Consitiutional based Direct Democracy

[ContrarianLemming]

This might go in learning but i think this area might be more appropriate

I typically argue for direct democracy nationally, consensus for communities, i think that's a pretty common belief, i have lately been considering "constitutions" and how direct democracy can infringe on minority rights, i have been having a constant argument with a libertarian i know (by libertarian i mean capitalist liberal, American libertarianism) who has argued that direct democracy in a stateless society will infringe on minorities, i think this is BS. I don't think this is the case mainly because theres nothing stopping as post revolutionary world from having a constitution/bill of rights/charter or other such minority protecting devices all can agree on, i never really considered a constitution in a stateless society but i really can't see any reason why we couldn't have one to protect minorities.
I am pretty soured to the idea of a "constitution" simply because of how they work in our states today, but i really don't see anything inherently authoritarian or restrictive about them.
I have considered that each region could possibly have it's own consitution that everyone in the region has signed, not some high class "founding fathers", or, alternatively, all members of a certain area could adopt the same constitution to be allowed to trade with other regions.

I don't picture such a constitution to look like the ones we know, of course it could have the usual no brainers like "everyone has freedom of speech no matter race, religion, gender or place of birth" or perhaps a less common rights like "every worker has the right to democratically control there workspace" or "every commune has the right to own there local means of production" "every person has the right to free healthcare, basic needs, education and living space"

Any thoughts on this? is it a fundamentally anti Marxist/anarchist idea? Is a constitution compatible with anarchy?

[Dimentio]

I imagine that a direct democracy need to have a very strict constitution. Ideally, it would be a confederacy of autonomous communes with 2500-25 000 people in each commune, who all have in common that they adhere to the same constitution which basically would ensure human rights and equal access to the means of production.

[ContrarianLemming]

I imagine that a direct democracy need to have a very strict constitution. Ideally, it would be a confederacy of autonomous communes with 2500-25 000 people in each commune, who all have in common that they adhere to the same constitution which basically would ensure human rights and equal access to the means of production.

But in a direct democracy, couldn't the people simply vote for a change to the constitution in a passion? Like in the US after 9/11, i know a lot of americans wanted to curtail muslum rights, what if most of them did? What if the US was a direct democracy? Couldn't they have changed there constitution to allow them to curtail muslum rights?

[Dimentio]

But in a direct democracy, couldn't the people simply vote for a change to the constitution in a passion? Like in the US after 9/11, i know a lot of americans wanted to curtail muslum rights, what if most of them did? What if the US was a direct democracy? Couldn't they have changed there constitution to allow them to curtail muslum rights?

They shouldn't be able to do it, not without breaking the contract with the confederation. If a community breaks the contract, the confederation simply withdraw all support from the community and let it manage itself on its own.

[ContrarianLemming]

They shouldn't be able to do it, not without breaking the contract with the confederation. If a community breaks the contract, the confederation simply withdraw all support from the community and let it manage itself on its own.

makes sense, what if the whole population wishs to change the constitution in this way?

and doesn't the word "Confederation" sound wonderful?

[mikelepore]

What's the attractiveness of direct democracy? People find that they can't even have a club of fifteen members without electing a director to take care of the large number of boring details. Any social unit larger than that, forget it.

[ContrarianLemming]

What's the attractiveness of direct democracy? People find that they can't even have a club of fifteen members without electing a director to take care of the large number of boring details. Any social unit larger than that, forget it.

All those proposing direct democracy advocate delegation, the director could act as a rpoxy representitive, or a delegate, who is instantly recallable and answerable to the whole
You need to learn more about direct democracy and how it would word, read! knowledge is power

[mikelepore]

That's untrue. The vast majority use the terms "representative democracy" to mean delegating some of the decision making, and "direct democracy" to mean not delegating any of the decision making.

[Ryke]

That's untrue. The vast majority use the terms "representative democracy" to mean delegating some of the decision making, and "direct democracy" to mean not delegating any of the decision making.

Who ever said any decision-making would be delegated? Delegates are delegated to relay a particular message or present a particular view on particular issues, that is the views of the people who delegated them, and can be recalled in short order if the need arises, or they can simply be expected to correct minor digresses. It's not a full-time job, either. Independent decisions are not necessarily completely proscribed, but they're just as recallable as the delegate themselves.

