At 11:28 PM 8/26/98 GMT, you wrote:
>So what's wrong with going the whole hog to have
>a proper direct democracy?
Absolutely nothing wrong with a proper Direct Democracy.
You will always get my support on this one, Eva
For those who have yet to grapple with Direct Democracy, see
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
Colin Stark
Canadians for Direct Democracy
Vancouver, B.C.
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Listserv)
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]
>
>
