Gaia Community

Re: True Leadership

Keith said Aug 4, 2007, 7:42 PM:

You are speaking of “statesmen” I believe. True statesmen realize they have a responsibility to the overall society they serve and not to any special group. Unfortunately, politicians today worldwide must pander to stay elected.

What do you think of modifying the organic US Constitution … to include a fourth branch of government … one that is constant, stationary, not concerned about elections, but has the best interests of society at heart. Perhaps not hereditary, but elected for life.

A Council of Elders comes to mind. Or perhaps something akin to a monarch, but without the privileges … to be used as another check-n-balance.

What are your thoughts?

Show Replies

Re: True Leadership

Yvette said Aug 4, 2007, 9:31 PM:

I like the Council of Elders idea, but i guess we'd need something more inclusive….. a group of wise compassionate leaders (regardless of age)….
but to avoid the trappings of the current system perhaps it might be worth considering a group that was independent and did not depend on the traditional politcal system for its “power” but rather grew it organically. Through their work and encounters with others in a context that put them directly in touch with the peple to act as liasons between the people and the governments.

If that relationship with the public was connected to economic unity, a committed collective, then perhaps the power dynamics could be reorganized so as not to create more confrontation but to focus on the creation of alternatives that can interface with the existing/traditional system and still build on a more equitable one.

One that emphasizes the value of social capital and the individual.

Thoughts?

Re: True Leadership

Keith said Aug 4, 2007, 9:42 PM:

Yvette,

What you described is exactly what Nelson Mandela did …

So this has already begun on a global basis. But we also need a National Council of Elders … completely separate and apart from government.

Is this what you're suggesting?

I like it.

Re: True Leadership

GDW said Aug 4, 2007, 11:27 PM:

My thoughts…

Age is something I have pondered on alot. The idea of career politicians really bothers me. I dont think politics is a vocation, it's a privilege. Young people with degrees in political theory or economics just doesn't cut it. You need to have been around the block a couple of times. Two generation minimum; what's that 40 or 50 years old.

Secondly…

Volunteer, i've been mulling this one over for a bit as well, expenses paid but no massive wage. I'm expecting people to have already made it and to be able to sacrifice for the people for a couple of years or so.

I'm really attracted to the 'elder' idea. I'm also really attracted to bringing the old philosophy lecturer out of retirement.

I have concerns about length of time, either very short or judged by economic sustainability of the country or state.

Re: True Leadership

Keith said Aug 5, 2007, 5:03 AM:

“The idea of career politicians really bothers me … it's a privilege.”

Appears we're in agreement. Our future world will include our elders in some oversight capacity at the very least.

Good comments Zaadsters!!!

BTW … notice I did change the title to include the feminine, as “knights” refers to males. Aley insisted.

Re: True Leadership

HeyOK said Aug 6, 2007, 1:06 AM:

Tee Hee good change Keith. Catching up on thread - just popped in to say HI!
Blessings, David

Re: True Leadership

friendstacy [no longer around] said Aug 5, 2007, 5:20 AM:

“the good of the State” or “the good of the People” denies humanity to the individuals being affected by the decisions we make. In this way, politicians justify harming those they wish to control (sorry, govern).
In this system of control or be controlled, there is no room for autonomy, there is no good for every individual person because majority rules (and now not even the majority rules anymore!). What I want to happen is a self-governed populace, where every single person is allowed the opportunity to make their own decisions and choose what is right for them. This cannot happen without completely tearing down the existing system of control.
Without autonomy, none of us are free. I won't settle for anything less than the freedom to choose for myself what is right for me. a friend of mine said to me recently, “all I want is to decide for myself what to do and what to believe!” Isn't that what we all want?
I propose it [decide for myself what to do and what to believe!] cannot happen as long as there are governments and politicians who think they should tell me what to do and perhaps more importantly, what not to do, because they don't trust me to know the difference between right and wrong.

Re: True Leadership

GDW said Aug 5, 2007, 5:24 AM:

FriendStacy, consider it torn down; what are you going to build?

Re: True Leadership

friendstacy [no longer around] said Aug 5, 2007, 5:34 AM:

why build anything? why not just live my life and allow others to live theirs?

Re: True Leadership

GDW said Aug 5, 2007, 5:38 AM:

Tell us more about anarchy. How do groups of anarchist live together, do they rely on each other at all? Do they need to work together. What happens if nobody wants to work?

Re: True Leadership

Keith said Aug 5, 2007, 6:20 AM:

I'm with Grant here, Stacy. The primary purpose of the pod is to create, to come together with ideas and ideals and synergy and cooperation to envision a better world. No more doom-n-gloom.

If you could start totally from scratch … what kind of world would you create and why? See?

Your idea of leadership derives from self only. Can you elaborate on how this would work in a world with well over 6 billion people?

My feeling is there needs to be a helluva lot more personal autonomy. But we do require organization. This is a given.

How would you suggest we organize?

Re: True Leadership

friendstacy [no longer around] said Aug 5, 2007, 8:05 AM:

Autonomy does not mean isolation. It only means that each person decides for themselves what is right and good and what is not. It also means that we recognize that anything that hurts anyone else also hurts us, and what benefits others also benefits ourselves (this is a natural consequence of autonomy and self-respect, as I have observed in my children). In this way, people choose for themselves to help others, not because they were told to do so, but because it's the right thing to do. It is rather difficult to explain this to anyone who doesn't share my anarchist vision. Some people do get it, and it seems more and more people are on the right track to figuring it all out….

But it can't happen unless and until people can move beyond Aristotle's categories and the need to organize, and the male-dominant society we know which reinvents anything feminine as bad, dark, evil…. there must be a major shift first, and I feel it happening already. It's what everyone is so afraid of, this change that affects everything and everybody in our world. Nothing is going to resemble what we are familiar with anymore, everything will be different. And once the change happens, we will be free, we will be autonomous, and anarchy won't be so scary anymore.

Re: True Leadership

GDW said Aug 6, 2007, 2:06 AM:

I can't say that I don't agree with everything you said FS.

Re: True Leadership

Curmudgeon [no longer around] said Aug 6, 2007, 8:32 AM:

I'll tell you why friendstacy, because then you will be able to do nothing to prevent the guy next to you from building a cement plant which blankets your organic garden with dust and keeps your baby from having naps because of the noise and destroys the proprety value of your house you worked so hard to make beautiful… Or the guy who wants to turn his 100 acres into a race track, forcing your town to improve roads and leaving you and your neighbors with exhaust fumes and noise at all hours. I saw incidents like this threaten towns in NH because they refused to implement zoning ordinances until it was (almost) too late.

Without a population capable of self government there can be no self-government. Also, currently there are issues which will require collective efforts with large-scale government funding, if we are going to deal with global warming and resource depletion (which, admittedly, is questionable) we will need to be more than an amorphous group of individuals pursuing their varied self-interests.

Like Jeffersonian democracy, anarchy is essentially an agrarian vision, unlikely to be possible with population levels and technological levels where they are.

Re: True Leadership

Curmudgeon [no longer around] said Aug 6, 2007, 8:11 AM:

“A statesman is a successful politician who is dead.” Thomas B. Reed

Re: True Leadership

Curmudgeon [no longer around] said Aug 6, 2007, 8:19 AM:

With regard to the lifetime term politicians because that is what they must be to be elected, especially to life terms, so to speak, I think that is one of the worst ideas I have heard in a long time. This is specifically what the anti-federalists feared and the framers wanted to avoid when they wrote the constitution. It was bad enough that they trusted the people enough to have the president not elected by popular vote, but this would be an invitation to unremovable tyrrany. As Ben Franklin said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.”

Take money out and the political process will be transformed. Or maybe like New Hampshire, where, I believe, the state representatives and senators still get something like $600 or $800 for serving in the legislature.