World Government

[Svartalf]

Democracy isn't necessarily "majority rule".

It can be consensual rule... but seriously, democracy is a myth.

[Clinton Huxley]

We will only get "One World Government" when we have more than one world to live on.

[Hermit]

Democracy isn't necessarily "majority rule".

Anyway, nobody is coerced to do anything in the types of anarchy I've read about so far.

Pipe dreams.

[pErvinalia]

Democracy isn't necessarily "majority rule".

Anyway, nobody is coerced to do anything in the types of anarchy I've read about so far.

I'm still not sure what "coercion" has to do with anything. Direct-democracy isn't about coercion.

[FBM]

Democracy isn't necessarily "majority rule".

Anyway, nobody is coerced to do anything in the types of anarchy I've read about so far.

I'm still not sure what "coercion" has to do with anything. Direct-democracy isn't about coercion.

People vote, if you're on the losing side you have to go along with whatever they decided, whether you like it or not, no?

[pErvinalia]

Not in "direct-democracy".

[FBM]

Not in "direct-democracy".

As in ancient Greece?

Edit: Athens, I guess. Anyway, one of the reasons the US Founding Fathers decided against direct democracy was specifically left minorities open to a tyranny of the majority.

[pErvinalia]

It has a specific set of parameters (which change slightly depending on implementation) and is the basis of the Occupy movements. Sorry for being abrupt. For some reason I've been reviewing one of my ratskep threads and it's making me cranky. I'll get a link to dd in a sec and add it.

edit: couldn't be bothered searching through these to find the right one. My internet has slowed to a crawl. One or more of these will explain it: https://www.google.com.au/#q=occupy+wal ... +democracy

[FBM]

Well, I'm probably not going to be able to do much with that until you specify which version you mean. Seems to me that if people get together and discuss various options, then vote, and then the people who don't agree with the choice don't have to follow it, that's not actually a government. It's not controlling anybody's behavior, is it? Not saying it isn't organization, but organization doesn't entail governing powers.

[Hermit]

It doesn't matter which scheme is implemented. Coercion - and forcible coercion at that - will always be an essential component. Or can you imagine a society without laws, laws, which when broken can lead to arrest and imprisonment? Please don't cite some idyllic island with 250 inhabitants somewhere in the South Pacific. Pie in the sky scenarios involving microscopically small populations on a planet with more than 7 billion people don't qualify, and I'll just raise you Pitcairn Island anyway.

[Svartalf]

Medieval iceland... it's laws did not entail imprisonment, and all enforcement was in private hands (meaning laws were enforced by those with the means and will to do so)

[pErvinalia]

Well, I'm probably not going to be able to do much with that until you specify which version you mean. Seems to me that if people get together and discuss various options, then vote, and then the people who don't agree with the choice don't have to follow it, that's not actually a government. It's not controlling anybody's behavior, is it? Not saying it isn't organization, but organization doesn't entail governing powers.

"Direct-democracy" is a very specific thing in the Occupy (and probably wider) context. It's about consensus voting. One person can veto everyone else. But there's processes to try and work through disagreements and reach compromises. That way, no one is being forced to do anything they don't agree with to a reasonable extent. It's certainly a fucking slow process, and I don't particularly advocate it in its purest form on a large scale. But it's an ideal that we should work in the general direction towards. That is, the more participatory a democracy is, the more enfranchising it is, and the better the decisions that get made.

[Svartalf]

"direct democracy" in the Occupy meaning is not applicable to a large group, and is likely to cause splits until the group is down to a manageable number of like minded individuals.

[pErvinalia]

Sure. But that doesn't negate anything I've said here.

[FBM]

It doesn't matter which scheme is implemented. Coercion - and forcible coercion at that - will always be an essential component. Or can you imagine a society without laws, laws, which when broken can lead to arrest and imprisonment? Please don't cite some idyllic island with 250 inhabitants somewhere in the South Pacific. Pie in the sky scenarios involving microscopically small populations on a planet with more than 7 billion people don't qualify, and I'll just raise you Pitcairn Island anyway.

I don't think I've implied anywhere that I thought anarchism was a realistic option. I thought I'd spoken to the contrary.

Well, I'm probably not going to be able to do much with that until you specify which version you mean. Seems to me that if people get together and discuss various options, then vote, and then the people who don't agree with the choice don't have to follow it, that's not actually a government. It's not controlling anybody's behavior, is it? Not saying it isn't organization, but organization doesn't entail governing powers.

"Direct-democracy" is a very specific thing in the Occupy (and probably wider) context. It's about consensus voting. One person can veto everyone else. But there's processes to try and work through disagreements and reach compromises. That way, no one is being forced to do anything they don't agree with to a reasonable extent. It's certainly a fucking slow process, and I don't particularly advocate it in its purest form on a large scale. But it's an ideal that we should work in the general direction towards. That is, the more participatory a democracy is, the more enfranchising it is, and the better the decisions that get made.

If one person can veto it, then it's not a government, as far as I can tell.