| | "If you want true, direct democracy, you're going to have issues, regardless." The far left has a different purpose for government than Objectivists. The far left wants it to confiscate things to give to them and to others, and they want it to control everything and everybody in certain ways that they agree with. (Apart from the anarchists who just have a craving for destruction.)
The far left sees "direct democracy" as a goal in itself. As an end, that once achieved will solve all other problems. (Or they are lying and just use it as an excuse to take apart the current structure - that it's just a way to game the system till it is statist enough). Because it is an end, they don't think of limiting it. Hence, the business about, "...you're going to have issues."
If they really believe in unlimited direct democracy, don't ask me how they can live in the state of denial about having their rights shredded by the the votes of others.... I'd only have guesses. If there are limits they'd impose on direct democracy, they haven't been talking about them, and I know of no sensible standard or principle in this area ever to come out of the mouth of a statist.
---------------
Objectivists see the purpose of government as creating and maintaining the optimal political/legal environment for individual rights to flourish. Hence, individual rights become the standard for setting limits.
Democracy, direct or representative, in our eyes needs to be limited to those votes that wouldn't result in less individual rights support. We focus on things like a constitution based upon individual rights - the far left would be willing to either toss out the constitution or to change the constitution in way that suited direct democracy.
|
|
Occupy Wall Street protesters had just a few hours to celebrate what they saw as their biggest victory so far: the peaceful shutdown of the nation's fifth-busiest port.
