The problem with Direct Democracy is that it is just the Majority of the minority. The Majority is not always right as we all know. So the Majority can abuse the rights of the minority. The best system is a republic based on the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately the current government does not follow the Constitution and abuses it's power.
The founder built a the republic as the direct democracy. The individual has the power over their home, the community has power over the community the town...the county, the state...the federal government... The power is in the hand of a few because people do not exercise their Unalienable Right to Self Governance. They are ruled by "the consent of the governed". You consent to allow politicians to be corrupt.
Direct democracy is destroying my home state California. We vote for all of these stupid things which end up bankrupting our state and screwing our teachers, police officers, firemen, and mentally disabled.
@DP3mo24hofosho no, why don't you ask the administrators that make the choices for our teachers, police officers, firemen, and the mentally disabled.if schools ran by the students and teachers, if cities were ran with community councils than council-members, if this country were ran by the actual people, there would be more transparency, more efficiency, and there would be a REAL democracy. what we have is an elected dictatorship and a ruling elite out of tune with the people
@inrrivas I agree with you that the power should be brought down to the lower levels of government and closer to the people, but we shouldn't go to a direct democracy. You can look up why the founding fathers didn't want a direct democracy, but the main reason is it can lead to mob rule, where minoritys get thier rights trampled on.
@DP3mo24hofosho As long as we have a strong Constitution, and equal access to education, other people's rights will be well off. Guided direct democracy in the local and state levels can be possible in the departments that pertain to the public. In Porto Alegre in Brazil for example, the budget is subject to debate and decided by the citizens. The slow process allows for transparency, proper deliberation, and gives a voice to those that in the current system doesn't hear them
@inrrivas Have you studied up on California? We have a partial direct democracy here and it has contributed to the mess we are in now. Among all the states, California is among the most f'd up states in our union.
@DP3mo24hofosho What propositions did the voters vote that gave us this mess? California is still one of top economies, being formidable by itself. We need ideas to continue on, and our "democracy" is designed to shut out the collective wisdom we have in our own neighborhoods. As I said, "it allows for transparency, proper deliberation, and gives a voice to those that in the current system doesn't hear them". As for Brazil, is now the 6th economy in the world. Hmm, I wonder why.
@inrrivas We have 13% unemployment, and are in 23 billion dollars in dept. The reason why we are in this mess is because we put things on the ballot like "put 5 billion dollars more in education" and the way to pay for it is raise taxes. Economists then at the bottom of the bill state the potential economic impact. Well, have passed all of these measurements which hurt our economy step by step, and regulations and as a result, the economy tanks and revenue goes dowm.
@DP3mo24hofosho I am still blank on propositions. Again, I encourage you to research Brazil. Direct democracy is not pure here. Our politicians are unaccountable at the local and state level, and having a system of direct democracy is a win win. The unemployment rate and debt is hardly the voters fault. Why don't you ask the individuals that own 1/3 of the wealth and that are making our economic choices with record making profits, without accountability for "us"?
Libya enjoyed a direct democracy for over 30 years. They had a very high standard of living, better than the US, was debt-free and had no central bank in their country. The Green Book was written by Gathafi explaining how to create a participatory democracy. Funny, coming from a "dictator".
Can anything not harming anyone be described as immoral?
To see direct democracy in action in large industrial enterprises google: Mondragon Front Porch Republic. Mondragon is a city in the Basque region of Spain. Prosperous, with businesses worker-owned, some very large,
This is possible evolutionarily we lived like this in tribal society with 1 leader to a 10s or 100s of people. So the structure is possible and has existed. Its a question of organizing all those smaller groups into 1 giant group.
Great job. This is the type of video which should not be criticised in the negative but criticised for what more can be added to it. The principles are well-grounded in other words, but unfortunately too many need to learn just this first step to waking up before moving on. More videos like this will help. Thanks.
So no one would be forced to work. Not even in the way capitalism forces you to work (trough economic slavery), which albeit better than government coercive force is still detrimental to the human experience and development.
"The logical conclusion is this "idea" is not libertarian or realistic in any way."
Define libertarian please. Because I have a strong feeling that what you're just hinting to what you neoliberals decided to highjack and rename libertarianism.
"People strive for excellence when they receive the benefit of that labor."
Exactly, the fruits of their own labor. Not economic slavery in which you have to work because you need money to pay for food or shelter simply to keep you alive.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Your idea sounds wonderful and I do not wish to insult you, but I think you are living in a fairy tale world. If this is possible, why don't you and like thinkers get together, buy a large island or some similar property and prove it? I am personally sure that internal strife would QUICKLY collapse the experiment, human nature being what it is, and even if it didn't and it were successful, any malevolent outside force could and would see the success and easily take it from you.
I have more trust in human nature then you. If people see an effective system, which I hope what I advocate would be, maybe they will rise against their government. With no government, who's going to initiate force? One individual against another? To what gain? Even if that happened, that could never blow out to a war. For a war or conquest you need governments and people willing enough to obey them. Let's hope, by demonstrating it , we can show people they don't need governance.
First and foremost, let's do the things all libertarians (right and left) can agree on. Let's work together to restore individual liberty, end big government infiltrating personal lives, do away with taxation, do away with immigration restraints, do away with drug laws, scale down the police and military, etc. When we've fixed all that, we can start arguing whether we're going to free the market to capitalism or abolish money and collectivize resources or whatever other ideas.
I'm sure many will disagree with your ideas and would resist them as just another stab at achieving the same utopia that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Fidel, Mao and Pol Pot where striving for, but under a different rubric . What will you do with these people? Put them in re-education camps since it requires all to participate? Follow this thought through to it's logical conclusion.
Trotsky and Lenin may have been anti-statist, they surely didn't show it. But Stalin, Mao, Fidel and Pot had no libertarian agenda in any way. They made no pretense of their ideology: 'big government good'.
Furthermore I believe that trough the success of small communes, more and more people would join a movement. If they don't, they can go do their own thing somewhere else. There is no need to imprison anyone.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The logical conclusion is this "idea" is not libertarian or realistic in any way. It would quickly degenerate into the same type of governments that oppressed the people in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc. People strive for excellence when they receive the benefit of that labor. Who would do the truly unpleasant work that no one wants to do, which is a large percentage of the labor that needs to be completed? I guess we could "force" others to do it huh? While we play! Who is we?
Most modern services are/will be either socially pointless and virtually all construction/assemby/productionetc. will be automated. This something we could do today, we have the technology, but it is fought because it would create mass unemployment. However, in libertarian socialism, there is no reason to be employed, other then passion for your occupation (which is why we will still have scientists, engineers, etc.), because you are not an economic slave.
If all assembly-work etc. is automated, most people will have time to pursue art, science etc. We can reach a new age of enlightenment, characterized by attention for the human experience yet again, instead of drone-like work for the sake of having enough money to feed and shelter ourselves, as capitalism or our current system would have it.
Passion for what you are doing beats economic slavery every time.
Who has time to meet with a bunch of idiots who take 3 hrs to decide what to order for lunch? I suggest we just get back to the government fearing the people and all this corruption would go away. Jail and charges of TREASON are in order for politicians/bankers/traders and other white collar criminals who've been raping the system. Once that's done those who aren't in jail or dead yet will conduct themselves differently.
When people can choose to play sports , or music or just lay around rather than work, many will do so if someone else pays them and feed them. But what if the product of those who choose to work is not enough to pay that tab?
The problem is that responsibility is eliminated from the structure. People are already very free to think as they wish, and can choose to work for an employer or in their own business.
This is a slick piece of propaganda that is pure evil. Anyone who is so completely uninformed that they believe this crap is being misled into true slavery. This reveals how a nation which has been miseducated can be convinced to embrace communist tyranny. We see here the result of iPod nation - so empty, yet with sooo much self esteem. This is a joke, right? Nobody actually takes this stuff seriously, do they?
@Pendaboot Typical response from an ignorant stooge resistant to change.
Communism is a type of government. Democracy is a process within government. So by recommending we change the way people participate in Government, the poster of the video is automatically a communist?
Get out of here with that nonsense. I also love how you branded the video as "evil"; Guess what? "Evil" is a perspective.
