- Re: First they came or the anarchists ... Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on December 17, 2019, 8:40 am, in reply to "Re: First they came or the anarchists ..."
|
The tyranny of the majority? Come on, that's a bit silly. I'm an anarchist, and John's definition (of balancing the needs of the individual against the community) is convoluted and incorrectly its core. Anarchism is primarily the idea that government and authority is corrupt and should be swept away in favour of people leading themselves. However, if democracy is what is proclaimed to exist, (a poor cousin), then from the perspective of consistency and basic alliance with choosing the high road (in the system we can't and shouldn't pick and choose), a referendum represents a state of operation closer to the tenets of democracy than a fptp voting system, and should be championed within that paradigm. I can recognise both that I would prefer a freer state of being, that I recognise the system as corrupt and irredeemable, and also that for us to not be sliding backward into an abyss of authoritarian rule, we should uphold examples of truer democracy where we find it. You can't have your cake and eat it. This system is not my system, and for consistency, I don't vote in any elections, but, while people seem beguiled by democracy within a corrupt institution I will also champion the result of more democratic elections over those less so. And by the specifics (all things being equal through media manipulation, which they appear to be), the referendum was a fairer representation of people's desires than the general election. Can we dispense with the polarised ugliness just because you happen to disagree with the sentiment? It doesn't make for sound argument. Surely all argument should hold up to scrutiny, or be able to be countered with reasoned debate over slur words and attitude? |