[ale] ["Topic"? I don't think it means what you think it means] Re: Incompetent corporate web sites

[William Fragakis]

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 13:48 -0400, wylde bill wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 10:58 -0400, William Fragakis wrote:
> 
> > > Let's have a collective that congress can't touch.  And shoot any of the
> > > bastards who try.
> > I think that's a great idea. And how would we decide who runs the
> > collective? It would seem sensible that the collective itself would
> > decide. Maybe by voting? Therefore the collective would elect who runs
> > the collective. That sounds definitely better than the system we have
> > where we vote for... 
> > 
> > oh wait... we do that already.
> 
> No, actually we don't.  We have one entity that effectively controls
> what is and is not illegal behavior, the (in?)justice system which acts 
> on those laws, and the judicial system which makes rulings on the cases
> brought by said justice system.
> 
And that entity got there how?

"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo (W. Kelly)

We absolve ourselves of any responsibility by referring to it as an
"entity". These are the people that we've chosen by whatever
legitimate/corrupt means we at our disposal. Every two to six years, we
get to make a choice and this is what we've come up with. 

I'm not saying we couldn't make better choices - I think we could. But
this isn't something that was hoisted upon us by an external force.
Maybe you didn't vote for this "entity" but enough of your neighbors did
to put them into place. Maybe your neighbors acted out of ignorance,
fear corruption or just a view of the world different from yours. We got
what we (largely) voted for. If we didn't vote for it, we don't enough
noise like the brave souls in Iran and China who are dying for
expressing their views.

Politicians can only be "bought" when we ratify that purchase with our
own vote. Elections can only be rigged when we acquiesce in the result.

wf


> Yes, it would probably be best if we had some sort of republican (not in
> the partisan sense) control over who was running the collective I'm
> suggesting. 
> 
> The difference between what we've got now and what I'm suggesting is
> that while the medical "congress" might be able to decide to spend money
> on a trip to the Bahamas or some such nonsense, they'd not be able to
> pass a law which made it LEGAL for them to go to the Bahamas on our
> dime- or even spend it on some well-intentioned project like making sure
> pre-schoolers all get a daily dose of government propaganda to make them
> into "better" people.  
> 
> The only civil or federal government interaction would be to make sure
> nobody was stealing or defrauding anyone.  Period.  Safe as keeping
> money in a bank...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>