Lunatic youthful idiotic video ... ''Don't tell me what to do, or I am going to cry''.
As someone said : Quantum Leap of Logic at 3:00 - that person does not have to be a "slave" they can go start their own business or go live in the woods fishing for their sustenance.
This video is pathetically idiotic, confusing and childish. Left-Libertarians should just go the basement where the Commies are and don't make noises.
Are you really this mindless? If what this piece of cr@p video claims was even REMOTELY desirable or possible, it would just suddenly EXPLODE into existence as reality because it relies on EVERYONE (not)thinking in the way the video describes! If it were remotely possible or desirable it would be HERE right now! BUT IT ISN'T, because EVERTHING it would depend upon goes directly against human nature! Ever read "Lord of the Flies"? That is human nature!
Quantum Leap of Logic at 3:00 - that person does not have to be a "slave" they can go start their own business or go live in the woods fishing for their sustenance. Clearly, the #ows folks and the author of this video do not understand that.
These creatures are truly mindless! The video shows all the advances society has made through the efforts of individuals to create wealth and success for themselves, which benefited all, and then proceeds to tell you how you should instead conform to what the "herd" tells you to do. HERDS DO NOT THINK! I for one hope they go quickly to the insurrection phase that this type believes they must use to impose this cr@p on people so we can quickly cut this mindless cancer out of the body of society.
Anybody who buys into this "direct democracy" bullshit is a total zombie chanting "We Are the World" and "Imagine". Someone will always rise to the top and be in charge in any group or society. So called "Utopian" societies in the 1800s and 60s communes started and soon failed. And in these small communities where everybody was supposed to be equal, one individual would eventually be "da bossman."
The most frequent challenge I encounter when supporting this is people's concern about social darwinism. A lot of people seem to think that a voluntary society would have no programs to care for the sick, elderly, and disabled. I point out that we all get sick, we all get old, and that anyone could be stricken disabled, so we all have a vested interest to participate in such programs, and the cost of such programs could be made negligible if the state were removed, so force isn't necessary.
@FreeTheWorker Are you really this mindless? If what this piece of cr@p video claims was even REMOTELY desirable or possible, it would just suddenly EXPLODE into existence as reality because it relies on EVERYONE (not)thinking in the way the video describes! If it were remotely possible or desirable it would be HERE right now! BUT IT ISN'T, because everything it would depend upon goes directly against human nature! Ever read "Lord of the Flies"? That is human nature!
@leestauf What this video claims is possible, history has proven it, and it's also desirable to those who want liberty, but there are a lot of things holding it back. The concept that it would just suddenly explode into existence requires that everyone know it's an option and that nothing stand in the way of it, neither of which is the case. Nothing about this goes against human nature, and the author of this video addresses your reaction in the video.
@FreeTheWorker Just where has this been successful? Please be specific. And what are the many things that stand in the way of it happening? Could many of those things standing in the way be people who realize they do not need your "Utopia" to be free and possess liberty? I'm sure many will disagree with your ideas and see them as another stab at achieving the same utopia that Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and Pol Pot where striving for. What will you do with these people? Put them in re-education camps?
Probably the most successful experiment of libertarianism in recent history. That is, until statists decided they did not like people being free and went in to kill and imprison anarchists.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Thank you for proving my point that this could never succeed! All that is required is for some outside force to not like your views or what ever ends you are trying to achieve, and that outside force completely ENDS your efforts, AND IT WOULD ALWAYS BE SO! Stop living in a fantasy world that will never, can never exist! Why don't you just fantasize about something obtainable?
Some outside force can come and fight it out if they want too. I't's anarchy, people are allowed to carry arms, hell , I'd even advocate it. Look at Anarchist Catalonia. When you have an ideal, a view of a better world, people from all ages and sexes will defend it with their life. Not unlike your founding fathers and their constituents.
@leestauf Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, and large areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War which operated this way until Fascist and Communist armies stamped them out.
@FreeTheWorker Thank you for proving my point that this could never succeed! All that is required is for some outside force to not like your views or what ever ends you are trying to achieve, and that outside force completely ENDS your efforts, AND IT WOULD ALWAYS BE SO! Stop living in a fantasy world that will never, can never exist! Why don't you just fantasize about something obtainable?
What i find most interesting is that Wall Street itself has an elected hierarchy. And the group concept entirely falls apart when we enter the area of property, real estate in particular. And if we are to outlaw individual property ownership then, of course, we enter the realm of monarchy. So I think some people need to put their thinking caps on, as an ancestors did, to, in final analysis, create exactly what we have.
Your video is very well done, thank you. It blurs some lines though. Democracy whether direct or representative is mob rule (Example: if 51% wanted to take your home they could. In a constitutional republic the 51% may want to take your home, but the law (constitution) would not let them.) Having a system of rules and laws is important otherwise your democracy will inevitably lead to an oligarchy, possibly by means of anarchy when the people see the shortcomings of mob rule or 51 try to rule 49.
I agree. I like the idea of a constitutional direct democracy equipped with a judicial system. Hell i dont think the america system would be bad if they just set up a 4th branch of direct democracy
The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy of any kind.
watch?v=Z184mJN8CUI
Democracy is mob rule. (Like Chicago, Like gang-rape)
Our founding fathers loathed it.
Do your homework on this and then tell me why "they" call us a democracy.
The word "democracy" is not contained in any of our founding documents.
We are NOT a democracy, nor a "true democracy", nor "representative democracy". It is all encroachment to get you to become socialists, like the "Democrats" are doing.
representative democracy = chose your king for the next few years, democrats republicans either way u r screwed, not really what u had in vision, brought to u by the corporatocracy= total scam
Its uplifting to see so many people believing in this movement. I want to ask if anyone knows of groups that are actively discussing the implementation of a direct democracy, and more specifically developing the software back-end needed to implement a wide-scale direct democracy.
This is a project I have been planning for some time, and have views on steps forward, but want to connect with more like minded people. I see a lot of people agree the concept, what movements are actually pursuing it?
for some reason it does't show the correct part of the video, but it is the picture where a man stands on a beach with a palm tree at his left withskyscrapers in the background in tropical and mountainous surroundings
At the end there are scenes of a black and white movies of people shuffling through an inhuman industrialized system. What movie is that? I want to watch it.
I'd like to mention that the Venus Project is cloaked technocracy. They wish to have a global computer system which determines which resources can be distributed and how much. I see the potential for those who know how to use technology being people with control over society. I'm not in favor of the Venus Project for this reason.
i got really stoned last night and was listening to bob marley's redemption song when i started thinking about this. it took me two bowls and 6 or 7 replays to come to the same conclusion, if we really want to be free we need to have true direct democracy.
This is a most concise speech and a real achievement. I have also been thinking along these lines for some time so it was nice to see a visualisation of this thought pattern. It means that perhaps the human race is now ready for such a system right now if more than one person can come up with the same conclusion. I think it is worthy of further thought as to how society can work towards such goals that seem to be universally the right thing to do. I would like to link up with similar thinkers
Wouldn't a DD lead to Communism which would contradict Capitalism which I assume you believe in since you're a Libertarian... or are you making the presumption that Americans have the maturity and intelligence to be more like the Swiss?
@YoungIvyScholar The term 'Libertarian' covers many schools of thought, it does not mean exclusively market-economics and championing civil liberties or even Anarco-Capitialism (Anarchic Markets). I know it has become popularly known in the US as those things, but it simply does not stop or begin there.
Libertarian-Left can mean a number of ideologies more or less, Communism as it is intended (economic, social and civil equality), Anti-Authoritarian Communism/Anti-Stalinism,Anarco-Socialism etc
You know, I think above and beyond the worst aspect of left-libertarianism is the lip service they pay to individual freedom:
Everyman born free - To do what the community decides he should do
Say whatever you want - Just don't expect the use of our communal newspress
Do as you please - So long as you have the permission of the community
It is a dichotomy, you cannot have rights where your freedoms are subject to the vote of the majority, you cannot have freedom without sovereign property.
I'm afraid that Direct democracy is simply a utopian idea that can't work. It will inherently destroy itself. It will either descend into anarchy since Direct democracy by definition is mob rule. Or it will pave way for the rise of tyrants. Also I don't see anything flattering about a form of government in which two alcoholics have more influence on government than an intellectual. God Save the Tsar !
Great video. One thing I don't understand though, is that at 2:18 the video says that people should be allowed to do what they want until it harms someone else. But what if someone did harm someone else. Who could stop them? Doesn't anarchy have no police or jails?
I may be dead wrong (I don't really know much about anarchism), but does someone have a solution? Thank you.
I think we should be developing new technologies for civics at the most local level of government where it is safer to experiment. An open source software project designed to provide the IT tools that small cities need could provide a platform for encouraging many strategies to better engage the electorate in local politics. I wish the folks anxious to apply DD would take a more proactive approach and look for things they can do now that would demonstrate the strategy, like a "wikilectorate."
Conservatives and right-wing libertarians are suspicious of democracy; they have to be. That's why they tell us that direct democracy is mob rule. But that's nothing like what anarchism/left libertarianism is proposing.
And contrary to what theLeftlibertarian put in the end of his last desciption from his rep. democracy bit, comments concerning direct democracies like, "Tyranny of the majority" is not "stupid", it's logical. Our rights and freedoms come from God, stephenbhola, not from you and me. Now I know many of you apologist of "participatory democracy" don't believe in a God but that is my point of view, so please don't get me started in that one. :)
Stephenbhola, what the hell are u talking about? "Freedom comes from democracy and not a republic"? How could something so abstract, like freedom, envolve from such a system, in your logic? Try telling that to the Muslim minority in Switzerland who is told not to have any minarets build.
Conformists socially ostracize and demonize individuals until they can get something. Remember the old Eric Clapton song, "nobody knows you when you're down and out"? Achievements fill the loneliness, watching the collectivist closeness from afar. Having only your mind, and you become smarter. Having only your achievements, and they accumulate. It's too late to feel connected when conformists want to connect. Conformists make their masters.
Sartre wrote- As for me, I’d become a convinced socialist, but anti-hierarchical and libertarian, that is, for direct democracy. I knew full well that my objectives weren’t those of the PC, but I thought we could travel along the same road for a while.
this idea is gd yet it remains a theory ie it can t be put to practise. it is in our nature to compit with one another. therefore the closest thing to this idea is representative democracy were we decide our leaders. i m not saying this is the perfect way of goverment yet it is the best we have. dd only works in small groups, yet we are too large and too diverse.
this idea is gd yet it remains a theory ie it can t be put to practise. it is in our nature to compit with one another. therefore the closest thing to this idea is representative democracy were we decide our leaders. i m not saying this is the perfect way of goverment yet it is the best we have. dd only works in small groups, yet we are too large and too diverse.
this idea is gd yet it remains a theory ie it can t be put to practise. it is in our nature to compit with one another. therefore the closest thing to this idea is representative democracy were we decide our leaders. i m not saying this is the perfect way of goverment yet it is the best we have. dd only works in small groups, yet we are too large and too diverse.
this idea is gd yet it remains a theory ie it can t be put to practise. it is in our nature to compit with one another. therefore the closest thing to this idea is representative democracy were we decide our leaders. i m not saying this is the perfect way of goverment yet it is the best we have. dd only works in small groups, yet we are too large and too diverse.
There is nothing wrong with competition. Competition means that people are motivated to perform at their best. Why would you want to support leaders who are forcing themselves with violence on everybody in a group. That is not libertarian. Ostracism and boycott is are the best and non-violent ways of motivating unwilling people to cooperate with a group for a common good. It works perfectly, because every person will make an individual economic evaluation whether to participate.
@DebbiePan1 LeftLibertarian specifically said the organizations should be only 250 people or less (of course they could still federate or cooperate with others). So this would be on a decentralized., small-scale group pattern. Also, it has been put in practice. Simply look up direct democracy.
You turn things upside down: What is good for the individuals is good for society and not the other way around. Only the operation of numerous simultaneous voluntary interactions between people will maximize utility for the society because every voluntary interaction between individuals increases the utility of the participants. This is called the free market.
@alalelalex Nowhere does LeftLibertarian say people cannot engage in a free market on here. The idea is simply that they can also control their lives and have a say in things to whatever extent they are affected. If they wish to participate in a free market, no one will stop that. Alternately, people can opt to form other voluntary social and economic forms.
Do you acknowledge that libertarian morality is based on the non-aggression principle? That the non-aggression principle is defined in terms if property rights. That property rights resolve conflict about the exclusive control of scarce goods, in a rational way. That is by means of argumentation instead of by violence. Property rights are obtained by the homesteading principle and are exchanged by means of contracts. Libertarian morals are enforced by ostracism and self-defense.
@alalelalex I acknowledge that your moral theory is based on it yes. I should point out that "libertarian" originally referred to democratic socialists before it was used by the likes of Murray Rothbard. I reject defining this in terms of property rights that way. This is not the only way to resolve conflict about scarce goods, and I would say may be a very bad way in many cases. The homesteading theory is magical to me. You "mix your labor" with natural resources, then it yours forever? Please.
Do you own you own body? Do you own the food you eat? Is it your property definitely? How can you plan your future life if you are not allowed to own even the basic means op production, like land and crops? One needs an objective way to decide who gets to control what. Whether this the Lockean homesteading theory or something else is up to debate and argumentation. This field of thought is underdeveloped. More competition in dispute resolution would increase the quality of it.
@alalelalex I believe we control our bodies, or should at least. I have no problem with people possessing food, nor means to produce it. On the contrary. However, my problem is that indefinite property holding allows some to own food and means of producing it, while others do not. Lockean homesteading theory is not the same as, say, Proudhonian possession theory. The field of thought is indeed underdeveloped. I think ADR is excellent but I'm not sure what you mean here exactly. Please elaborate.
The problem is not with indefinite property holding. It would be arbitrary to say that someones ownership just ends after a certain time and returns to the wilderness. He then would be the first to homestead it again. Indefinite property does not withhold other people to own stuff unless you are in a monopoly situation. But these situations only occur when there is a state (monopoly of violence) involved. Without a state, one can always trade his labor for means of production.
@alalelalex It does not arbitrarily just return to the commons after a time, but when it is no longer possessed. Indefinite property does indeed prevent other people from owning that portion. Such as for instance one man owning farm fields which he does not use, or perhaps even see. A monopoly of violence in this given area is needed to defend such non-possessed things. One cannot always sell labor for the means of production. Sometimes labor is not valued, or sold to use but now own things.
A rational person will sell his good if he doesn't use it. That is the economic thing to do. If he just likes to look at his stuff even though someone else is bidding for it, then he values it more than the bid. How someone uses his property is up to his subjective view. I don't see how labor can ever not be valued when there is no monopoly of violence. The state for example enforces minimum wage laws that force people not to act according to their values. Is this what you mean?
@alalelalex Did you read what I wrote? I'm fully aware of subjective value theory. I was discussing property rights, not economic value in general. However, there are many cases in which labor is not valued. Minimum wage laws may be related. Indian economist Amartya Sen studied the famines in India's history finding that most cases were caused by labor being undervalued, not crop failures. Therefore, landlords would stockpile produce for later while people starved. An example of what I oppose.
So your solution to this is to make people trade against their values by using a gun. Maybe you can form a group that will support you, and create a local monopoly of violence. You possibly have to kill a few people that won't cooperate. How are you going to measure the good you are doing? Are you going to be a utilitarian and add up the bad of killings to the good that the booty brings? How about the universality of moral rules? Do you consider yourself a moral person?
@alalelalex Excuse me? Where in the world do you get that idea, leaping to such a conclusion? Would you care to address the points I actually raised, rather than creating a strawman from thin air? I guess the reaction shouldn't surprise me. As for utilitarian or Kantian bases for these, it may come as a surprise but either can be used to argue for my ideas. Is it moral to allow people to starve, by either standard? I do consider myself a moral person-surprised? I'm sure you do as well. Shocker.
If you accuse me of giving straw man arguments then point out where i changed your position. You either want to convince me of something or not. Pose your idea's and justify it according to moral or utilitarian principles. I just don't understand left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. Although I have to admit I get confused of homesteading theory too. What labor is good enough for homesteading something? Shouldn't controlling it be enough? What if you just want to look at it?
