So what's wrong with going the whole hog to have
a proper direct democracy? If you leave capitalism intact,
power stays with those who own the economy.
How can you ensure an independent executive power?
Why are obvious questions such as these ignored in favour
of some really old-fashioned and tried and failed ideas?
Eva (perplexed) (as always)
> Thomas:
>
> This does seem to be the crux of all systems of government. How to ensure
> that those in charge remain "virtuous to its stated goals". It would seem
> to me that an agency like a "supreme court" - though not legal, I'm fishing
> here, an agency that had the power to delve into every aspect of the
> governing individuals at every level, I guess sort of like our Ombudsman in
> Canada, would provide the necessary transparency or monitoring. This agency
> would have to be totally independant and also be allowed a far amount of
> personnel to be effective. Of course, what if they become corrupted, then
> perhaps and agency to monitor the agency. Well, it's pretty fuzzy thinking
> here but, Jay, I think you have identified the right criteria.
>
> What happens is that over time, those who govern lose their perspective and
> start to see the worlds problems from the view of the continuance in power.
> This leads to the two levels of government you alluded to, the backroom and
> the front room. If we could have complete transparency and an incorruptible
> watchdog function and perhaps a totally unbaised press, ie not owned by
> anyone who stands to profit individually or corporately we would go a long
> way to improving the art of governing.
>
> I would be interested in more thoughts in this area.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas Lunde
> >
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
