Regarding your message of Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:24:51 +0000 (GMT)
re: "'You say that we don't need a government but instead just
need to solve problems "such as how to feed the community,
how to provide adequate water...' etc. Well, that's
government ..."
Well said!!!
The balance of your argument is equally irrefutable. I chose this brief
excerpt simply as an example.
re: "... we have a problem with being 'represented' by somebody
who does not know us, does not care, somebody who has their
own agenda and career to worry about and a society which
does not think we are smart enough or responsible enough to
grasp the skills of government."
Well said!!!
And, again, merely a brief excerpt from an excellent observation.
This is the crux of the matter. While I realize you said (on May 14th) ...
"I don't usually respond to the correspondence I get from
WDDM. Most of the time I find that its members cannot break
away from the mindset of "vigorous" debate, which is
perceived to be such an important feature of any democratic
system. It goes around in circles." ...
I wonder if you would be willing to discuss the specific problem you
identified here?
I read and understand the game you proposed (on May 14th), but:
1) at the moment it does not (so far as I know) exist,
2) participation would be limited to those with the equipment and
ability to play the game (which is not universal), and
3) it is at least one level removed from human interaction.
The little bit of your material I've been privileged to read tells me
you are uncommonly thoughtful. Could we exchange some ideas on
representative government, either privately or in this forum?