“Occupy Wall Street” may be an interesting movement to watch in order to study how well true, direct democracy works.
I realized just today that this movement is purposefully not naming leadership because those involved want to continue their efforts democratically.
My bets are against them if they follow through.
This video came across my mailbox a couple of years ago and I remembered it today. It lays things out pretty well, I’d say.
Which ones can stand the test of time?
Who would really want to live in a true democracy? I don’t want to have to pay attention to every single little thing that is done for the society as a whole and vote on it. Who has time to learn about bridge structures and at what point they become unstable? Who wants to have to go vote on whether we need to do repairs (in every single case) and how much money we should spend on them and who would do the work? Or whether we should even consider it in the first place? Who wants to hold the responsibility of being knowledgeable enough to cast wise votes on budgets for every publicly funded program, on maintenance issues for every publicly held building or land or roadway, on whether a citizen may have done something wrong and what his punishment might be. We would have no time to do anything else.
I have wondered for years why Americans call what we have a democracy when, clearly, we do not have one. We vote. That does not define us as democratic. We also eat. That doesn’t define us as kangaroos.
My guess is that if “Occupy Wall Street” is to survive at all, leaders will emerge and clear boundaries will be set. Democracy though, in its true sense, will fail.