2 ms·

No, we (and it is easier now to do remotely even) vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. But that is not a direct 'how

No, we (and it is easier now to do remotely even) vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. But that is not a direct 'how about letting 10000 immigrants in vote yes/no on this link' : that is something very different.

bequanna 5y ago
No. You don’t have the right to tell people who have lived in the same way for 100s of years in small, rural communities how to live and force them to take in incompatible, ward of the state refugees. You do not have the right to destroy their culture and way of life because you “know what is best”. This is a local issue. If you’re so certain your political party is “doing the right thing”, then allow those migrants to live where they are accepted and by people who want them. You are not special, smarter, or more morally superior than your rural countrymen because you parrot party indoctrination about forced multiculturalism. Put your money where YOUR mouth is, not mine. Stop forcing others to pay for your virtue signaling.
luckylion 5y ago
> No, we vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. Kind of, but only to a limited degree. We vote for administrations that should deal "in our interest", but there's e.g. no legal mandate for them to decide to give up democracy and choose a King. Many EU-states recognized that and went for referendums on large items, e.g. on the European Constitution. A large-scale change of the nation is certainly not within the mandate given to them in any normal election. I understand the hesitance regarding direct democracy, because it's inconvenient. You have to actually convince people, and not broker a deal behind closed doors where you bribe people and they say yes "on behalf of everyone who voted for them". It works great in Switzerland though, they're peaceful and happy and free, and have been doing it successfully for quite a substantial amount of time.

bequanna 5y ago

No. You don’t have the right to tell people who have lived in the same way for 100s of years in small, rural communities how to live and force them to take in incompatible, ward of the state refugees. You do not have the right to destroy their culture and way of life because you “know what is best”. This is a local issue. If you’re so certain your political party is “doing the right thing”, then allow those migrants to live where they are accepted and by people who want them. You are not special, smarter, or more morally superior than your rural countrymen because you parrot party indoctrination about forced multiculturalism. Put your money where YOUR mouth is, not mine. Stop forcing others to pay for your virtue signaling.

luckylion 5y ago

> No, we vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. Kind of, but only to a limited degree. We vote for administrations that should deal "in our interest", but there's e.g. no legal mandate for them to decide to give up democracy and choose a King. Many EU-states recognized that and went for referendums on large items, e.g. on the European Constitution. A large-scale change of the nation is certainly not within the mandate given to them in any normal election. I understand the hesitance regarding direct democracy, because it's inconvenient. You have to actually convince people, and not broker a deal behind closed doors where you bribe people and they say yes "on behalf of everyone who voted for them". It works great in Switzerland though, they're peaceful and happy and free, and have been doing it successfully for quite a substantial amount of time.