I'm not being snarky, but this can all be reductively boiled down to "we shouldn't let people self-govern, because they don't know what's good for them." I pos

I'm not being snarky, but this can all be reductively boiled down to "we shouldn't let people self-govern, because they don't know what's good for them." I posit an opposing viewpoint: people know what they want; why get in their way -- you're not their parents. Take care of your intimates and close ones, but let other people live their lives in their enclaves, bubbles, and so on -- self-governing as they please. Will they do and believe in things that you personally wouldn't? Yes. Will some of those things end up being terribly offensive to your sensibilities (morals/ethics/beliefs, what have you)? Most likely. Under direct voting, if you see something that you believe to be terribly bad being brought out onto the floor, you are free to organize amongst your community to strike it down (or do the reverse, and bring forth an initiative you believe to be good). But that also opens up the possibility that no one will want what you want, and your initiatives will fail. At that point, you can either accept it, and go on with your life, or -- in these globalized times -- move somewhere else with people that share your views. Generally, if you don't completely disintegrate the community through various means (as is popular in the U.S., see: globalized workforce), they can self-govern in a way that is sustainable and that fulfills their best interests. This is how humanity has survived for countless thousands of years. Better yet, give back to the people the means for self-sufficiency, and you will soon see that national/federal power wanes, as there is little need for external forces to keep a community alive and thriving. "Vote yes if you want $1 (fine-print: by also giving us logging rights to your forests)" is easily prevented by: a close-knit and cohesive community with a group "mind." Your community leaders will tell you it's a swindle, and to drive out anyone that comes with such a proposition. Of course, that would lessen the amount of exploitation the individual receives by higher powers -- thereby "shorting" these same powers of their self-justified right over the individual (and his resources). I.e. a lot of powerful people's plans and careers and goals will be upended -- and that's a no-no.