Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
But you can't eliminate the people, you can modify the government.
|
I don't disagree. As I have expressed since this post you quoted me on, I was more pointing out that even modifying the government in the specific ways mentioned would not result in what I'd call a paradigm shift.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Supple Cow
Anyway, that system you propose sounds like something that would be entirely worthwhile, though I am obviously skeptical about it resulting in a paradigm shift. When I think of paradigm shifts, I see a snowball of after-effects in the same vein of the catalyst event. This system only says 'efficiency' to me, and no sweeping after-effects come to mind.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Ancient Greece was (to my knowledge) the only true democracy. And the burden helped ensure that the city-states failed. That is why we have a republic-so that people can not have to sholder the entire burden of government. But as things have expanded to a less and less local focus for politics and a more state-then-federal level, the people have not been able to keep up. Because to accurately evaluate your reps, you also have to know about the issues.
|
Of course we don't have a true democracy. I don't have any major objections to this as a positive assertion (outside what
roachboy has just said).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
And people don't have the time/inclination/ability to evaluate many issues to make informed opinions, and then check to see where their reps stand on issues, and then see where their reps vote on those issues. Honestly, expecting people to be informed for the most part is like expecting them to have a second full time job.
|
Here's where we get into trouble. This, to me, is a good argument for veering toward a far more authoritarian government than a republic is. I don't think our government should get any more authoritarian and so this is not an idea I like to encourage or propagate.