>There's a strange conception of democracy you often hear among direct
>action types. We need more of it - less mediated, less blunted, more
>spontaneous. But it seems to apply only to a small, preselected
>population. Democracy in the U.S. could mean more theocracy and fewer
>civil liberties. But surely the direct democrats don't want that. So
>how can this direct democracy or consensus model apply to any
>population with significantly divergent interests or beliefs?
Constitutional rights and universal human rights are inviolable.