> >Hmm, can we please tell aparth between parlamentarian democracy and direct
> >democracy? -- I think that direct democracy is really the closest form of
> >"spontaneous order" that we know. Democratic bureaucracies are a phaenomen
> >of the parlamentarian democracies.
>
> Except that they're not spontaneous. Once your direct democracy has made a
> decision, it has to force its operations on the minority who disapprove.
Direct democracy is a main term: there are three kinds of direct democra-
cy:
- direct voting democracy
- direct delegation democracy
- direct consensus democracy
Once the direct voting democracy have made a decision, it havn't to force
its operations on the minority who disapprove because the minority are
able to leave and to split the community.
Once the direct delegation democracy have made a decision, it havn't to
force its operations on the minority who disapprove. The decision represen-
ted a consensus/compromise among direct delegates (no consensus = no deci-
sion). Each delegate had forwarded only the orginaly words of a group of
humans.
Once the direct consensus democracy have made a decision, it havn't to
force its operations on the minority who disapprove because if there is a
disapproving minority than there isn't a consensus among all members and
therefore no decision.
> On the other hand, the great majority of market operations take place
> because both parties
Which parties? Political parties?
> them to take place, and thus they participate
> volutarily.
Does you really mean that hunger is a voluntary feeling?
>To that extent, capitalism is much closer to "spontaneous
> order" than democracy.
Have you ever notices the "military" decision making procedures inside the
industrial companies? --
Once the managment have made a decision, it have to force its operations
on the majority of workers. Therefore capitalism in its dayly reality
isn't much closer to "spontaneous order" than democracy.
Sincerely,
Nico
## CrossPoint v3.11 ##