Distance makes the government grow smaller
I'm not comfortable in a world of extremes. I typically agree with people who rail against big government, but at the same time I'm realistic enough to know that government is certainly capable of good and that it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
But, while government is big and getting bigger, the world is getting smaller. I was reading about the Distance Makes No Difference project that a Minneapolis digital agency is doing. Basically, they've closed their office for 10 days and are out to show that they can do business from anywhere.
Isn't this something government could learn from? Why, for example, do we elect representatives who immediately go off to Washington, D.C. and basically check in with their constituents again when it's election time. Given today's technology, couldn't our representatives continue to live full-time in their districts and do business with minimal trips to D.C.? Why in the world does someone actually need to be on The Hill in order to vote? Would a government dispersed become a smaller government? Maybe. It's worth a try. I'd like to see Congress run a test virtual session. What have they got to lose? They can't possibly be less efficient, can they?
Whether you believe government is a necessary evil or that government is the best agent of positive change, I think you can agree that it needs to be nimbler, more intelligent and more efficient. Maybe distance government is an experiment in the right direction.
Posted by kris at October 20, 2010 01:11 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1934
|# October 20th, 2010 2:46 PM BVBigBro|
|What have they got to lose? Urban America, that's what.
There's a zillion things that can be done from anywhere (not surprisingly a lot of them are already being done from anywhere). A consequence of analyzing that, though, might conclude that urban areas are in many ways inefficient. That idea would set off firestorm like you've never seen.