Good Afternoon, Bruce

I would like to respond to two topics you raised:

1) When you say, "Perhaps the whole concept of king and his men must be discarded.", you may be suggesting a better way to traverse the broad expanse of political thought. Instead of attempting to define a new mode of government, would we make better progress by pondering the failures of existing governments to gain an understanding of why the failures occur?

I mention this with trepidation for I know, full well, that the failures we should examine are more apt to inspire emotion than reason. On the other hand, if the concept of achieving direct democracy by expressing views on an internet site (as espoused by some) is to work, the thoughtful people on the WDDM site should be able to set an example.

2) You made your preference for "Initiative & Binding Referendum (I&BR)" clear. I support that goal, even though I do not believe it is a complete answer to the problem of good government. There are matters that should be referred to the people for resolution, but there are other issues that are best resolved by principled people charged with protecting the interests of the electorate.

For example, "Should the government fund stem cell research?"

This is a complex matter involving highly technical details, the question of need, the question of urgency, the availability of alternatives, government subsidies to industry, and (I suspect) some moral issues. I do not feel competent to offer a judgment on the question nor do I believe I can, with any reasonable expenditure of effort, gain access to enough unbiased material to form a better judgment.

We have elected representatives who are specifically charged with the responsibility for studying the many parts of such questions, considering the material presented by the lobbyists whose job it is to inform our legislators about such issues, and, in general, becoming sufficiently knowledgeable to render the judgment that will be most beneficial for the people. Such decisions are better left to those charged with the responsibility for making them.

I am deliberately ignoring the fact that, in America, the system does not work that way. I realize our representatives are bought and paid for by those who benefit from their decisions, but that is a separate, distinct problem that should not be allowed to confuse the question of whether I&BR would be appropriate for resolving the issue of government funding of stem cell research.

To restate my position

1) I do not believe the public has or can gain the knowledge necessary to render a rational decision on the question of funding stem cell research.

2) I believe those who represent us in our government are so corrupt they are incapable of rendering a decision in the public interest on the question of funding stem cell research.

It is obvious this leaves us in an untenable position. We need to address it, and in my opinion, our best course is to continue identifying the causes of the evils crushing us, learning to understand why they occur, and then starting to outline a method of correcting them.

But, first, we need to know our enemy.

Fred