On 1/4/2011 9:59 AM, Angelus Novus wrote:
> Carroll wrote:
>
>> I prefer as a goal the original Greek concept
> Me too, as did the great West Indian Marxist CLR James, who wrote a helpful essay on the matter:
>
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1956/06/every-cook.htm
>
> Every Cook Can Govern
> A Study of Democracy in Ancient Greece
> Its Meaning for Today
Where we read:
> At its best, in the city state of Athens, the public assembly of all
> the citizens made all important decisions on such questions as peace
> or war. They listened to the envoys of foreign powers and decided what
> their attitude should be to what these foreign powers had sent to say.
> They dealt with all serious questions of taxation, they appointed the
> generals who should lead them in time of war. They organized the
> administration of the state, appointed officials and kept check on
> them. The public assembly of all the citizens was the government.
>
> Perhaps the most striking thing about Greek Democracy was that the
> administration (and there were immense administrative problems) was
> organized upon the basis of what is known as sortition, or, more
> easily, selection by lot. The vast majority of Greek officials were
> chosen by a method which amounted to putting names into a hat and
> appointing the ones whose names came out.
>
> Now the average CIO bureaucrat or Labor Member of Parliament in
> Britain would fall in a fit if it was suggested to him that any worker
> selected at random could do the work that he is doing, but that was
> precisely the guiding principle of Greek Democracy. And this form of
> government is the government under which flourished the greatest
> civilization the world has ever known.
Great! So the citizen has to be conscripted, taken away from his life, from the work he really cares about, to participate in interminable meetings like the one below. Count me with the CIO bureaucrat - as an ordinary citizen, I myself would "fall in a fit" if I were obligated to do this with my "free time":
> COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLANNING AND THE OPERATION
> AND MAINTENANCE BACKLOG IN THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
>
> OVERSIGHT HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,
> WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
> of the COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
> U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
> ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS - FIRST SESSION
>
> March 29, 2001
>
> Mr. GILCHREST. Would anybody else on the panel like to address the
> priority needs of our refuges? Should the sole focus be, for the next
> few years, on the maintenance backlog? Can you balance that with the
> purchase of new refuges, or should there be a moratorium on the
> purchase of new refuges until this maintenance backlog gets completed
> or the conservation plans are complete? Is there any troubling aspect
> to any of those areas by anybody on the—any of the witnesses?
>
> Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I think that if you look at the Fish and
> Wildlife Service budget as it relates to the refuge, you are looking
> really at fundamentally four categories: land acquisition, a
> construction account, an operations account, and a maintenance
> account. And, obviously, when Congress is appropriating the funds and
> the agency leadership is putting together the budget, as Mr. Ashe
> indicated, there is a balance among them.
>
> I would suspect that given the maintenance backlog and given the
> concerns on operations, my advice would be to focus heavily on those
> two areas and watch very carefully the land acquisition expenditures
> and watch very carefully the construction expenditures for new
> facilities and new items, which, of course, immediately and
> automatically contribute additional requirements to the maintenance
> side of the ledger. And it is a tough, balance. There are some places
> you need a visitor center, but I think that a little bit of discipline
> by the agency, and maybe some discipline here, would probably help
> contribute some of the dollars toward the less than sexy O&M account,
> which is real easy to get shortchanged.
>
> Mr. GILCHREST. You are suggesting discipline here in the House?
>
> Mr. HORN. Just, I think, discipline within the agencies, and I know in
> my past tenure, it is real easy to—I think the agency traditionally
> asks for a fairly modest amount in its construction account, and every
> year the construction account gets increased two or three times
> because people like to see visitor centers and they like to see
> high-profile projects. Unfortunately, maintenance isn't high profile
> and isn't very sexy, isn't very attractive, and that is a difficult
> part of the mix.
>
> Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Horn. I am going to—we are going to come
> around for a second round. Some of the members have to leave for other
> meetings, and my time is up. So I will yield now to Mr. Underwood.