Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

["Joseph Schmoe" <wy8766(at)hotmail.com>]

I posted this on the WDDM message board as well --

These are the main differences between Anarchy and Direct Democracy as I
understand them:

In Anarachy, there are really no public services in the traditional sense.
All services, including police and fire are done by private companies that
form to handle such needs for their community. Companies are owned and
managed democratically by their employees, rather than as an owner with
employees. For example, if you want police protection you pay one of the
local police companies in the area to provide the service for you. Anarchy
is like a combined political and economic system.

Direct Democracy has public services, but they are initiated and decided
upon by all voters rather than representatives. The downside is that you pay
for services that the majority of voters want, even if you don't have a
personal interst in them. It doesn't specifically address the economic
system, but private companies would have almost no political influence, and
voters can limit the power of companies that are anti-competitive.

My issues with anarchy are that it doesn't adequately address issues of
public good. For example, I feel it's important for me to help pay for
schools even though I don't have children because it's an important public
service. Very large projects such as building a new interstate freeway would
be difficult to manage as well.


-Warren


> From: "M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
> Reply-To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:39:38 -0700
>
> Dear Antonio,
>  your dictionary seems to be not very correct or maybe even intentionally
> misleading on what is anarchism. Anarchists do not want the absence of any
> control in society, but only the abolition of the hierarchical authority -
> the same thing that we want. It was still a surprise for me that modern
> anarchists are so close to genuine democracy as you agreed in your reply!
>
>  Wikipedia gives a much better definition:
>
> *Anarchism* is a political philosophy
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy> or group of
> philosophies and attitudes which reject any form of compulsory government
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government> (cf.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.> "state
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State>"), and support its elimination, most
> often because of a wider rejection of any form of hierarchical authority
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority>. The term "anarchism" derives from
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology> the Greek
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language> αναρχία
> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%87%CE%AF%CE%B1>
> ("without archons <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon>" or "without
> rulers").
>
>  PVR: Anarcho-syndicalists also call themselves "libertarian socialists",
> you'll find that term also in the link you send us.
>
>  See also my reply to Bruce in the Forum:
> http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?5,511,513#msg-513
>
> Mirek
>
> Antonio Rossin wrote:
>
> > Dear Mirek (and list)
> >
> > ......
>
> > On this basis, I go to my Oxford Advanced Learners dictionary
> > and read under the items:
> > - Anarchy = 1. absence of government or control in society.
> >    Lawlessness.  2. Disorder, confusion
> > - Anarchism = political theory that laws and government should
> >    be abolished.
> > -  Anarchist = person who believes in anarchism
> >
> > ........
>
> > In conclusion, it seems to me that the ten points in your quote
> > belong to genuine democracy, something else but anarchism.
> >
> > That the anarchist may claim that those ten points belong to
> > "anarchism", it sounds somehow abusive, the dictionary tells.
> >
> >
> > Hoping this helps, best regards
> >
> > antonio