direct democracy is the only way

[Snark]

Democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu. The founders of this (US) republic considered "democracy" to be a disgusting practice. It is mob rule. As soon as the mob realizes that they can use the power of the state to confiscate the wealth earned by others (which is happening now) those that vote without earning will "spread the wealth". I recall hearing that somewhere......

[js207]

Democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu. The founders of this (US) republic considered "democracy" to be a disgusting practice. It is mob rule. As soon as the mob realizes that they can use the power of the state to confiscate the wealth earned by others (which is happening now) those that vote without earning will "spread the wealth". I recall hearing that somewhere......

A concern of Thomas Jefferson I hear (though according to Internet 'quotes' he probably also warned against the evils of spam and Microsoft Windows), and a valid point about needing to safeguard against the abuse of minorities. The US was created from the outset as a representative democracy - i.e. a republic - though: a government accountable to and serving only itself would be even worse than one serving a majority mob. It's the idea of the government handing tax dollars to millions of people every month just because of their age which would really horrify the Founding Fathers, along with a federal government intruding so much, spending so much and borrowing so much.

Now maybe I'm just a cynic, but look back in history. People have done, and still do, horrific things to people they see as different. Just look at the Salem witch trials. The enslavement of Africans. the mistreatment of Blacks, or Hispanics, or Orientals. The forced incarceration of innocent Japanese-Americans during WW2. All rationalized by an adherence to community standards. And a fear of those who are different.

Yes - all of those happened without direct democracy, indeed often with little or no democratic input. Maybe a more democratic system would still have done those things, but would it have been any worse? The government decided without democracy to incarcerate those of Japanese origin, to outlaw homosexuality - would a democratic version have been any worse?

Now, I do think there should be a strong constitution to ensure the individual's life is not interfered with unduly - and I believe the electorate would support that principle, even if jerking knees might prevail in individual cases, which is why you have a judge and jury for individual matters rather than bills of attainder. It's why there's an amendment barring the government from taking property without fair compensation - though that too has been trampled widely of late.

Like Churchill said, democracy's the worst form of government - apart from all the others.

[Thorne]

would a democratic version have been any worse?

There have been claims made (though I don't know on which bases they were made) that one of the reasons the US government incarcerated those Japanese families was to protect them. That there were people who simply wanted to kill them because they were, or looked, Japanese. I've not seen any real evidence of this, but the sad truth is that it wouldn't be too far fetched.

Like Churchill said, democracy's the worst form of government - apart from all the others.

I think ANY form of government is bad, but even the worst government is better than anarchy. The US's democratic republic is probably the best form of government around, especially for a large country with such a diverse population. Yet current events show that even that can be corrupted, used by ignorant lawmakers to oppress various minority groups. Hopefully it can still be fixed.

[lucy]

It is mob rule. As soon as the mob realizes that they can use the power of the state to confiscate the wealth earned by others (which is happening now) those that vote without earning will "spread the wealth".

We've got mob rule. (Thus I reckon I'm mob, too. Thanks.)
Therefore I rule (well, I don't since I normally vote different from the majority...) Yet Switzerland's income and wealth distribution are actually getting more disparate, and pretty fast, too.
As it is in most western democracies, btw. There are a few notable exemptions, but they are few (UK, for example, according to OECD)

[thir]

Democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu.

I do not understand this at all. Would you like to explain??

The founders of this (US) republic considered "democracy" to be a disgusting practice.

So I have heard. But does that make it right?

It is mob rule. As soon as the mob realizes that they can use the power of the state to confiscate the wealth earned by others (which is happening now) those that vote without earning will "spread the wealth". I recall hearing that somewhere......

But, if you had direct democracy, would there be so much wealth concentrated on so few hands? Maybe more people would have enough, and fewer people way too much?

[leo9]

But, if you had direct democracy, would there be so much wealth concentrated on so few hands? Maybe more people would have enough, and fewer people way too much?

I'd be interested to know how Switzerland compares to the rest of Europe for income differentials and concentration of wealth.

[lucy]

How interesting!! I was not aware that the Swiss system was so different. I must read more about this - or do you happen to have some really good links you'd like to refer to?

A simple Goolge-search should yield lots of results. I don't think I got some really good links.
The Wikipedia article on Voting in Switzerland isn't bad except that we cannot challenge any law at any time. We can challenge any part of the constitution at any time or start an initiative for new articles to the constitution, but the hurdles are pretty high. But once a law is in effect, it can't be challenged directly.
Or this one. Rather basic, but it gives a good first idea. And if you have questions you can always send me a pm.

I'd be interested to know how Switzerland compares to the rest of Europe for income differentials and concentration of wealth.

I'm too lazy to go searching for statistics. Usually OECD has pretty good data on such topics. But as I've stated before, income and wealth disparity aren't any different here than in other OECD-countries. And growing, too.

However, from my point of view you've hit the nail pretty neatly on the head with this statement:

Actually, what we usually see is several million sheep being persuaded by a handful of wolves that the only issue they can decide is whether mutton should be roasted or stewed.

It's about the same here. Not all that long ago we've had to vote pro or contra the abolition of inheritance tax in the canton of Zurich.
Imho, the inheritance tax is the fairest tax of all and probably one of the best ways to make sure that wealth distribution doesn't get more and more disparate. One can argue that this doesn't matter, but I believe that a too disparate wealth and income distribution isn't consistent with democracy, not in the long run anyway. (If I had my way, the inheritance tax would be at a sound 100%, with some precautions set aside that the owner of a small business can leave it to his/her heirs. Let them work for their wealth, not having it served on a silver platter.)
Although it was obvious that at least 70 % of the population would never, ever profit from the abolition of that tax and that it would only lead to the rich being able to hand down their dough to their heirs without paying any taxes, thus increasing the disparity in wealth distribution, it was voted down with about 60 %

[leo9]

Democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu.

Actually, what we usually see is several million sheep being persuaded by a handful of wolves that the only issue they can decide is whether mutton should be roasted or stewed. And the subject under discussion is whether the wolves should go on setting the agenda that way.

[denuseri]

The only problem is that direct democracy in America will most certifiably be directly opposed by those who hold power (the corporate rich) and their political lackeys.