Thanks for that interesting and good point.

> I'd rather live in a society in which rights-in-practice were different
> from what I considered them to be in theory but where they were
> negotiated democratically than a society where rights in practice
> were exactly as I'd wish, but arrived at through an undemocratic
> process, because in the latte case if things changed and were not to
> my liking, I'd have no redress.

(Ignoring, for the moment, that you have listed only these two options …)

If a person free to choose whether s/he is in the direct democracy (DD)?

What is this DD making decisions about (that an individual or group of individuals could not simply come to a voluntary agreement on their own)?

What should be done with/to those individuals who do not comply with the decisions of the DD? (Does the answer change if those individuals are or are not a member of the DD?)

So yes, direct democracy, representative democracy, a republic, a monarchy, anarchy, or any societal arrangement can and does change what 'rights' are in practice. Rights in practice are derived by a process of societal negotiation. My point about direct democracy is that it is by far the safest route for engaging in this process of societal negotiation, because it allows for the widest possible input of information and hence the closest approximation of the truth. It also equalizes power, which minimizes the risk of the powerful defining rights-in-practice in terms of their narrow group interest.

I'd rather live in a society in which rights-in-practice were different from what I considered them to be in theory but where they were negotiated democratically than a society where rights in practice were exactly as I'd wish, but arrived at through an undemocratic process, because in the latte case if things changed and were not to my liking, I'd have no redress.

So we agree that no firewall exists that can prevent coercive power. Perhaps some things can reduce its likelihood, but no guarantee.

> The more power is equally distributed, the fewer powerful and the fewer
> powerless there are.
>
> That is what direct democracy accomplishes, especially in a procedural
> framework which guarantees individual rights.

(I apologize for these series of question, but I'm trying to understand your points.)

What do you define as "power"? You have made two references to power above: wealth, and coercive power.

Can a direct democracy change these guaranteed individual rights? (If you care to elaborate, I'd be interested in knowing what you define as individual rights?)

The more power is equally distributed, the fewer powerful and the fewer powerless there are.

That is what direct democracy accomplishes, especially in a procedural framework which guarantees individual rights.

What a free market with no democracy accomplishes very quickly is a small powerful class and a large powerless class. The powerful class will use its power to cement itself in place, and the free market will be over. With direct democracy, even with wealth disparity, the majority can prevent a minority from overturning the market for the benefit of a minority.

With direct democracy and some notion of rights that are defined by the majority, then the same is true.

What am I missing?

Individuals *do not* coerce their neighbors by conscription or taxation. Rarely do individuals break their neighbors door to force them into the army. Individuals hire groups of other individuals to coerce their neighbors. Police do not wake up in the morning thinking there should be more taxation or members of the army; they merely follow the direction of the people who pay them.

The firewall is direct democracy, a situation where an individual's ability to participate in decision making is not tied to wealth or rank or station, but where decisions are made among equals and influence is tied to persuasiveness of arguments and desire to be involved in the process.

The objection that '70 percent of the nation might wish to kill the other 30' is a specious objection to democracy. If 70 percent truly wish to kill the other 30 percent, then governments are neither necessary to do it nor able to stop it.

The real question is who is best trusted to make such decisions; all individuals deciding together as a community, or a minority of individuals enforcing their decisions through hierarchy. Declaring that cliques have an absolute right to accumulate enough wealth to hire all the nations hooligans (because the right to property is sacrosanct) is deciding one way. Declaring that in matters which affect us all, we are all equal and these issues must be decided as equals, through direct democracy, is deciding in the opposite way.

Agreed.

> My point is that in a free-market economy, there are winners and losers, but in right-wing
> libertarian thinking, there is hardly any acknowledgment that wealth equals power, and
> that some market winners will inevitably try to use their wealth (power) to protect their
> wealth through coercion. Put another way, if we lived in an anarcho-capitalist utopia, it
> would last exactly until a coalition of unethical market winners had accumulated sufficient
> wealth (power) to afford to purchase a government to impose on everyone else for their
> private benefit. In other words, anarcho-capitalism is the road to corporatism if there are
> no firewalls between wealth and coercive power.

A full-proof firewall? No, I agree that does not exist.

What you are speaking of, "a coalition of unethical market winners" imposing a government on others certainly can occur; but this is conquest. (Other parties, like hooligans can also do this.) Again, being conquered is always possible.

Individuals who can defend themselves decrease this likelihood. Individuals who work cooperatively further decreases this likelihood. Individuals who coerce their neighbors (through conscription and/or taxation) decrease this likelihood even further, but then they have become that which they were defending against.

Do you have something else in mind?

My point is that in a free-market economy, there are winners and losers, but in right-wing libertarian thinking, there is hardly any acknowledgment that wealth equals power, and that some market winners will inevitably try to use their wealth (power) to protect their wealth through coercion. Put another way, if we lived in an anarcho-capitalist utopia, it would last exactly until a coalition of unethical market winners had accumulated sufficient wealth (power) to afford to purchase a government to impose on everyone else for their private benefit. In other words, anarcho-capitalism is the road to corporatism if there are no firewalls between wealth and coercive power.

I agree 100% with Rothbard's criticisms of the State, but States are basically private security forces hired by the wealthy to protect their property and/or acquire more of it. I wish lefties would read libertarian economists so they could better understand healthy economies, and I wish right-wing libs would think through this problem, because their proposed solutions are self-abortive.

An excellent essay on this topic is "Anatomy of the State" by Murray Rothbard? (http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp)