No, corporate boards are equally not answerable to voters, like bureaucrats. I'm talking about sticking in people that can be voted out on a very local basis. In my part of San Diego, a district of 30,000 would be very easy to canvass, and in a city like Chicago or New York, it might only consists of a few square blocks- enough to make politics a truly local enterprise. That was the intention of the Founders.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Gruss G wrote: > > > RoMunn wrote: > > > > Don't be an idiot. I would fire most of the federal workforce (Except > > Defense and other external functions) tomorrow if it was up to me. We > need > > more representatives - i.e. people that are answerable to voters, and > fewer > > bureaucrats - e.g. people that are NOT answerable to voters. > > > > So, to use a corporate analogy, you'd increase the board by orders of > magnitude, you'd increase corporate security, but you'd fire all the > line managers? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:295053 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
