Direct democracy seems an attractive proposition, yet California’s budgetary woes can be traced to propositions passed by voters governing that state’s expenditure. Is government no more than an expression of popular sentiment? Think through history and pay head to some of the sentiments that prevailed and consider whether this is such a sure fired answer.

Gilbert’s position “What we want to do is figure out what democracy looks like. Once we've figured that out then we can look to adapt our current system” can be the critical question to answer. But then the old philosophical questions of who am I, what is the nature of society and what is the relationship between the 2 comes into play.

I made the point in an earlier post that government is determined by those who turn up. If one believes a political party fails to deliver then turn up and do something about it. Either we have what we believe in or what our apathy allows to happen.

Sonofgloin quotes:

“2% OF ADULTS OWN OVER 50% OF GLOBAL ASSETS
50% OF ADULTS OWN LESS THAN 1% OF GLOBAL ASSETS
10% OF ADULTS OWN 90% OF GLOBAL ASSETS”

Why should it be different? Why should there be an equal distribution of assets/wealth or anything else?

Not one word about the role that journalists should play in this brave new world.
I would suggest that journalists, too, have a very important part to play in keeping the politicians honest.

But, again, we face the problem of big monopolies running the news for their own agendas.

For instance no-one wants to breathe a word about Australia's invasion of Iraq. The most shameful episode in our recent history, because that would implicate some of our politicians who are still in government.

Paul @ Bathurst">> Why should it be different? Why should there be an equal distribution of assets/wealth or anything else?<<

Paul you miss read the post, there was no socialist declaration in that lot. I was qualifying a point regarding control in the hands of a few.

Son of Gloin, do you not remember even the Elves and Dwarves forged a friendship; and the friendship between socialism and democracy remains as those who have power use it for their own ends.

I had not thought of socialism in posing the question “Why should it be different? Why should there be an equal distribution of assets/wealth or anything else?”

Human nature appears to have always been based on those who had power used it for their advantage; look at the price of short commodities after a disaster or employees with rare skills negotiating a wage.

The distortions the quoted statistics point up is a matter of concern; in a world in which one has if one has resources the capacity to obtain necessities can be a problem.

What values make the above ‘wrong’?
What makes the skewed distribution of assets ‘wrong’?
Who made it necessary for everyone to have a ‘fair go’?

I came in half way on a radio program where an economic historian argued the USA’s rise as an economic power was attributable to Protestant beliefs, primarily ‘Servant Leaders’ who worked in the interests of all not themselves – and who earned 20 times the average salaries of their company. That person argued the advent of executives driven by self interest has led to decline with those executives earning 430 times the average.

My argument is such a value as the former creates the basis for answering the above 3 questions. To my understanding Socialism is the antithesis of such values, far more aligned to the values of self interest.

Paul @ Bathurst:>> The distortions the quoted statistics point up is a matter of concern;<<

Paul stats are stats, credible of themselves if factual, those are factual. My application of them as a marker to the miniscules control over the multitude was and is valid.

>> What values make the above ‘wrong’?
What makes the skewed distribution of assets ‘wrong’?
Who made it necessary for everyone to have a ‘fair go’?<<

Even though it was not my premise I will tell you what makes hoarding wealth wrong. Given we are the only creature endowed with a consciousness that comes with a morality it is wrong that we do not distribute the globes wealth equitably. It will never happen; we could not even manage it on a nation by nation basis as exhibited by the failure of socialist societies. But to not even recognize it as wrong is a concern, I believe with the legal system and a stable social base we have moved past dog eat dog, it's tough on your own.

>> the USA’s rise as an economic power was attributable to Protestant beliefs, primarily ‘Servant Leaders’ who worked in the interests of all not themselves – the advent of executives driven by self interest has led to decline with those executives earning 430 times the average.<<

I can see that. I was young middle management corporate in the eighties, a hell of a time; we made loads and bought companies so diverse from our core business that the businesses went downhill immediately but the appreciation of assets of the business more than made up for it. Things have calmed down but not changed, immediate return on investment is the expectation and business practices are conducted with that in mind, ruthless and immediate. The Protestant "servant leaders" you described had vision and patience and that is the platform for business stability, and business stability brings social stability.