O.K. Let's make sure I understand what you are saying.
You are suggesting that instead of having political leaders, we have a panel of authorities instead?

Mackey: Not exactly "instead of". I say "starting with today's realities..", Obviously, if this has the remotest chance of being discussed, it has to have a remote chance of making a difference! Let's consider the two major causes of war-strife for the past several milennia; religious differences, and national differences. What we've been doing for 3 or 4 thousand years doesn't seem to have gotten us anywhere, except to have developed bigger and better killing machines. I'm just asking, is there a TOTALLY different model (superimposed on the current one) that could give a potential new outlook...literally, a new world order. So, we'd still have everything we currently have to begin with, but this NEUTRAL gathering of the best minds on the planet, gathered for one common purpose, probably has the best chance of effecting change as anyone will ever have.

The only other alternative is to wait for the first big bomb to drop...and if things comtinue as they are unabated, we all know it's coming, it's just a matter of who and when.

Like I said, I can elaborate a lot of the "practicals" that I've thought of so far. I may be just having another high, but I honestly think if people can figure out a way to be objective and creative about this, it might lead somewhere useful. As I said at the outset, my thinking is simply, "Why not?" If someone can give me reasons why it should NOT even be discussed, I'd love to hear them. It would save me a lot of worry and angst! In the meantime, I think I'll develop at least a few entries exploring my ideas a bit...even if it's just to clarify them in my own mind!!

here's the thing, once you get someone who's acknowledged as one of the greats in any arena, it'll be damn hard for him to resist the urge to control, control, control.

Global warming scientists think the world's going to end. Psychologists make EVERYTHING a disorder. Obesity researchers make up 'metabolic syndrome'. Public health advocates term everything 'epidemics' even when the only thing involved is stupidity.

These 112 men adn women would quickly become the kind of tyrants we'd only had an inkling of in our worst nightmares.

IC: I guess my reaction to that is: "Who potentially would have a better perspective on world affairs, a collection of 112 diverse, creative, accomplished thinkers and activists (i.e. doers) from around the globe or an oil-connected self-absorbed lobbied Texan? It seems, given the button he's permitted to push, that those are the basic choices.

There has to be SOME kind of trust and faith in leadership, doesn't there? Or is that the weakness of ALL systems?

There has to be SOME kind of trust and faith in leadership, doesn't there? Or is that the weakness of ALL systems?

Hit it in one. You should never trust a leader farther than you can throw him. Everyone wants to be influential. And you aren't going to become powerful and influential by not interfering.

Not to mention that what one camp thinks is 'influential' the other camp thinks are a bunch of idiots.

A lot of people who are respected by their peers are pretty worthless. Especially when the fields are not exactly standing on solid footing (psychology, some anthropology, sociology, for instance. none of these fields take into account basic evolutionary and cognitive principles)

I do think you're on to something with the idea that experts in certain matters should be the ones in power. It makes sense that the ones with the power should know what the heck they're in charge of. THe idea of professional politicians is pretty anathema to me.

But I hesitate when it comes to giving them the kind of carte blanche power that would inevitably come when we told them to deal with 'the worlds problems'.

What would be interesting is if we took two people with opposing views (interference vs. noninterference) with equivalent credentials, and had them debate before an informed audience.

I'm not meaning this to sound aggressive or anything, but aren't you then doing exactly what you're accusing all 'leaders' of doing? Namely, attempting to be influential and powerful? If so, my question would then be "Why you?". That's what I can't wrap my brain around with your philosophy. How is your vision going to evolve in a practical sense? (BTW, I'm not suggesting for a minute that what I proposed should be the ulitmate goal, but I think effective brainstorming needs to begin in a totally alien intellectual place so there is less chance of becoming bogged down by 'the way we've done it before' thinking. Maybe that's just me, I can certainly acknowledge that!

I see what you're saying, and I don't take it as confrontational. It's the problem anyone who wants to be a libertarian-leaning leader faces. "Don't trust government! Make me your leader!"

As for why me (or men with my philosophy)? Because we are morally opposed to meddling for meddling's sake. Because we see every growth of government power as a transgression against man's liberty.

We may argue some things are necessary but we will never say they are good. More importantly, we want to be questioned at every turn. We want active resistance to growth in government's power. We want something more than silly rhetoric with a veneer of the truth behind it.

It's as much a mindset as anything. And my pessimistic belief is that you won't find it among the world's 'experts'.

This is fascinating. Thanks for your input. I believe you've moved me one step closer to underdstanding. Now, would you be interested in taking a shot at some questions I have about border issues? Not a problem if you'd rather not, obviously!
Oh, I meant to add to the previous comment of yours about the debate between two intelligent individuals....I think I'd have a whole lot more trust in the person who could have the same informed debate all by themselves.

sure Rick, send me an email with your questions and I"ll try to hit them. the email addy is on the left side of the blog.