So you're a Republican Socialist Anarchist Democrat?

FunkyMonkey: Yeah that sound about right to me

Well, more of a Libertarian Democratic Republican Revisionist Socialist Anarchistic Neo-Marxist Environmentalist Existentialist.

Least, if I try to keep it brief it is. The full version reads like some Welsh mining village...

---

by Jayjay
And it is also why I am a republican, because I want to see an end to all inherited privilege.

---

I actually want the monarchy to exercise one of the few powers they have left (mainly overseeing laws and the power to abolish/replace parliment) because if they ever did they would be thrown out of the country almost immediatly.

---

by Havoc
(quotes)

I actually want the monarchy to exercise one of the few powers they have left (mainly overseeing laws and the power to abolish/replace parliment) because if they ever did they would be thrown out of the country almost immediatly.

---

But with enough votes behind a Republican party, or one of the main parties pushing for the abolition of the Monarchy, they could just be removed with no bother.

As far as Jayjay's idea of Anarchy goes, i'd have to go with Havoc and say in theory at least, you have a convert. Well, not really a convert because i hold alot of those ideals myself, but i haven't had the time, or sufficient education to sort out what i think should and shouldn't be into a cohesive set of beliefs. But, as has been said, alot of it is a long way off and depends on a change of how society thinks. However, some of it could be done in a relatively recent amount of time, given the right push. I'm reffering mainly to more direct voting.

Reform of the voting system would be something i would strongly push for were i ever actually in Politics, along with the abolition of the Monarchy, abolition of the House of Lords (and replacement of a different 2nd house, but i'm not quite sure what), and the total dis-establishment of the Church from all State affairs.

One day I might get round to answering JayJay's post (i have replied with two lengthy replies and messed up the post each time and lost it...grrr)

One thing I wanted to ask about this representative democracy thing - is the idea that everyone gets a voice in every decision ever made? Because if that is the case, then that is like SlashDot and Slashdot (if you ask me) proves that representative democracy doesn't work very well.

From "9 reasons to quit Slashdot today"

---

"Before the Internet, a certain breed of deconstructionists had a lot of fun telling everybody that "privileging of dominant paradigms" was wrecking the world. The Internet has taught us that privileging certain views is absolutely crucial to avoid drowning in the ravings of idiots. On Slashdot, many articles discuss technical issues---but comments are refereed by popular vote, and even though the populace of Slashdot readers knows somewhat more than your average set of people off the street, they still tend to promote (as in "moderate up" a lot of technical nonsense. Reading Slashdot can therefore often be worse than useless, especially to young and budding programmers: it can give you exactly the wrong idea about the technical issues it raises.

The pre-Internet publishing world had magazines, newspapers, and journals with editors. Respectable publications hired qualified editors. Those qualified editors were educated enough to make intelligent decisions about the quality of content. The Slashdot model removes the editors and substitutes popular vote, and the result (unfortunately) is that the quality level becomes incredibly inconsistent. It was an interesting experiment; it didn't work, not for Slashdot (though it might work in some other population of users)."

---

(Edited by Funky Monkey 26/11/2002 11:56)

Monkey with the Funk, I look forward to seeing the full post, once life and the internet stop conspiring against you.

However, I'll do my best to answer what you have asked. But to do this I have to correct a minor issue in your post. Representative Democracy is what we have today. It is the election of individuals to represent you. It does not require the representative to act as the majority wish; just that they be the person on offer that they trust the most (or distrust the least).

Part of the anarchistic model I am arguing for is to have a form of Direct Democracy, and I'm assuming that's the idea you wish to query. The confusion is quite understandable as this thread has more political jargon and terminology in it than the coffee lounge at an NUS AGM...

So, Direct Democracy. First, you have to understand this is a vastly decentralised system than our current one. Also, a much scaled down political system. Also, the decisions to be made will be on a much smaller scale. There is no monetary system, no property, and so no concern over macroeconomics. No taxes, no pay disputes, no public/private sector concern. Legal concerns are reduced again as there is no property. And the only legal concerns are to ensure that no individual impinges on the liberty of another. Thus no drug policy. No campaigning on health issues (this should be done by people working in health, not professional politicians). This is a libertarian state with no Nanny tendencies. You do to yourself as you please as long as you do not impinge on the liberties of others in doing so. And it is not the job of society to tell you what you should and should not do, within those limits.

So, the agendas are reduced, but that's not really your issue is it? It is whether the general public are educated and intelligent enough to consider all the issues, and to come up with the decision that takes in all perspectives. To some degree I have some sympathy with this, but the problem can be overstated.

This is part of the cultural change that I consider essential before an anarchistic state should even be attempted. We have a culture of sloping shoulders, a like of acceptance of our responsibilities. As children we rely on parents and authority figures to make big decisions for us. Our only concern is ourselves. As adults little changes. We expect politicians and managers to make all the big picture decisions. Our concern remains limited to ourselves in isolation. If the managers and politicians (and politicians are little more than elected managers) make the wrong decisions then we are quick to chastise them. Yet in the case of politicians we are also as quick to forget that we put them there. For anarchy to work we need to grow up. We need to try and see the big picture as well as our own immediate concerns. We need to see those individual concerns as being intimately and inextricably tied in with those around us - that we do not exist in isolation. If we can raise our eyes to see the full picture then we can approach full direct democracy.

And this is not some wishful thinking pipe dream. There are immediate steps we can do to make this possible. We can start by introducing direct democracy on a small scale. There is a movement called industrial democracy that looks to introduce the principle of direct democracy into the work place. This way small-scale decisions can by decided by the immediate workforce. Knowing that your livelihood depends on the decisions YOU make should help some of us to think a bit harder about the implications of our actions and decisions. They can be introduced into shared living spaces - housing co-operatives and shared tenancies. On a very small scale they can be introduced on a local council basis - set aside certain decisions requiring the direct vote of the public and not of their representatives.

Through baby steps the culture of surrendered responsibility can be eroded. This is one of the many things we can do now to help create a society that is healthier, and that bit closer to anarchy.