(September 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote:I think you are confusing democracy with fully anarchic liberty in itself. Democracy means "people's power" literally, and so in a democratic state you are assuming that "people" constitute the majority, and the "majority" should rule to cater to the same majority.Quote:including loss of private property and wealth, into becoming community profit, and everything should be regarded with having the prespective of having community as the priority over self interests.Except that if they can't directly-democratically decide to own private property, wealth - against community "profit" and for their own self interests we're not actually talking about a direct democracy (if what they can directly democratically vote yay or nay for is limited in any way..say, by a constitution..we've left the field of "direct democracy" and gone on to other things). I think it's pretty well established that people do tend to vote yay for these things given the chance, btw. IMO, a better compromise is a system that protects those things and allows for them - but that also allows for people to -at the social or cultural level- not pursue them. That leaves the field open and amounts to more liberty. The fewer things that are specifically not allowed under a system the better. Doesn't mean that everything has to be permissible, or that the list of things not permissible can't be obscenely long, but every item on that list better have a damned good reason for being there, and if it doesn't -need- to be there it has no business being on the list.
I'm biased, I admit that fully..lol.
But this doesn't mean that people that doesn't have the competence to "vote" on economical issues should do it, after all the priority is cattering for what is really best for the people instead of what they think it's best for them, so decisions about economical aspects, must still be voted by compentent workers of the said area. (proletarian power as communists would say)
Obviously you won't put a fishermen voting on agriculture legislation, but you still don't really lose "democratic aspects" if you just allow fishermen to vote on fishing and farmers to vote on agriculture.
Despite, on the whole private property issue, the problem is that capitalism inherently undermines democracies, and it intentionally creates inequalities and depends on those for the system to work, and on the other way we all know how money can be used through perfectly legal means to influence people's votes and literally "buy them" out, and that's not even accounting with how international "pressures" and huge capitalsists can "subdue" countries to their rules - literally. In fact i might as well say that capitalism is a new form of monarchy where "higher classes" indirectly rule lower classes through economy, and these classes tend to be inherited by the persistance of such inequalities.