Re: Frustration with politics explained

JD (
Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:26:43 -0500

At 05:33 PM 10/12/97 -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>Geoff Smith wrote:
>This is not quite what I had in mind as a starting point. I think we
>to accept that the current economic/political system exists, that it
>works pretty well, and that it has a fairly high inertia.

With a 5.6 trillion dollar debt, 26 trillion aggregate debt, two identical
"parties" pobtificating about inane nonsense like volunteerism and family
values, and Chinese communists buying a California naval base, "well"
hardly describes the situation.

Therefore, the
>most we can expect is gradual movement, except as the system is forced
>to change in response to very rapid technological change. Example:
>technology permits direct democracy and real-time access to all
>government functions, but neither is likely because the system doesn't
>require it: inertia wins.

While technology may permit direct democracy, the Constitution definately
does not.