This stuff all has to do with power and it's abuses. They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it's true.
Seems to me that when we employ legislators we are giving them responsibility that they turn into power, which then takes a (typically corrupt) life of it's own. What we really need to do is go back to the responsibility part - and diminish the power part of the equation. On the surface this sounds radical and even silly, but the fact is that modern times gives us the tools we need to handle our legislative needs openly, with far fewer behind-the-scenes power brokers. There is no reason why a list of important issues can't be identified, debated using a pro and con format, and voted on by our representatives from remote locations around the country - with everyone having access to watch and provide input along the way - and far less involvement of behind-the-scenes power circles that have engulfed Washington. We're ready, no, extremely in need of, a higher level of democracy, where issues are presented, debated and resolved openly, without the behind-the-scenes sneaky stuff that has corrupted government, as this war so vividly shows. Would we be in a war today if it worked this way? Extremely doubtful. Why? Because openly discussed pros and cons would never have reached the point where a war was launched. There's a very subtle - but powerful, to use that word again - component of this equation: that sometimes - too often - legislation is pushed through by people with powerful personalities, slick arguments and connections that overwhelm the opposition, but, in the light of day, or historical perspective - aren't anywhere near as powerful as presented. Again, a perfect example is our greatest problem: war in the ME. Had that situation been debated openly with a pro and con format, more rational thinking would have prevailed and we wouldn't be in that sinkhole today. The point is that we need better ways to solve problems and move on opportunities then to trust people who are tainted by power and corruption - which happens by definition when we send people into the power circles of Washington. By bringing the full light of day into the decision making process - in context of a well organized pro and con format (this aspect of implementation is crucial) - we have a much better chance of sorting out problems in a way that could get us back on track with what we wanted in the first place: democracy. In terms I relate to best: the will of the majority of people is more likely to be correct then any special interest ever could be - yet we have been pushed and pulled around exactly by special interests. Enough! There's a related angle to this: if something happened to that fat target, Washington, which is not outside the realm of possibility, this change would happen overnight - and then everyone would say how great a change it was. The question is why not see the benefits of an open and geographically dispersed gov't and do it now? Related to this is an implementation issue: embracing Ben Franklin's concept of universal access to implement fiber optic connections to every household. Doing this would boost the Internet to center-stage and greatly diminish the power of the media barons by opening up possibilities that have been eaten by hegemonies. Wouldn't be the hard to do or that expensive, considering the benefits. Bill _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
