[cjslep]

> I fail to see any evidence for how 'direct democracy' is the primary, or even relevant social artifact which drove the special directive highlighted in the article (i.e. cancellation of public events), or even any evidence that such 'direct democracy' provides superior social organization.

The thread you're commenting on so far has gone like this:

OP: "See a democracy can institute sweeping authoritarian-like bans, but with the will and blessing of the people"

Next: "I'm Swiss and it's because the government isn't our enemy, it is an extension of us"

You: "Nope it's because y'all are wealthy, that's the only reason y'all will survive!"

Grandparent: "uh dude the government system has been around longer than the wealth"

You: "I don't see why the government system matters, it's the money!"

The reason you're being downvoted is because you came into a conversation specifically about how the democracy of Switzerland is able to act quicky with a decree that could be viewed as an authoritarian-like policy, but with the implied general will (to use Rousseau's term for Sovereignty in political philosophy) of the people, and said "I don't see the effectiveness of this quick decisive action of democratic government, instead it's about the money they have!"