The first is the us vs. them framing. The manifesto (rightly) speaks to global problems, but roots itself in the divisiveness that has hampered us from taking that first and necessary step as a global species. It's a huge aspect of the manifesto, but if this is a work in progress, I think it's worthwhile to reconsider divisive rhetoric.

The second is citation of specific people who are examples that the manifesto seems to endorse. Anyone will likely be able to name someone who isn't on the list and should be, and some who are on the list and shouldn't. I find little to admire in Google's founders other than engineering acumen, and resent their ethos of Machina Uber Alles. We could probably have a great discussion about whether I'm right or wrong on that, but the point is that bringing in specific names hampers the momentum and energy of the manifesto.

Again, awesome piece of work and worth reading even with the chafes. I started reading your blog after watching you speak at City Hall on open data, and am better for doing so.

Off the top of my head, the last reform effort to fail in the US was an attempt to actually invest the money that flows into Social Security. Originally many workers paid into Social Security and that money paid a few retirees. There was no effort to manage the money beyond rooting out fraud. That is only sustainable when there are many workers to a few retirees.

Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton made some reforms to Social Security, so that today money that foes into Social Security is “invested” in federal bonds. Not only are federal bonds a low yield investment ( http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/cu... ) but the money to pay any increase will come from the government. That is just as unsustainable as the old system.

The right has floated the idea of investing that money in other things since at least the 1980s. Clearly the devil is in the details, but that kind of reform would not necessarily dismantle Social Security. It would dismantle certain aspects of Social Security, but I believe those losses are warranted under creative destruction, as it would replace a system known to be unsustainable with a system that could be sustainable.

I will give Bill Clinton credit for doing a good job of reforming US welfare to a more sustainable model (or models, as a cornerstone of the reform was to allow states to set their own guidelines, policies and procedures).

> Indeed the anti-New Deal rhetoric to come out of the right has made any collaboration with the moderate Left over renewal impossible.

The Original New Deal is a perfect example of a bad “smart growth” system. “[J]udging by other depressions and recessions; the Great Depression was unusually long, not unusually short. Arguing that since the economy eventually recovered the New Deal was a success is like arguing that if the doctor bleeds the patient and the patient survives and eventually recovers, the treatment was a success” ( http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2009/05/two-... ).

The New New Deal is another example of a bad smart growth system. It may well be that targeted spending would invigorate the economy, but should we bet on the government's “top-down and trickle-down” solution or the market's “emergent and bottom up” solution? This is an example of requiring smart people in the government to never make a mistake.

I recognize that the above is a progressive – not libertarian – manifesto, and the fundamental axioms are different. But I suspect many of the above goals are impossible through any system.

One major issue I have, however, is tone. Although the manifesto provides alternative visions that could be construed as positive, generally this feels like a negative, anti-piece. I want to build things. I want to create. I want to shape the world. And I don't want to do that by defining myself as the opposite of anything.