My point is that there are very few people on this planet whom I couldn't get in touch with if I had something useful to say to them. The five people I initially listed are people who travel many of the same circles that I do, so it's common that I have comments that are worth their attention (Schneier less so than the others; that was basically just a fan letter that got answered). Somebody like Larry Page is further outside my circle, and correspondingly it would be both harder to get hold of him and less likely that I would have any good reason to. In the most extreme case, it's both seriously doubtful that I'd be able to get in touch with George Bush, and seriously doubtful that I could say anything to him that he wouldn't consider a waste of his time upon hearing it. These are all examples of how the filters that form through organic social interaction are already very efficient. Trying to create some kind of voting mechanism to supersede them is like trying to beat a market economy with a planned one.

> Trying to create some kind of voting mechanism to supersede them is like trying to beat a market economy with a planned one.

HUH??? I'm not sure what this has to do with planned economies and such, but if you put it that way, I see it as exactly the opposite. People who he talks about are hard to get to by design - mostly by the design of their administrative assistants. On the other hand, tons of people voting your idea up is by definition the very essence of a market-based decision-making system.

In the spirit of your reply, I'll give it a go now: "Disagreeing with me is like trying to replace the Constitution with the manual for your DVD player."