That's the difference between a representative in the current system, who is more or less assumed to be acting in the name of the people he represents for a given time, and a delegate in direct democracy.

That said, any system of direct democracy would have to be very decentralised and prefer consensus to simple vote, and take actions in that direction.

[Wolf Larson]

I imagine that a direct democracy need to have a very strict constitution. Ideally, it would be a confederacy of autonomous communes with 2500-25 000 people in each commune, who all have in common that they adhere to the same constitution which basically would ensure human rights and equal access to the means of production.

Don't forget about your centralized elite educated class making decisions for the lowly masses [ refer to the Technocracy thread in the learning section]. When people talked about mutual coercion being necessary in certain situations it was NOT in favor of an elite intelligentsia holding dominant positions within hierarchical institutions [which you advocate]. Why do you think the US constitution was written if not to legitimize and perpetuate that very paradigm? What have checks and balances done in the US and other so called democratic systems where an elite minority holds unequal influence over the masses? There is no legitimate accountability within hierarchical man made institutions.

You aren't advocating workers councils with worker appointed delegates you are advocating a system where an "intelligent" elite appoint a decision maker [leader] so the difference between your hierarchical system [leaders] and worker councils [delegates] is found in the fact that the delegate is nothing more than a spokesman when in your technocrat system the so called representative is a hierarchical authority figure who is appointed by so called experts. I've been trying to stress the difference between an appointed spokesman and an appointed authority figure for pages in that lame thread and all I can do is once gain bring up the sociology/psychology experiments and human history concerning the effects of hierarchical institutions maintaining authority figures whether these authority figures are outwardly accountable or not. If you read and understand the Milgram/Standford Prison Experiments you will understand how hierarchical institutions negate the ability to hold the authority figures accountable. Power corrupts both the person with authority AND the peoples judgment below the authority figure.

[counterblast]

I typically argue for direct democracy nationally, consensus for communities, i think that's a pretty common belief, i have lately been considering "constitutions" and how direct democracy can infringe on minority rights, i have been having a constant argument with a libertarian i know (by libertarian i mean capitalist liberal, American libertarianism) who has argued that direct democracy in a stateless society will infringe on minorities, i think this is BS.

Any thoughts on this? is it a fundamentally anti Marxist/anarchist idea? Is a constitution compatible with anarchy?

Emma Goldman made a really interesting case against direct democracy in her essay Minorities versus Majorities (http://www.panarchy.org/goldman/majorities.html).

[Dimentio]

Don't forget about your centralized elite educated class making decisions for the lowly masses [ refer to the Technocracy thread in the learning section]. When people talked about mutual coercion being necessary in certain situations it was NOT in favor of an elite intelligentsia holding dominant positions within hierarchical institutions [which you advocate]. Why do you think the US constitution was written if not to legitimize and perpetuate that very paradigm? What have checks and balances done in the US and other so called democratic systems where an elite minority holds unequal influence over the masses? There is no legitimate accountability within hierarchical man made institutions.

You aren't advocating workers councils with worker appointed delegates you are advocating a system where an "intelligent" elite appoint a decision maker [leader] so the difference between your hierarchical system [leaders] and worker councils [delegates] is found in the fact that the delegate is nothing more than a spokesman when in your technocrat system the so called representative is a hierarchical authority figure who is appointed by so called experts. I've been trying to stress the difference between an appointed spokesman and an appointed authority figure for pages in that lame thread and all I can do is once gain bring up the sociology/psychology experiments and human history concerning the effects of hierarchical institutions maintaining authority figures whether these authority figures are outwardly accountable or not. If you read and understand the Milgram/Standford Prison Experiments you will understand how hierarchical institutions negate the ability to hold the authority figures accountable. Power corrupts both the person with authority AND the peoples judgment below the authority figure.

The technate does not have any legislative power. The technate is the infrastructure and territorial area, but it doesn't have any political or social power over people. The people decide what should be produced through the energy accounting system, not the sequences or the holons or the technate. All people who would work would work within the technate as well.

Read this article: http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=137

Moreover, the technate is not about the authority of figures. The scientific method is opposed to all kinds of personalism. What we should have in the centre as authority are goals and facts, not individuals.