5 ms·

Ah okay, you're having a philosophical argument about the concept of a direct democracy and how it technically should be a form of anarchy or possibly anarcho-s

by cyphar 4y ago

Ah okay, you're having a philosophical argument about the concept of a direct democracy and how it technically should be a form of anarchy or possibly anarcho-syndicalism. While I think that is also a very interesting topic and I'm sure we would agree on many things, I'm not sure it helps to get into the philosophical argument while talking about real-life political systems and the different flavours of representative democracies.

southerntofu 4y ago
> you're having a philosophical argument I don't think i am, sorry if it sounds like bikeshedding. I'm interested in the practical question of who holds political power, and who holds the "legitimate violence" to enforce this political power. If me and my neighbors can't "legally" define our own sets of rules and regulations (which we can't in France), i just can't call that a democracy. Time and time again i've witnessed local communes get crushed by national/industrial interests... that's a very practical concern, not philosophical, whether you can keep your home and your life or they're going to destroy your entire village like they did around the Hambach charcoal mine (or like they tried in NDDL, or are still trying in Bure).
- simonh 4y ago
  I do believe mechanisms for secession can make sense. I hope Scotland stays in the Union but I also believe they should have the right to choose not to. However then you get into the question of what constitutes a region that could reasonably secede. That must imply a historic and inalienable right to the territory, to be able to make that decision. It’s a difficult one. If you and your neighbours want to not be subject to the French government, you can always go somewhere else. The fact there’s probably nowhere better for you to go is hardly France’s problem.
- cyphar 4y ago
  Sorry, I wasn't trying to say it's not an important discussion, just simply that if we start by saying that no country which is not anarchist cannot be called a democracy feels like a semantic gotcha if we're talking about electoral systems in countries that are commonly called democratic.

by cyphar 4y ago

southerntofu 4y ago

> you're having a philosophical argument I don't think i am, sorry if it sounds like bikeshedding. I'm interested in the practical question of who holds political power, and who holds the "legitimate violence" to enforce this political power. If me and my neighbors can't "legally" define our own sets of rules and regulations (which we can't in France), i just can't call that a democracy. Time and time again i've witnessed local communes get crushed by national/industrial interests... that's a very practical concern, not philosophical, whether you can keep your home and your life or they're going to destroy your entire village like they did around the Hambach charcoal mine (or like they tried in NDDL, or are still trying in Bure).

simonh 4y ago
I do believe mechanisms for secession can make sense. I hope Scotland stays in the Union but I also believe they should have the right to choose not to. However then you get into the question of what constitutes a region that could reasonably secede. That must imply a historic and inalienable right to the territory, to be able to make that decision. It’s a difficult one. If you and your neighbours want to not be subject to the French government, you can always go somewhere else. The fact there’s probably nowhere better for you to go is hardly France’s problem.
cyphar 4y ago
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say it's not an important discussion, just simply that if we start by saying that no country which is not anarchist cannot be called a democracy feels like a semantic gotcha if we're talking about electoral systems in countries that are commonly called democratic.