@alalelalex Oh well, maybe it was at "make people trade against their values by using a gun. Maybe you can form a group that will support you, and create a local monopoly of violence. You possibly have to kill a few people that won't cooperate." Show me where I said that. For moral justifications, how about this: If we allow people to hold properties indefinitely, regardless of actual possession, then what if everyone did? From a more utilitarian view, the more who can have property, the better.
@alalelalex If you don't understand left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism, there are many resources online or paper to find out more. I may be able to answer best as possible too. I don't know what labor is sufficient in homesteading theory-there may be no agreement on that. I know Rothbard said just putting up a fence is not enough, you have to actually change the land more significantly, like cultivating it for crops. Libertarian socialists would say actual possession. Just looking? Idk
I think a better approach is to begin at the most local level and develop tools that make it easy for the electorate to get an education on what their local government does and what issues it is facing. I believe there is a way to use the period between elections to vet prospective candidates by giving them roles as "issue evangelists" on a site designed to make our political capital more tangible. In this way we get both the education we need to be effective voters and discover good leadership.
ok, first of all, great video. I like how you attacked these dictators we call politicans. However, out of curiousity, what is the difference between this and Anarchy (the system I am for)? Also, would people be forced into whatever action is voted on or would people just decide weather or not to do something/
I swear to God sometimes I feel these videos are common sense, like we all understand this intuitively. I wish people would start to wake up out of their trance like state, and realize we have been lied to. We aren't free.
I want to thank you for making this video, it has really opened my mind to reforms that need to be made in our society. Its time to bring power back to the people from distant, out of touch elitist.
I also enjoyed your Democratic Education videos as well. If public schools implemented this then I think we would have a more intelligent, enlightened society.
You appear to be making a fallacy in assuming that the greatest amount of political rights will always result in the greatest amount of personal rights.
In the Middle East, if you implemented Direct Democracy, people would vote en masse for Sharia law. Over there, a civil libertarian "dictator" would be preferable to DD or even Democratic Republic.
In 1968, one year after Loving v Virginia, 73% of Americans still opposed interracial marriage. Direct Democracy would've never ended racist laws.
@Akin42 I actually mentioned twice that these communities would exist under libertarian norms. That means Sharia Law would not exist or even have the ability to exist. In this type of society, interracial marriage would be totally fine. I think you are assuming DD without any laws. In that case, you are correct. However, I would never advocate a lawless society with DD. Thanks for the comment. I might put something in the sidebar because a couple of people have made this mistake.
1. "I think you are assuming DD without any laws." Incorrect, I am assuming that your caucus system makes laws somehow. Or did you mean there is a Constitution that prevents some laws from being written? Because you didn't mention that in the video.
2. Your causality is backwards. DD wouldn't result in left libertarianism in many places, rather, a left libertarian-supermajority people would set up a DD. I'm simply telling you what would happen if you put it in anyplace else.
Despite the possible contradictory nature of "Collectivist Individualism" the concept is by far a carefully reason argument. However the Idea is more along the lines of a Compromise between the two schools. This school is centralist as well as this is not constrained to Right wing or left wing but the likelihood is it is a Left wing government.
I believe as well that Friedrich Engels was right when he said Freedom must rise from the bottom up not top down.
The problem with Direct Democracy is that it is just the Majority of the minority. The Majority is not always right as we all know. So the Majority can abuse the rights of the minority. The best system is a republic based on the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately the current government does not follow the Constitution and abuses it's power.
needles9211 5 days ago
thanks God someone realised this. i am talking this several years. i hope everyone will acceptthis and not reject as conspiracy theory
djnmnc 1 week ago
Democracy, socialism, communism are a myth. They all share one thing in common... Control.. lol freedom of speech lol...
SuperAmericanloser 3 weeks ago
clearing out Forrests was not a positive thinh
johngorgis 1 month ago
Love this video! Have to translate it in spanish, french, arabic, chinese, german... :)
DemocracyEverywhere 2 months ago
The founder built a the republic as the direct democracy. The individual has the power over their home, the community has power over the community the town...the county, the state...the federal government... The power is in the hand of a few because people do not exercise their Unalienable Right to Self Governance. They are ruled by "the consent of the governed". You consent to allow politicians to be corrupt.
ny1t 2 months ago
Direct democracy is destroying my home state California. We vote for all of these stupid things which end up bankrupting our state and screwing our teachers, police officers, firemen, and mentally disabled.
DP3mo24hofosho 3 months ago
@DP3mo24hofosho
Why do you vote for those things?
Muffinfordinner 2 months ago
@Muffinfordinner I don't, stupid people who want free stuff do.
DP3mo24hofosho 2 months ago
@DP3mo24hofosho
Why would that necessarily cause the state to go bankrupt? Don't taxes pay for those things?
Muffinfordinner 2 months ago
@Muffinfordinner No, higher taxes makes it worse and revenue goes down
DP3mo24hofosho 2 months ago
@DP3mo24hofosho no, why don't you ask the administrators that make the choices for our teachers, police officers, firemen, and the mentally disabled.if schools ran by the students and teachers, if cities were ran with community councils than council-members, if this country were ran by the actual people, there would be more transparency, more efficiency, and there would be a REAL democracy. what we have is an elected dictatorship and a ruling elite out of tune with the people
inrrivas 5 days ago
@inrrivas I agree with you that the power should be brought down to the lower levels of government and closer to the people, but we shouldn't go to a direct democracy. You can look up why the founding fathers didn't want a direct democracy, but the main reason is it can lead to mob rule, where minoritys get thier rights trampled on.
DP3mo24hofosho 5 days ago
@DP3mo24hofosho As long as we have a strong Constitution, and equal access to education, other people's rights will be well off. Guided direct democracy in the local and state levels can be possible in the departments that pertain to the public. In Porto Alegre in Brazil for example, the budget is subject to debate and decided by the citizens. The slow process allows for transparency, proper deliberation, and gives a voice to those that in the current system doesn't hear them
inrrivas 3 days ago
@inrrivas Have you studied up on California? We have a partial direct democracy here and it has contributed to the mess we are in now. Among all the states, California is among the most f'd up states in our union.
DP3mo24hofosho 3 days ago
@DP3mo24hofosho What propositions did the voters vote that gave us this mess? California is still one of top economies, being formidable by itself. We need ideas to continue on, and our "democracy" is designed to shut out the collective wisdom we have in our own neighborhoods. As I said, "it allows for transparency, proper deliberation, and gives a voice to those that in the current system doesn't hear them". As for Brazil, is now the 6th economy in the world. Hmm, I wonder why.
inrrivas 2 days ago
@inrrivas We have 13% unemployment, and are in 23 billion dollars in dept. The reason why we are in this mess is because we put things on the ballot like "put 5 billion dollars more in education" and the way to pay for it is raise taxes. Economists then at the bottom of the bill state the potential economic impact. Well, have passed all of these measurements which hurt our economy step by step, and regulations and as a result, the economy tanks and revenue goes dowm.
DP3mo24hofosho 2 days ago
@DP3mo24hofosho I am still blank on propositions. Again, I encourage you to research Brazil. Direct democracy is not pure here. Our politicians are unaccountable at the local and state level, and having a system of direct democracy is a win win. The unemployment rate and debt is hardly the voters fault. Why don't you ask the individuals that own 1/3 of the wealth and that are making our economic choices with record making profits, without accountability for "us"?
inrrivas 1 day ago
Comment removed
inrrivas 3 days ago
Libya enjoyed a direct democracy for over 30 years. They had a very high standard of living, better than the US, was debt-free and had no central bank in their country. The Green Book was written by Gathafi explaining how to create a participatory democracy. Funny, coming from a "dictator".
ArtsAlign 3 months ago
@ArtsAlign
Direct democracies aren't worth shit if they are centralized and non-voluntary.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 months ago
The whole world is active and ready for this transition! It's the natural, healthy course for building an empathic society. Thank you!!
ArtsAlign 3 months ago
The flower metaphor is very good, memorable.
Can anything not harming anyone be described as immoral?
To see direct democracy in action in large industrial enterprises google: Mondragon Front Porch Republic. Mondragon is a city in the Basque region of Spain. Prosperous, with businesses worker-owned, some very large,
jmcg02908 3 months ago
Bravo, my friend!
TheLiontroll 4 months ago
JAMAHIRIYA system in Libya is the closest example of direct democracy ! but destroyed now by NATO and USA
atphalix 4 months ago
32 people are asleep.
thisheartisfluid 4 months ago
Word
gentledissident 4 months ago
This is possible evolutionarily we lived like this in tribal society with 1 leader to a 10s or 100s of people. So the structure is possible and has existed. Its a question of organizing all those smaller groups into 1 giant group.
droper6666 4 months ago
Great job. This is the type of video which should not be criticised in the negative but criticised for what more can be added to it. The principles are well-grounded in other words, but unfortunately too many need to learn just this first step to waking up before moving on. More videos like this will help. Thanks.
ausesq7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leestauf
So no one would be forced to work. Not even in the way capitalism forces you to work (trough economic slavery), which albeit better than government coercive force is still detrimental to the human experience and development.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@leestauf
"The logical conclusion is this "idea" is not libertarian or realistic in any way."
Define libertarian please. Because I have a strong feeling that what you're just hinting to what you neoliberals decided to highjack and rename libertarianism.
"People strive for excellence when they receive the benefit of that labor."
Exactly, the fruits of their own labor. Not economic slavery in which you have to work because you need money to pay for food or shelter simply to keep you alive.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Your idea sounds wonderful and I do not wish to insult you, but I think you are living in a fairy tale world. If this is possible, why don't you and like thinkers get together, buy a large island or some similar property and prove it? I am personally sure that internal strife would QUICKLY collapse the experiment, human nature being what it is, and even if it didn't and it were successful, any malevolent outside force could and would see the success and easily take it from you.
leestauf 4 months ago
@leestauf
"Your idea sounds wonderful and I do not wish to insult you, but I think you are living in a fairy tale world."
That's probably something they tell all idealists. If everyone listened to that, you would still be singing God Save the Queen, wouldn't you?
"buy a large island or some similar property and prove it? "
Hopefully, one day we will.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@leestauf
I have more trust in human nature then you. If people see an effective system, which I hope what I advocate would be, maybe they will rise against their government. With no government, who's going to initiate force? One individual against another? To what gain? Even if that happened, that could never blow out to a war. For a war or conquest you need governments and people willing enough to obey them. Let's hope, by demonstrating it , we can show people they don't need governance.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@leestauf
First and foremost, let's do the things all libertarians (right and left) can agree on. Let's work together to restore individual liberty, end big government infiltrating personal lives, do away with taxation, do away with immigration restraints, do away with drug laws, scale down the police and military, etc. When we've fixed all that, we can start arguing whether we're going to free the market to capitalism or abolish money and collectivize resources or whatever other ideas.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
I'm sure many will disagree with your ideas and would resist them as just another stab at achieving the same utopia that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Fidel, Mao and Pol Pot where striving for, but under a different rubric . What will you do with these people? Put them in re-education camps since it requires all to participate? Follow this thought through to it's logical conclusion.
leestauf 4 months ago
@leestauf
Trotsky and Lenin may have been anti-statist, they surely didn't show it. But Stalin, Mao, Fidel and Pot had no libertarian agenda in any way. They made no pretense of their ideology: 'big government good'.
Furthermore I believe that trough the success of small communes, more and more people would join a movement. If they don't, they can go do their own thing somewhere else. There is no need to imprison anyone.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The logical conclusion is this "idea" is not libertarian or realistic in any way. It would quickly degenerate into the same type of governments that oppressed the people in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc. People strive for excellence when they receive the benefit of that labor. Who would do the truly unpleasant work that no one wants to do, which is a large percentage of the labor that needs to be completed? I guess we could "force" others to do it huh? While we play! Who is we?
leestauf 4 months ago
@leestauf
Most modern services are/will be either socially pointless and virtually all construction/assemby/productionetc. will be automated. This something we could do today, we have the technology, but it is fought because it would create mass unemployment. However, in libertarian socialism, there is no reason to be employed, other then passion for your occupation (which is why we will still have scientists, engineers, etc.), because you are not an economic slave.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@leestauf
If all assembly-work etc. is automated, most people will have time to pursue art, science etc. We can reach a new age of enlightenment, characterized by attention for the human experience yet again, instead of drone-like work for the sake of having enough money to feed and shelter ourselves, as capitalism or our current system would have it.
Passion for what you are doing beats economic slavery every time.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
does anyone feel like this guy sounds like the "honey badger" narrator?
nittyjee 4 months ago 2
Who has time to meet with a bunch of idiots who take 3 hrs to decide what to order for lunch? I suggest we just get back to the government fearing the people and all this corruption would go away. Jail and charges of TREASON are in order for politicians/bankers/traders and other white collar criminals who've been raping the system. Once that's done those who aren't in jail or dead yet will conduct themselves differently.
mbonter1 4 months ago
Comment removed
mbonter1 4 months ago
Comment removed
mbonter1 4 months ago
bs......just foolishness
recordman1949 4 months ago
When people can choose to play sports , or music or just lay around rather than work, many will do so if someone else pays them and feed them. But what if the product of those who choose to work is not enough to pay that tab?
MrJimjunior 4 months ago
Im pretty sure you just described a republic not a democracy, democracy is mob rule
Italianinfowarrior 4 months ago
bullshit Propaganda....all i can say is "wishful thinking"
hayden50 4 months ago
LOL "don't tell me what to do"
This is what happens when teenagers never progress in to adults.
sirhcskoorb 4 months ago
The problem is that responsibility is eliminated from the structure. People are already very free to think as they wish, and can choose to work for an employer or in their own business.
svtcarboy 4 months ago
This is a slick piece of propaganda that is pure evil. Anyone who is so completely uninformed that they believe this crap is being misled into true slavery. This reveals how a nation which has been miseducated can be convinced to embrace communist tyranny. We see here the result of iPod nation - so empty, yet with sooo much self esteem. This is a joke, right? Nobody actually takes this stuff seriously, do they?
Pendaboot 4 months ago 2
@Pendaboot Typical response from an ignorant stooge resistant to change.
Communism is a type of government. Democracy is a process within government. So by recommending we change the way people participate in Government, the poster of the video is automatically a communist?
Get out of here with that nonsense. I also love how you branded the video as "evil"; Guess what? "Evil" is a perspective.
Melotha 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lunatic youthful idiotic video ... ''Don't tell me what to do, or I am going to cry''.
As someone said : Quantum Leap of Logic at 3:00 - that person does not have to be a "slave" they can go start their own business or go live in the woods fishing for their sustenance.
This video is pathetically idiotic, confusing and childish. Left-Libertarians should just go the basement where the Commies are and don't make noises.
mwangolatrue 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you really this mindless? If what this piece of cr@p video claims was even REMOTELY desirable or possible, it would just suddenly EXPLODE into existence as reality because it relies on EVERYONE (not)thinking in the way the video describes! If it were remotely possible or desirable it would be HERE right now! BUT IT ISN'T, because EVERTHING it would depend upon goes directly against human nature! Ever read "Lord of the Flies"? That is human nature!
leestauf 4 months ago
Quantum Leap of Logic at 3:00 - that person does not have to be a "slave" they can go start their own business or go live in the woods fishing for their sustenance. Clearly, the #ows folks and the author of this video do not understand that.
squidly1117 4 months ago
These creatures are truly mindless! The video shows all the advances society has made through the efforts of individuals to create wealth and success for themselves, which benefited all, and then proceeds to tell you how you should instead conform to what the "herd" tells you to do. HERDS DO NOT THINK! I for one hope they go quickly to the insurrection phase that this type believes they must use to impose this cr@p on people so we can quickly cut this mindless cancer out of the body of society.
leestauf 4 months ago
Anybody who buys into this "direct democracy" bullshit is a total zombie chanting "We Are the World" and "Imagine". Someone will always rise to the top and be in charge in any group or society. So called "Utopian" societies in the 1800s and 60s communes started and soon failed. And in these small communities where everybody was supposed to be equal, one individual would eventually be "da bossman."
saberXedge 4 months ago
The most frequent challenge I encounter when supporting this is people's concern about social darwinism. A lot of people seem to think that a voluntary society would have no programs to care for the sick, elderly, and disabled. I point out that we all get sick, we all get old, and that anyone could be stricken disabled, so we all have a vested interest to participate in such programs, and the cost of such programs could be made negligible if the state were removed, so force isn't necessary.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker Are you really this mindless? If what this piece of cr@p video claims was even REMOTELY desirable or possible, it would just suddenly EXPLODE into existence as reality because it relies on EVERYONE (not)thinking in the way the video describes! If it were remotely possible or desirable it would be HERE right now! BUT IT ISN'T, because everything it would depend upon goes directly against human nature! Ever read "Lord of the Flies"? That is human nature!
leestauf 4 months ago
@leestauf What this video claims is possible, history has proven it, and it's also desirable to those who want liberty, but there are a lot of things holding it back. The concept that it would just suddenly explode into existence requires that everyone know it's an option and that nothing stand in the way of it, neither of which is the case. Nothing about this goes against human nature, and the author of this video addresses your reaction in the video.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker Just where has this been successful? Please be specific. And what are the many things that stand in the way of it happening? Could many of those things standing in the way be people who realize they do not need your "Utopia" to be free and possess liberty? I'm sure many will disagree with your ideas and see them as another stab at achieving the same utopia that Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and Pol Pot where striving for. What will you do with these people? Put them in re-education camps?
leestauf 4 months ago
@leestauf
Search: anarcho-syndacalism is Spain.
Probably the most successful experiment of libertarianism in recent history. That is, until statists decided they did not like people being free and went in to kill and imprison anarchists.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Thank you for proving my point that this could never succeed! All that is required is for some outside force to not like your views or what ever ends you are trying to achieve, and that outside force completely ENDS your efforts, AND IT WOULD ALWAYS BE SO! Stop living in a fantasy world that will never, can never exist! Why don't you just fantasize about something obtainable?
leestauf 4 months ago
@leestauf
Some outside force can come and fight it out if they want too. I't's anarchy, people are allowed to carry arms, hell , I'd even advocate it. Look at Anarchist Catalonia. When you have an ideal, a view of a better world, people from all ages and sexes will defend it with their life. Not unlike your founding fathers and their constituents.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@leestauf This is very abstract. But the successful worker-owned, direct democracy industrial enterprises in Mondragon, Spain work very well indeed.
jmcg02908 3 months ago
@leestauf Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, and large areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War which operated this way until Fascist and Communist armies stamped them out.
Do you need me to be any more specific?
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FreeTheWorker Thank you for proving my point that this could never succeed! All that is required is for some outside force to not like your views or what ever ends you are trying to achieve, and that outside force completely ENDS your efforts, AND IT WOULD ALWAYS BE SO! Stop living in a fantasy world that will never, can never exist! Why don't you just fantasize about something obtainable?
leestauf 4 months ago
What i find most interesting is that Wall Street itself has an elected hierarchy. And the group concept entirely falls apart when we enter the area of property, real estate in particular. And if we are to outlaw individual property ownership then, of course, we enter the realm of monarchy. So I think some people need to put their thinking caps on, as an ancestors did, to, in final analysis, create exactly what we have.
betuadollarucant 4 months ago
This is a great video. Really powerful educational tool. Thanks alot. I will put this to good use.
nobanksnoborders1 4 months ago
Your video is very well done, thank you. It blurs some lines though. Democracy whether direct or representative is mob rule (Example: if 51% wanted to take your home they could. In a constitutional republic the 51% may want to take your home, but the law (constitution) would not let them.) Having a system of rules and laws is important otherwise your democracy will inevitably lead to an oligarchy, possibly by means of anarchy when the people see the shortcomings of mob rule or 51 try to rule 49.
djmayna87 4 months ago
@djmayna87
I agree. I like the idea of a constitutional direct democracy equipped with a judicial system. Hell i dont think the america system would be bad if they just set up a 4th branch of direct democracy
nobanksnoborders1 4 months ago
Like if you think the narrator sounds like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory!
highwaydclxvi 4 months ago
Nice video shame about the narrator ha
CigIslandTV 5 months ago
Well, isn't that a nice piece of fluff. Sorry guys but the real world is going on around you. catch up or get left behind.
kiapyro 5 months ago
A Channel that is a Pearl on youtube!
GivinStatic 5 months ago in playlist Videos from TheLeftLibertarian
Comment removed
selfruleuk 5 months ago
The social contract between the state and the UK people has been broken - Direct Democracy via the People's Administration is the fix!
MAINSTREAM UK registered party for Direct Democracy via the web and telephone!
selfruleuk 5 months ago
It would work just fine except when it doesn't. Madison raises some serious objections to direct democracy in Federalist #10.
aek03030731 5 months ago
so like micronations
burningflag43 5 months ago
The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy of any kind.
watch?v=Z184mJN8CUI
Democracy is mob rule. (Like Chicago, Like gang-rape)
Our founding fathers loathed it.
Do your homework on this and then tell me why "they" call us a democracy.
The word "democracy" is not contained in any of our founding documents.
We are NOT a democracy, nor a "true democracy", nor "representative democracy". It is all encroachment to get you to become socialists, like the "Democrats" are doing.
Sorry.
JRBeaman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The citizens have the power to change their lives if they eventually decide to give a fight.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY NOW.
ΑΜΕΣΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ ΤΩΡΑ.
MOVEMENT FOR THE ABOLITION OF PARLIAMENTARY "democracy".
ΚΙΝΗΜΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΚΑΤΑΡΓΗΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΚΟΙΝΟΒΟΥΛΕΥΤΙΚΗΣ "δημοκρατίας".
facebook.com/pages/ΟΧΙ-ΑΠΟΧΗ-ΚΑΤΑΡΓΗΣΤΕ-ΤΗ-ΒΟΥΛΗ-ΜΕΣΩ-ΕΚΛΟΓΩΝ-ΑΜΕΣΗ-ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ/227710807243747
OXIAPOXI 6 months ago
Democracy truly the only evolution possible
representative democracy = chose your king for the next few years, democrats republicans either way u r screwed, not really what u had in vision, brought to u by the corporatocracy= total scam
johnreventon 6 months ago
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
AmericanNohbuddy 6 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy eat the lamb that simple 3 is a crowd
MrSieish 6 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy And so is Gang-rape.
JRBeaman 6 months ago
@JRBeaman
Yes indeed.
AmericanNohbuddy 6 months ago
Its uplifting to see so many people believing in this movement. I want to ask if anyone knows of groups that are actively discussing the implementation of a direct democracy, and more specifically developing the software back-end needed to implement a wide-scale direct democracy.
This is a project I have been planning for some time, and have views on steps forward, but want to connect with more like minded people. I see a lot of people agree the concept, what movements are actually pursuing it?
ruknine79 6 months ago
for some reason it does't show the correct part of the video, but it is the picture where a man stands on a beach with a palm tree at his left withskyscrapers in the background in tropical and mountainous surroundings
ninjacarldk 7 months ago
where is that picture at 05:24 from and what is it that it depicts?
ninjacarldk 7 months ago
Hi from Egypt
Can subtitles for the video?
I'm trying to do subtitles in Arabic and English subtitles will help a lot
khaledsherifm 8 months ago
Leaders will always exist. In the absence of leaders tyrants will rise and take control.
StormCloudsGathering 8 months ago
Amazing video, bold vision.
At the end there are scenes of a black and white movies of people shuffling through an inhuman industrialized system. What movie is that? I want to watch it.
SpazzzDog 9 months ago
Wow. You are the only person I've ever met that has my exact views on this subject. Maybe I should start making videos.
Magicwillnz 9 months ago
I'd like to mention that the Venus Project is cloaked technocracy. They wish to have a global computer system which determines which resources can be distributed and how much. I see the potential for those who know how to use technology being people with control over society. I'm not in favor of the Venus Project for this reason.
NewVinland 10 months ago
Fantastic video!
I recommend you watch these videos: watch?v=_IcFYIOw08I and watch?v=_IcFYIOw08I
Desivo8581 10 months ago
Excellent video. Very concise.
OuTofJoY 10 months ago
Greatest video I have ever watched PERIOD.
ImAznnn 11 months ago
i got really stoned last night and was listening to bob marley's redemption song when i started thinking about this. it took me two bowls and 6 or 7 replays to come to the same conclusion, if we really want to be free we need to have true direct democracy.
andrewpbreen 11 months ago
this video makes me cry
voteonthis 11 months ago
nuke jacque fresco
brahmbhattbhavna 11 months ago
great video! do you have perhaps a transcript of your video?
casualjoy 1 year ago
great video! do you have perhaps a transcript of your video?
casualjoy 1 year ago
This is a most concise speech and a real achievement. I have also been thinking along these lines for some time so it was nice to see a visualisation of this thought pattern. It means that perhaps the human race is now ready for such a system right now if more than one person can come up with the same conclusion. I think it is worthy of further thought as to how society can work towards such goals that seem to be universally the right thing to do. I would like to link up with similar thinkers
r2e7g0g1i6e6 1 year ago
6,000 hits. not bad.
oldhacks 1 year ago
Wouldn't a DD lead to Communism which would contradict Capitalism which I assume you believe in since you're a Libertarian... or are you making the presumption that Americans have the maturity and intelligence to be more like the Swiss?
YoungIvyScholar 1 year ago
@YoungIvyScholar The term 'Libertarian' covers many schools of thought, it does not mean exclusively market-economics and championing civil liberties or even Anarco-Capitialism (Anarchic Markets). I know it has become popularly known in the US as those things, but it simply does not stop or begin there.
Libertarian-Left can mean a number of ideologies more or less, Communism as it is intended (economic, social and civil equality), Anti-Authoritarian Communism/Anti-Stalinism,Anarco-Socialism etc
Ohloveeh 1 year ago
Comment removed
an0m0nus 1 year ago
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch.
AmericanNohbuddy 1 year ago
You know, I think above and beyond the worst aspect of left-libertarianism is the lip service they pay to individual freedom:
Everyman born free - To do what the community decides he should do
Say whatever you want - Just don't expect the use of our communal newspress
Do as you please - So long as you have the permission of the community
It is a dichotomy, you cannot have rights where your freedoms are subject to the vote of the majority, you cannot have freedom without sovereign property.
Canadadude125 1 year ago
EPIC video.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
genetic differences aren't superficial
TheVikingNinja 1 year ago
I totally agree.
The senate is NOT doing what the people want, and is NOT bringing progress to america.
PS good choice of music (meet me in montauk!)
Omegashadowyoshi 1 year ago
I'm afraid that Direct democracy is simply a utopian idea that can't work. It will inherently destroy itself. It will either descend into anarchy since Direct democracy by definition is mob rule. Or it will pave way for the rise of tyrants. Also I don't see anything flattering about a form of government in which two alcoholics have more influence on government than an intellectual. God Save the Tsar !
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
Anyone know what this music is from?
rerouter1 1 year ago
@rerouter1 Row by Jon Brion
Omegashadowyoshi 1 year ago
@Omegashadowyoshi Thank you!
rerouter1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Omegashadowyoshi Thank you!
rerouter1 1 year ago
great video. I Believe I will live to see the day when I can breath in a genuine free society like the one outlined in this video.
NZderCambro 1 year ago
Great video. One thing I don't understand though, is that at 2:18 the video says that people should be allowed to do what they want until it harms someone else. But what if someone did harm someone else. Who could stop them? Doesn't anarchy have no police or jails?
I may be dead wrong (I don't really know much about anarchism), but does someone have a solution? Thank you.
iahawkeye1515 1 year ago
I think we should be developing new technologies for civics at the most local level of government where it is safer to experiment. An open source software project designed to provide the IT tools that small cities need could provide a platform for encouraging many strategies to better engage the electorate in local politics. I wish the folks anxious to apply DD would take a more proactive approach and look for things they can do now that would demonstrate the strategy, like a "wikilectorate."
ananiasacts 1 year ago
Conservatives and right-wing libertarians are suspicious of democracy; they have to be. That's why they tell us that direct democracy is mob rule. But that's nothing like what anarchism/left libertarianism is proposing.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
And contrary to what theLeftlibertarian put in the end of his last desciption from his rep. democracy bit, comments concerning direct democracies like, "Tyranny of the majority" is not "stupid", it's logical. Our rights and freedoms come from God, stephenbhola, not from you and me. Now I know many of you apologist of "participatory democracy" don't believe in a God but that is my point of view, so please don't get me started in that one. :)
Orph80 1 year ago
Stephenbhola, what the hell are u talking about? "Freedom comes from democracy and not a republic"? How could something so abstract, like freedom, envolve from such a system, in your logic? Try telling that to the Muslim minority in Switzerland who is told not to have any minarets build.
Orph80 1 year ago
Awesomely done.
NatralisticPantheist 1 year ago
Conformists socially ostracize and demonize individuals until they can get something. Remember the old Eric Clapton song, "nobody knows you when you're down and out"? Achievements fill the loneliness, watching the collectivist closeness from afar. Having only your mind, and you become smarter. Having only your achievements, and they accumulate. It's too late to feel connected when conformists want to connect. Conformists make their masters.
riverlioness 1 year ago
Sartre wrote- As for me, I’d become a convinced socialist, but anti-hierarchical and libertarian, that is, for direct democracy. I knew full well that my objectives weren’t those of the PC, but I thought we could travel along the same road for a while.
marxotube 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this idea is gd yet it remains a theory ie it can t be put to practise. it is in our nature to compit with one another. therefore the closest thing to this idea is representative democracy were we decide our leaders. i m not saying this is the perfect way of goverment yet it is the best we have. dd only works in small groups, yet we are too large and too diverse.
DebbiePan1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this idea is gd yet it remains a theory ie it can t be put to practise. it is in our nature to compit with one another. therefore the closest thing to this idea is representative democracy were we decide our leaders. i m not saying this is the perfect way of goverment yet it is the best we have. dd only works in small groups, yet we are too large and too diverse.
DebbiePan1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this idea is gd yet it remains a theory ie it can t be put to practise. it is in our nature to compit with one another. therefore the closest thing to this idea is representative democracy were we decide our leaders. i m not saying this is the perfect way of goverment yet it is the best we have. dd only works in small groups, yet we are too large and too diverse.
DebbiePan1 1 year ago
this idea is gd yet it remains a theory ie it can t be put to practise. it is in our nature to compit with one another. therefore the closest thing to this idea is representative democracy were we decide our leaders. i m not saying this is the perfect way of goverment yet it is the best we have. dd only works in small groups, yet we are too large and too diverse.
DebbiePan1 1 year ago
@DebbiePan1
There is nothing wrong with competition. Competition means that people are motivated to perform at their best. Why would you want to support leaders who are forcing themselves with violence on everybody in a group. That is not libertarian. Ostracism and boycott is are the best and non-violent ways of motivating unwilling people to cooperate with a group for a common good. It works perfectly, because every person will make an individual economic evaluation whether to participate.
alalelalex 1 year ago
@DebbiePan1 LeftLibertarian specifically said the organizations should be only 250 people or less (of course they could still federate or cooperate with others). So this would be on a decentralized., small-scale group pattern. Also, it has been put in practice. Simply look up direct democracy.
mcc1789 1 year ago
You turn things upside down: What is good for the individuals is good for society and not the other way around. Only the operation of numerous simultaneous voluntary interactions between people will maximize utility for the society because every voluntary interaction between individuals increases the utility of the participants. This is called the free market.
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex Nowhere does LeftLibertarian say people cannot engage in a free market on here. The idea is simply that they can also control their lives and have a say in things to whatever extent they are affected. If they wish to participate in a free market, no one will stop that. Alternately, people can opt to form other voluntary social and economic forms.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789
Do you acknowledge that libertarian morality is based on the non-aggression principle? That the non-aggression principle is defined in terms if property rights. That property rights resolve conflict about the exclusive control of scarce goods, in a rational way. That is by means of argumentation instead of by violence. Property rights are obtained by the homesteading principle and are exchanged by means of contracts. Libertarian morals are enforced by ostracism and self-defense.
