>From: michael.bast@convergys.com
>From: Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net>
> The solution is not necessarily to stop society from become ever more
>transparent [which
> is like holding back the tide from coming up the beach] but rather to
> change the way people with power operate. Such as, arranging
> government so that there are fewer people, less power. With
> sufficient surveillance, every act of people with power is open
> to public scrutiny.
>
>Do we really want this? I mean, it's difficult to get good people to run
>for
>office now, what would the incentives have to be to get anyone to be in
>govt?
>Ultimately I'm in favor of anarchy, but we are a long way from being that
>able
>to self-govern. If we make the dis-incentives for being in office this
>strong,
>will we really be able to attract good, honest people into office? Not that
>I
>have an answer, but I think it's a question about which we ought to think.
I don't think transparency would be a disincentive at all for someone
seeking public office for the right reasons (i.e., to serve the public
interest). However, for those seeking office for power or other personal
gain, I agree that transparency would be a disincentive for them. But, to
me, seems like a *good* thing.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:07 MDT