Question on direct democracy

[Boboulas]

This is coming from an anarchist perspective so i have a hypothetical situation based on a stateless society.

Would there ever be a situation of a 51% of the workers wanted to do something the other 49% didnt? And how would anarchists propose to overcome this 51% coercion? It seems similar to any functioning liberal state in the sense that the majority would make society divided.

It was a question put to me but i feel asthough there would be nothing short of war that this kind of situation would occur.

[ContrarianLemming]

This is complex, for example, is this a big decision that will affect everyone strongly? Or is it as minor as "does the coffee machine go here or there"

And I think most anarchists agree with me that the more important the decision, the more of the majority is needed, so something really major would need like 90% + of the vote, while something minor like "is X a good reason for a sick day" would be simply 50% +

So in the hypothetical, where only a 50% majority is needed, then it is most likely something where people atn't really going to be harmed.
And things like that would only be made commune by commune, so much fewer people are forced to deal with a rule they dislike.
I think only the very big "laws" like "no killing" would be made on national and international scales, the basic laws, beyond that, it's commune by commune or region by region.

In short: if only 50% are needed, then it's probably something pretty minor where the coercion is minimal and acceptable. I would propose the need for near consensus for the more coercive decisions.

[Kotze]

[Majority rule] seems similar to any functioning liberal state in the sense that the majority would make society divided.I believe that what politicians in the western fake-democracies do is usually quite different from what the majority wants.

And I think most anarchists agree with me that the more important the decision, the more of the majority is needed, so something really major would need like 90% + of the vote, while something minor like "is X a good reason for a sick day" would be simply 50% +I totally disagree (not an anarchist). A huge majority in favour of a decision tells you nothing about how important it is to those for or against it. Requiring a qualified majority for change to happen doesn't protect everybody equally, but only those who like the status quo; and what tells us that the status quo is especially just? So these requirements mean that minorities who don't like the status quo are screwed even more than under normal majority rule, because it makes it even harder to convince enough people so that change can happen.

If you want a decision mechanism that takes into account how important issues are to you, the way to that would be a system where people have voting points to allocate.

[ContrarianLemming]

If people are getting screwed or abused to the extant described, then it's against anarchist ideas, if it gets to that point - surrounding regions should boycott the region/commune which chooses such a discriminatory rule or decision.

Like, if we had a situation similar to that after 9/11, what if one region decides "we're going to lock up all the muslims" and that's gets like 95% approval.
In such a case, all the regions would boycott and use means to protect the rights of the minority, till they are once again secured.

your idea could work to, whatever does it, we can experiment.

I seriously doubt many big descisions would me made nationally, not many things affect whole nations, and even less so in an anarchist world.

[IllicitPopsicle]

How I've come to understand it, a consensus would have to be reached. The dissenting voices would have to explain why they were not in favor of the proposal (whatever that may be) and the whole group would work to rectify it. I haven't the slightest idea how it might look irl though.

[SeaSpeck]

There's also the idea of free association. If the 49% really really couldn't deal with the outcome of the decision, they could split off an do their own thing. They have every right to do so.

[IllicitPopsicle]

^^yep, that about sums it up.

[Boboulas]

Thanks for the replies guys, cleared up a few questions i had!!

[ContrarianLemming]

btw, most social anarchists are against consensus, and see it as "tyranny of the minority" and silencing of dissent. Usually individualist anarchists are for consensus.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Oh?

Dammit. Figures. >.<

[ContrarianLemming]

Oh?

Dammit. Figures. >.<

yeah, go the the opposing ideologies lifestylist!! :laugh:

[IllicitPopsicle]

I apologize for carrying one piece of "lifestylist" ideology with me from back when I read CrimethInc. I wasn't aware that I did something wrong, and if you would like to have a discussion about it, you can private message me. I was merely trying to assist Comrade Boboulas in answering his question. :blushing:

[ContrarianLemming]

I apologize for carrying one piece of "lifestylist" ideology with me from back when I read CrimethInc. I wasn't aware that I did something wrong, and if you would like to have a discussion about it, you can private message me. I was merely trying to assist Comrade Boboulas in answering his question. :blushing:

Praise all dissent
keep your beliefs, there is no problem here.