After Seeing This Parroted Argument So Many Times I'm Tired of It and This Is What I Have to Say

Day 55, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the parroted argument that Direct Democracy is mob rule. I'm convinced some industrial trolls said it so many times in the past that it just stuck in the consciousness of anyone who might not completely understand #Direct_Democracy so that is what floats to the top of their consciousness every time this subject is brought up, if it is brought up at all.

Most people in my experience seem uncertain when I've brought it up in real life conversation. And if they do know anything of it, usually ancient Greece and Athens comes to mind even though I'm absolutely certain Direct Democracy far predates that time and place in history.

But on the internet #mob_rule seems to be a common catch phrase. Much often isn't said about it further than that. It is like the propagandist adage, a lie often repeated will be believed. Hitler in his book Mein Kampf flushes out this concept. ""But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

I know scary but quite effective. When the majority of those who comment in opposition to Direct Democracy is briefly stated as "mob rule" and very little else, you know this is a product of something that has been repeated over and over and over again.... We know it is propaganda as it flies in the face of the interests of the vast majority of the people. Unless you are already rich, and or part of the oligarchy, this argument makes no sense to make.

The best argument that can be made against Direct Democracy is that the majority can potentially be repressive against certain minorities. To be honest I personally I can see how this could a relevant concern as there are several instances of such already taking place in the type of governance we have now, which at best could be termed a #flawed_democracy.

However several things need to be noted. First and foremost no system we come up with will ever be perfect. There will always be flaws, therefor we will always need to be fine tuning and adjusting as history shows to us what is needed.

But also isn't it obvious to anyone who gives it half a thought, who isn't out to simply assassinate the idea, that any #true_democracy will also have a #constitution. And any decent constitution will not just mimic the interests of the majority, but it will also protect the fundamental rights of everyone including the #minority. I mean come on people, it's like they think the moment we have a direct democracy it's going to be a flurry of divisive issues, IE climate change, abortion, gay rights, gun control, socialism, universal healthcare, etc, etc, etc, with a shotgun up or down process without any time for deep thought.... and the educational process of #consensus_building. Not to mention we'll have a court system and a constitution that will intercede if indeed certain laws infringe on fundamental rights of citizens whether they be in the majority or not.

To me the biggest challenge, the process of creating and or amending the constitution. As it is now it is way too difficult to do so as demonstrated by very little change to it that has been made in near half a century. Personally I'd be happy starting from scratch, though to have a peaceful transition we might have to settle with using what we already got and building upon it.

I see this as problematic as the system now requires serious bureaucratic huddles and what is tantamount to a super majority to change. Ideally fundamental rights shouldn't be about the majority, let alone super majority. They should be self evident #natural_rights that should be sussed on in a process not necessarily related to a majority. My hope however is in the process of amending the constitution there will be sufficient time for serious *reflection* and consensus building so that indeed we'll be able to suss out these #self_evident_truths. And for the most part I believe it will pan out as such.

And whatever imperfections we may happen to be left with Direct Democracy will also give us an avenue to make corrections as they reveal themselves. And in the end of ends Direct Democracy will prove to be vastly superior to anything we've yet to experience, certainly worlds better than what we have now.

I agree we are not a true democracy. This I seek to change.

Direct Democracy IS mob rule by definition. Anyone who can't understand tyranny by majority is mentally defective, it's simple math.

Not only has Direct Democracy Always failed, because people soon realize hey can vote themselves bread and circuses, the best argument that can be made for a represenative republic over a direct democracy is the problem of time and ignorance.

Sure, it SOUNDS great to let everybody decide every issue, but the fact is, an overwhelming majority of everybody are far too ignorant on too many issues for direct democracy to work for what actually is in everyone's best interest. People don't have the time to become a competant expert on syrian foreign policy, deforestation erosion in nortern minnesota, development of next generation weapon systems, or even a smattering of the myriad issues that require complex levels of understanding to make intelligent choices in these areas.

That's why we have representatives, whose full time jobs and those of their staffs are to pull as much knowledge in these areas and vote on them for us. Sure, their knowledge still might be less than ideal, but is usually better than the average person who also is contending with a job, family and life that are pulling them in a hundred other directions. We elect those people who seem to produce the best judgement for us on these issues.

To espouse direct democracy, is to have the mind of a child, and an "I want, I want" mentality.

TLDR:
Simply, people are too ignorant and don't have the time to make direct democracy EVER wok.

Unless a new technology comes along that allows for instant injection of massive amounts of information directly to the brain, education will never be able to keep up enough to have direct democracy work well enough so it only fails slowly.

The representative republic we have still gives us legislators that are less ignorant on the average than the average electorate.