> >To me, it makes more sense to have a dictator in power. The method
> >of his ascension will not be voting, but rather becoming a leader
> >because of his success in the free market.
>
> Dictators _do_ get alot accomplished and if you have a good dictator or
> king, the populous prospers. Interesting idea though about becoming a
> leader due to their success in the free market. Bill Gates for head of the
> country anyone? I would change this idea though to have the people vote on
> the leader who's the success in the free market because what if one of the
> possible leaders is an egotistical maniac or has strong racist feelings?
That's the beauty of a really FREE market - It automatically weeds
out the badies. A person with strong racist feelings would simply not
_be_ one of the richest people in the world, because the majority of
people don't support this idea.
> Not everyone with $$ have brains.
Everyone with $$ has the right combination of brains, courage and
pragmatism, otherwise they wouldn't have that much money.
I don't support the idea of having a free market on the one hand and
politics on the other, where the winner in the money game gets to be
the winner in the politics game. It makes more sense to me to only
have the free market as law maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen de Vries phen@wwg3.uovs.ac.za
www.geocities.com/athens/7415/index.html
"I" is the action between the present and the future.