Do I deduct correctly that you take the U.S. of A as example because you are familiar with the political situation there, yes?
Just to clear up that I wasn't addressing the U.S., and that my following statements have nothing to do with my actual opinion on American politics. I'll just treat it as a petri dish specimen.
>i wonder how big of a difference in policy there would be though? do you really think if every american voted on every issue, and it only took a numerical majority to enact a law, that the country wouldn't be governed pretty much the same way it is under bush? if anything i think we'd see more wars and more jesus.
That is possible, maybe likely. But, whether that is desirable or not is somewhat besides the point, because the point here is that it would atleast be the people directly deciding on an issue, instead of elected policymakers. Policymakers in many western brand democracies have a free mandate; they are elected on the basis of a platform and then make decisions according to their own conscience. That means they are - cf. imperative mandate - not directly bound to the vill of the people.
>under a direct democracy, how would laws be proposed?
In Europe, several nations with direct democracy exist. On important issues, the people are called to vote by means of referenda.
Laws are usually proposed by interest groups and discussed in a political plenum. If the petition finds enough support, the people are to vote on it. To keep it practical, often multiple laws are convoluted into a package, which symbolizes a certain direction in policy. People then either accept or decline the proposal, thereby amending or dropping the legislative changes in question.
>democracy even remotely, conceivably possible in a country of hundreds of millions?
The answer to size is federalism. Centralism has always brought about democratic deficits.
The question is not the size, but whether the people are willing to make use of it. The aforely referenced countries traditionally uphold the rank of the individual as a decisionmaker in society as an important value.
When that is not the case, it may fail.
>do i think i could govern a country well? indeed i do (i think most of us who spend our times on pol. boards think so, or we'd spend less time talking about it, right?). do i think 99% of the people in my city (toledo, ohio, a "blue" city in a "red" state by the way) could or should? no.
I don't think I would govern a country well (this is the only board where I make an exception to my rule never to discuss politics). No better than my compatriots or the current policymakers; I think they do the best according to their ability. Do I think 100% of the mature citzens of 'my' city could or should? Yes. Because they'll atleast be making decisions of their own, instead of having one decree after the other rain down on them from some shrouded empyrean far above their reach.
>so anyway, i put the question to you: do you believe that The Rule Of Law needs a filter?
I don't see what you mean by a filter; maybe you care to elaborate? The Rule of Law ensures that (theoretically), authority is kept within a tight cage of rules, which define its possible paths of action. As such, it is inherently positive, so long as the trinity of forces is strictly separated.
It is, in my opinion, one principle working for the citizen, (as well as, paradoxically, bureaucracy) and as such shouldn't be tampered with.