I would be leery of upending representative systems that at least theoretically have an anti-majoritarian bias. Even if I'm in the majority today, there's no guarantee that I will be tomorrow, and a system that helps to preserve my rights against mob rule seems reasonable.

You mean a system that does not allow change? Or only in the interest of the system and the people that believe in it?

A direct democracy might make sense for any issue on which most citizens are both well enough informed to make a decision, and also motivated. But not even full-time parliamentarians can stay informed on most of them, so they need subcommittees and so forth. Given how many issues come up for governments to deal with, some amount of division of labor seems better. Not that our current representative democracy does not have plenty of issues of its own...

Yeah I'm not a big fan of straight majority rules... not to say the US government is perfect...

Hi from the UK, where I am currently getting a little tired of having to explain the difference between ochlocracy and democracy(1) to people who keep insisting that 52% is 'the will of the people' and that to not immediately fall in line behind that 52% is to be a traitor to the country and an enemy of democracy itself.

(1)The 'demos' being all the people and the 'ochlos' being the mob.

Satoshi was an anarchist

Me too.

I'd never damage or take your property if you don't want that.

Nor would I force any sort of change upon you based on what I believe is true, as long as I don't feel threatened.

you mean direct democracy like the one which caused Trump become president, Hitler become chancellor and UK leaving EU? i think what we really need it's removal of age limits and basic intelligence/adulthood test for voting right

But...

Trump is the representative of America right?

Hitler was a representative for some political party right?

And the UK is representative of its people right?