> Sure, a politician can promise you abolishment of this, relaxing
> speeding laws, etc etc, but then again, that promise is not legally
> binding either.

I'm interested to hear that relaxing speeding laws (by this do you mean
increasing some speed limits?) has actually been an election plank.
In this country (across the ditch) speed limits themselves are usually
(almost always) recommended by road safety experts who advise government on
the tradeoffs between speed limits and probably range of road deaths and
injuries. How this is administered may be another matter.

> If you know of a country where people can vote things
> into submission, name the country and I'll gladly take my car there with
> me! Realistically, you don't have control of what goes on behind closed
> government doors.

It's interesting to find a person for whom the ability to drive a car fast
on a public road is such a pure passion that they are willing to put it
ahead of all of life's other priorities to the extent of migrating (complete
with car) based on this consideration alone. For most people other factors,
such as quality of life, employment, security, road safety and much more,
would come ahead of this on the list. Presumably Germany with its unlimited
speed autobahns would be a good starting point without having to rely on
future results from uncertain political promises.

There must also be quite a few countries which have no speed limit in much
of their area. Afghanistan may well be one, especially at present, and you
would probably find that fast driving is presently both encouraged and
commonly understood. You could probably consider many of the previous
Russian Republics for much the same reasons and no doubt large areas of
Africa would suit your requirements.

The secondary considerations such as general survivability and other factors
as above, may direct the final choice. Let us know which of these options
you choose.

> Democracy was something invented by the Greeks many a moon ago. Though
> it may live on, it has taken a path of contamination. Get used to that
> concept of democracy, because that's what we're living in.

Yes. You are quite correct that Democracy has been contaminated from the
pure form created by the Greeks. Nowadays anybody is allowed to vote -
including the female half of the population that the Greeks excluded and in
most countries you can't find a decent slave for love or money, so there's
no question of them not being allowed to vote either. It's just not the same
in a Democracy without the slaves!
We won't even mention the furriners (who the Greeks regarded as sheep ( -
"Baaaah barians") Apart from that though it seems pretty much the same then
as now. Human nature hasn't changed much. The Greeks elected 500 men
(literally) by public vote to represent them. Why anyone would think that
they then did this in an unbiased manner I cannot imagine. The richer were
known to have disliked this system which gave so much power to the common
people. Also, Greek democracy lasted only for short periods and in limited
areas , interspersed by bouts of warfare. No real comparison with the much
more temporally stable modern perversions.

In this country at least, if any group has a single interest issue that is
REALLY important to a small but significant portion of the population then
they can form a political party and have enough weight to be sure that their
views are listened to. This is a result of our "MMP" proportional voting
system and the relatively fine balance of power. Maybe you need to agitate
to change your voting system or pack up your car and ship it across the
Tasman to NZ and set up a new political party? :-)

regards,




                                    Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body