Okay, so you're advocating for some sort of direct democracy. It sounds lovely, but I'm not sure it's realistic. We sure as hell don't have it, so how do we go

Okay, so you're advocating for some sort of direct democracy. It sounds lovely, but I'm not sure it's realistic. We sure as hell don't have it, so how do we go about getting it? We live in a world where there are huge imbalances in power. We can say it ought not be that way, that it should be another way, but any sensible individual interested in making change must confront political reality and take it into consideration when deciding how they can best effect change. > Anything that exacerbates the problem of one man having more than one voice is not a step in the right direction. Some people have no voice at all, while others are hugely influential. This isn't about going from some current equality (1:1) to inequality for some group (1:2). This is about going from out state of gross inequality (100:1) to as close to equality (1:1) as we can get. I think we're mostly on the same page, just coming at it from different positions.