NationStates Jolt Archive

I need some help with this and would like some viewpoints.

I personally believe that society should be completely free, in that no one can have manipulative power over the society or its members. To me it seems this would mean that complete democracy would be required. However, it also seems apparent that a complete democracy would be subject to mob rule, and would lead to the suppression of portions of society, in effect limiting the freedom of society.

So my questions:

1. Are my ideas correct? Is a completely free society the best way to go? Does a free society require direct deomcracy? Does direct democracy always end in mob tyranny?

2. If my ideas are correct, how can a direct democracy be maintained without resulting in the eventual suppression of the minority?

I need some help with this and would like some viewpoints.

I personally believe that society should be completely free, in that no one can have manipulative power over the society or its members. To me it seems this would mean that complete democracy would be required. However, it also seems apparent that a complete democracy would be subject to mob rule, and would lead to the suppression of portions of society, in effect limiting the freedom of society.

So my questions:

1. Are my ideas correct? Is a completely free society the best way to go? Does a free society require direct deomcracy? Does direct democracy always end in mob tyranny?

2. If my ideas are correct, how can a direct democracy be maintained without resulting in the eventual suppression of the minority?


Eh, a little rusty on the terms, but direct democracy is what you get when you don't have representative democracy, that is, each person is in effect a politician? Well, it seems to me that would certainly constitute some kind of mob rule, as well as the slight annoyance that mobs always have ringleaders that dictate the tone they take, slightly flying in the face of democracy their.... I also agree that a completely free society is the best way to go, within limits, the limits being the fairly common sense one that the freedom expressed shouldn't cause anyone any harm. I suppose a society like this would only come in hand with an intelligent populace, and they wouldn't consider this the same problem that we do? I don't see how we could achieve this say... tomorrow. I have no idea how the minority could avoid suppression, but that might perhaps not be a problem? The only people I see who should be compressed into their own minority are extremists who only want to supress others anyway.

Direct democracy is impractical. There always has to be some delegation, because it is impossible for a single person, never mind every person, to be expert in all fields.

That aside, I think the best way to ensure freedom is by limiting the power of government.

I think the best way to deal with this is to ban some things. Ban freedom, tyranny, power, society, mobs, rule, and while you're it, democracy. Then you should be set.

I think the best way to deal with this is to ban some things. Ban freedom, tyranny, power, society, mobs, rule, and while you're it, democracy. Then you should be set.I think what you're advocating is a dictatorship? Or is it anarchy? I can't tell which.

I think what you're advocating is a dictatorship? Or is it anarchy? I can't tell which.
I'm not sure yet either. But while we're at it, I'll ban being sure and being able to ascertain things.

I prefer a form of society in which the individual possesses his personal freedoms but may not deprives another individual of his or her rights

1. Are my ideas correct? Is a completely free society the best way to go? Does a free society require direct deomcracy? Does direct democracy always end in mob tyranny?

Interesting question. It depends on whether you're asking if a society should be free to decide what course it wants to take (this could involve eroding at its own personal freedoms in the name of security or some such) or if it should be free in the hopes that personal freedoms would never be violated. A direct democracy could pass the Patriot Act just as easily as Congress. That would be an action of a free society, but it would limit freedoms. Because of this I think the second option is unfeasible. The first option could also possibly be violated if the people gave up their right to vote, either to a dictator or to representatives.

If you mean to ask if direct democracy is required to preserve personal freedoms then I'd say no. All we need to do is vote for representatives that won't touch our freedoms. If they try to then we vote them out. If they get too much power then we have our trusty guns ready to deal with them.

2. If my ideas are correct, how can a direct democracy be maintained without resulting in the eventual suppression of the minority?

Compulsory voting and the ability to filibuster I guess. This leads to a problem. Say I have my electronic voting device with me in the mountains and suddenly I drop it. Uhoh, it's gone now. I can't vote on the newest legislation. Now what? I suppose there could be a beacon of sorts in the device that, when it no longer works because the device is broken, would set off a computer that would opt you out of voting until you got a new device (Who would we trust with running those computers, I wonder?).

One problem with direct democracy is that anyone can submit legislation and everyone has to vote on every single bill since committees are unrepresentative. How can you sift through all that and make an informed decision? It's not practicle.

This reminds me of a political cartoon I saw a few months ago. Two guys (supposed to by Iraqis) were holding AK-47s. They were labeled Sunnis and Shi'ites. They said, "We want to be free.....so we can oppress each other!"

You see, the only way democracy can work is if some things are set aside as above anyone's ability to ever intervene. This is where rights come in.

However, the real reason direct democracy is impossible is because it would be like election day with every single descision the country ever made. That and a great many pieces of legislation that sound good but are really crap would get through.