Sorry for being off-line / busy with other things for a while.
On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:16 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: "Maybe there is also a difference between maximizing the
consumption
of goods, and organizing the current system in some new better way
(maybe sometimes making it more stable and/or less waste producing)."
Examining the economic effects of changing the method by which we
select
those who represent us in our government would introduce considerable
complexity to the discussion. Even so, it seems likely that
finding and
electing the best among us as our representatives would soon put an
end
to the fake capitalism practiced in my country, where our laws
increasingly foster the growth of financial and commercial monopolies.
I guess it is one of the "duties" of democratic systems to harness
the "natural forces" in a way that makes them most useful for all.
This is part of the journey from the laws of jungle to something
better. And the front line keeps changing. Good rules, voting methods
etc. are there waiting to be discovered and generally approved.
(I need to add here that in addition to fighting against the rules of
jungle we need to fight against the growth of bureaucracy (and
excessive control of the system) too. In the US set-up this seems to
be particularly relevant due to the discussions on the required
strength of Washington.)
re: "One might try to make some steps e.g. on the war related aspects
(wider than just concerning one of the wars) now when that topic is
hot."
Prior to our most recent election, we had an enormous hullabaloo about
the war. As soon as the election was over and those who professed
their
anti-war fervor were elected to public office ... presumably to
implement the will of the people ... the topic disappeared from our
political horizon.
It is not wise to underestimate those who finance our political
parties.
They don't not act on principle. They corrupt both parties with
equal
facility. Nothing will change until we change the method by which we
select and elect those who represent us in our government.
I'm afraid you might be right again. But one must try. It is also
true that during a war (well, at least in Iraq there is officially no
more war) it is better to just work together and wait for the time
after the war and then discuss what would be a good approach to the
global conflicts. But of course things look different then, many
things have been forgotten, and new topics are on the agenda, and new
topics pushed in the public debates.
(Btw, in the US presidential elections it might be good to find some
ways to reduce the spending a bit (=> better chances to all
candidates, less dependences in the direction of the donators). One
could also try to arrange some more serious discussions about the
policies (maybe more frequent, with less preparation) rather than
leaving it to a free style marketing campaign. Some rules or pre-
election agreements would be needed to direct the campaigns. This
however limits the campaigns a bit and is not necessarily approved in
the US where the freedom to drive all business in the most efficient
way is a strong value in itself. Now the campaigns at least seem to
be a bit too much based on marketing skills and yellow press. Well,
maybe I must also repeat the famous rule that the citizens will get
as good government as they deserve => some citizen activity / better
participation / better understanding needed if one wants to improve
the level of the governments.)
Juho
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of [EMAIL PROTECTED]@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
