Reply
Wed 19 Nov, 2003 09:20 am
Jamestown was originally a capitalist enterprise of the chartered Virginia company. Although a cash crop of tobacco was first sold in London in 1616, the royal government was obliged to step in, because of the steady losses of the company (in the winter of 1608-1609, 90% of the colonist died), and it was made a crown colony in 1624.
But when Lord de la Warre had been the governor, he had decided that the colonists would prosper if they were able "to establish one equal and uniform government over all Virginia" which would provide "just laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting." The colony was divided into eleven roughly equal districts, and each district elected two "men of substance," or burgesses, to meet on an annual basis to make laws for the governance of the colony. On July 30, 1619, the House of Burgesses met for the first time.
In those days, it is very likely that each of the burgesses were personally known to the men who elected them. It is also very likely that they were accessible to the voters, for whatever their own opinion of the electorate may have been. This is certainly not the case in America today. We may know of our state and Federal respresentatives, but it is doubtful that many of us know them personally.
I am interested, therefore, in knowing what your view of the current state of representative democracy is.
awshit, Id like to discuss Jamestown but your question needs answer.
I believe weve fully evolved into a plutocracy and are just one drunken brother away from a dynasty. I wish i could come right to the point of my thesis, without beating around the stump.
My hound, Ernie, would be a better president, so the plans for a Brobdignagian form of leadership selection process makes as much sense to me as do free elections. I think Swift was right on.
However, at the local level, similar to the selectmen process, its still, "know your reps and supervisors'
I doubt we are going to get too much closer to true representative government than we have now.
To be honest, I probably would prefer fewer representatives, not more. And of course, considering the fact that the average congressperson probably represents three quarters of a million people, it is highly unlikely that he or she will know much more than a fraction of the people he/she represents.
I guess the nature of society -- the enormity fo society -- requires that we put a lot of trust in the system that gets these people to the jobs they hold.
I, personally, have a lot of trouble with that. But I also must acknowledge that I don't have many reasonable alternatives to offer.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace