I wrote in October 2011 about Gerald Celente and his promotion of Direct Democracy. He continues to promote this idea. I still think it is a bad idea. Here’s why.
With any kind of democracy, everything is winner-take-all. If a bill comes up in Congress, but we have instituted Direct Democracy via the internet, we will have more people voting (not a bad thing), but we still have only one result, and if the result is not what I would have voted for, my money nevertheless is used to pay for it.
With cantons, my money is NEVER spent on something I don’t support, as long as my canton acts according to my principles and values. If it chooses to do otherwise, I find another canton next year, and my old canton is thus diminished by at least one person’s taxes. Do you see the difference?
Direct democracy would be better, but it still isn’t good enough. Cantons are just as easy to establish as Direct Democracy, and produce better results in that every person pays for only what they want. Direct Democracy is still winner-take-all, and results in the dreaded “tyranny of the majority”. Why go there when there is something better?