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex I acknowledge that your moral theory is based on it yes. I should point out that "libertarian" originally referred to democratic socialists before it was used by the likes of Murray Rothbard. I reject defining this in terms of property rights that way. This is not the only way to resolve conflict about scarce goods, and I would say may be a very bad way in many cases. The homesteading theory is magical to me. You "mix your labor" with natural resources, then it yours forever? Please.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789
Do you own you own body? Do you own the food you eat? Is it your property definitely? How can you plan your future life if you are not allowed to own even the basic means op production, like land and crops? One needs an objective way to decide who gets to control what. Whether this the Lockean homesteading theory or something else is up to debate and argumentation. This field of thought is underdeveloped. More competition in dispute resolution would increase the quality of it.
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex I believe we control our bodies, or should at least. I have no problem with people possessing food, nor means to produce it. On the contrary. However, my problem is that indefinite property holding allows some to own food and means of producing it, while others do not. Lockean homesteading theory is not the same as, say, Proudhonian possession theory. The field of thought is indeed underdeveloped. I think ADR is excellent but I'm not sure what you mean here exactly. Please elaborate.
mcc1789 1 year ago
Comment removed
alalelalex 1 year ago
@mcc1789
The problem is not with indefinite property holding. It would be arbitrary to say that someones ownership just ends after a certain time and returns to the wilderness. He then would be the first to homestead it again. Indefinite property does not withhold other people to own stuff unless you are in a monopoly situation. But these situations only occur when there is a state (monopoly of violence) involved. Without a state, one can always trade his labor for means of production.
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex It does not arbitrarily just return to the commons after a time, but when it is no longer possessed. Indefinite property does indeed prevent other people from owning that portion. Such as for instance one man owning farm fields which he does not use, or perhaps even see. A monopoly of violence in this given area is needed to defend such non-possessed things. One cannot always sell labor for the means of production. Sometimes labor is not valued, or sold to use but now own things.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789
A rational person will sell his good if he doesn't use it. That is the economic thing to do. If he just likes to look at his stuff even though someone else is bidding for it, then he values it more than the bid. How someone uses his property is up to his subjective view. I don't see how labor can ever not be valued when there is no monopoly of violence. The state for example enforces minimum wage laws that force people not to act according to their values. Is this what you mean?
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex Did you read what I wrote? I'm fully aware of subjective value theory. I was discussing property rights, not economic value in general. However, there are many cases in which labor is not valued. Minimum wage laws may be related. Indian economist Amartya Sen studied the famines in India's history finding that most cases were caused by labor being undervalued, not crop failures. Therefore, landlords would stockpile produce for later while people starved. An example of what I oppose.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789
So your solution to this is to make people trade against their values by using a gun. Maybe you can form a group that will support you, and create a local monopoly of violence. You possibly have to kill a few people that won't cooperate. How are you going to measure the good you are doing? Are you going to be a utilitarian and add up the bad of killings to the good that the booty brings? How about the universality of moral rules? Do you consider yourself a moral person?
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex Excuse me? Where in the world do you get that idea, leaping to such a conclusion? Would you care to address the points I actually raised, rather than creating a strawman from thin air? I guess the reaction shouldn't surprise me. As for utilitarian or Kantian bases for these, it may come as a surprise but either can be used to argue for my ideas. Is it moral to allow people to starve, by either standard? I do consider myself a moral person-surprised? I'm sure you do as well. Shocker.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789
If you accuse me of giving straw man arguments then point out where i changed your position. You either want to convince me of something or not. Pose your idea's and justify it according to moral or utilitarian principles. I just don't understand left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. Although I have to admit I get confused of homesteading theory too. What labor is good enough for homesteading something? Shouldn't controlling it be enough? What if you just want to look at it?
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex Oh well, maybe it was at "make people trade against their values by using a gun. Maybe you can form a group that will support you, and create a local monopoly of violence. You possibly have to kill a few people that won't cooperate." Show me where I said that. For moral justifications, how about this: If we allow people to hold properties indefinitely, regardless of actual possession, then what if everyone did? From a more utilitarian view, the more who can have property, the better.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@alalelalex If you don't understand left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism, there are many resources online or paper to find out more. I may be able to answer best as possible too. I don't know what labor is sufficient in homesteading theory-there may be no agreement on that. I know Rothbard said just putting up a fence is not enough, you have to actually change the land more significantly, like cultivating it for crops. Libertarian socialists would say actual possession. Just looking? Idk
mcc1789 1 year ago
direct democracy ist the ONLY way to the common good and real safety, freedom and happiness of all people on this planet!!!!
chorademokracia 1 year ago
I think a better approach is to begin at the most local level and develop tools that make it easy for the electorate to get an education on what their local government does and what issues it is facing. I believe there is a way to use the period between elections to vet prospective candidates by giving them roles as "issue evangelists" on a site designed to make our political capital more tangible. In this way we get both the education we need to be effective voters and discover good leadership.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
ok, first of all, great video. I like how you attacked these dictators we call politicans. However, out of curiousity, what is the difference between this and Anarchy (the system I am for)? Also, would people be forced into whatever action is voted on or would people just decide weather or not to do something/
Thornirie 1 year ago
@Thornirie That's what I was thinking, I've noticed lots of political views share the views but just change the name..
ArandurKing909 1 year ago
I swear to God sometimes I feel these videos are common sense, like we all understand this intuitively. I wish people would start to wake up out of their trance like state, and realize we have been lied to. We aren't free.
Thank you for these informative videos!
corndogers564 1 year ago
good job sounds ideal to me
MusicBySav 1 year ago
I want to thank you for making this video, it has really opened my mind to reforms that need to be made in our society. Its time to bring power back to the people from distant, out of touch elitist.
I also enjoyed your Democratic Education videos as well. If public schools implemented this then I think we would have a more intelligent, enlightened society.
Ajanthiel 1 year ago
You appear to be making a fallacy in assuming that the greatest amount of political rights will always result in the greatest amount of personal rights.
In the Middle East, if you implemented Direct Democracy, people would vote en masse for Sharia law. Over there, a civil libertarian "dictator" would be preferable to DD or even Democratic Republic.
In 1968, one year after Loving v Virginia, 73% of Americans still opposed interracial marriage. Direct Democracy would've never ended racist laws.
Akin42 1 year ago
@Akin42 I actually mentioned twice that these communities would exist under libertarian norms. That means Sharia Law would not exist or even have the ability to exist. In this type of society, interracial marriage would be totally fine. I think you are assuming DD without any laws. In that case, you are correct. However, I would never advocate a lawless society with DD. Thanks for the comment. I might put something in the sidebar because a couple of people have made this mistake.
TheLeftLibertarian 1 year ago 7
@TheLeftLibertarian
1. "I think you are assuming DD without any laws." Incorrect, I am assuming that your caucus system makes laws somehow. Or did you mean there is a Constitution that prevents some laws from being written? Because you didn't mention that in the video.
2. Your causality is backwards. DD wouldn't result in left libertarianism in many places, rather, a left libertarian-supermajority people would set up a DD. I'm simply telling you what would happen if you put it in anyplace else.
Akin42 1 year ago
@TheLeftLibertarian
Despite the possible contradictory nature of "Collectivist Individualism" the concept is by far a carefully reason argument. However the Idea is more along the lines of a Compromise between the two schools. This school is centralist as well as this is not constrained to Right wing or left wing but the likelihood is it is a Left wing government.
I believe as well that Friedrich Engels was right when he said Freedom must rise from the bottom up not top down.
pennyforyou 1 year ago
@TheLeftLibertarian Part 2
So what need to think is can a democracy really provide it or does require a massive social uprising or revolution
Why do you think?
pennyforyou 1 year ago
Comment removed
an0m0nus 1 year ago
@TheLeftLibertarian So wouldn't you offically be advocating a constitutional republic, which is what we have in America?
johniswetodddid 1 year ago