answer and final rule to all problems is the problem. :D