• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

Who is the most dynamic and inspiring political leader in modern history?

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Barrack Obama

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Ronald Reagan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Adolph Hitler

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Other (give name in your post)

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Total voters
    13

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Once upon a time, the founding fathers of the USA believed that the President, Congress and the Judiciary would all keep each other in check. However the founding fathers didn't seems to anticipate the possibility that all three branches of government would be controlled by the same political party and therefore collaborate with each other to fulfil the party's goals.

In the present day, the US has a feral president but Congress refuses to remove him from power because he is aligned with their political party. The Senate also failed to prevent the President from appointing a supreme court judge who is clearly unfit for the office, once again because the nominee was aligned with their political party.

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?

That would bring the US system closer to the Westminster system. In the Westminster system there is no separate executive branch of government: executive powers are wielded by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, while the head of state (the Queen) is just a rubber stamp.

This system doesn't permit the rapid rise of the likes of Donald Trump because such "outsiders" usually only win themselves and their followers a handful of seats in Parliament.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Poll: Franklin Delano Roosevelt Did more to shape the nation than any of founding fathers, more than Lincoln, and more than Teddy Roosevelt

First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.

As to structure of government and political organization. We seem to have it about right. Parties have controlled the country before now and have been set straight before by a population with much less information available to them. So slogans won't win the day beyond some current crisis or situation in 'merica.

We are currently going through a process that is likely to reduce the power of the executive significantly. That's happened three or four times since founding.

To really correct things we'd need to pass several amendments interposing more levels of governance such as regional representative bodies and responsibilities. Actually this country needs to get back to a place where no more than 50 to 100 thousand people per representative and 300 to 500 thousand per senator are involved. Higher levels of representation could be achieved through votes by citizens directing the above defined representatives to select individuals for national representation every three years on a continuously randomized schedule.

Citizens need to feel connected to leadership. There should be regional managers (presidents) and regional courts to address special needs in each, probably five, region.

I really think the general structure of our constitution is about right. We just need some fine tuning to accommodate populations and regions. The idea of a national leader elected in a single campaign needs to be toned down and decreased in extent of campaign. If we make the electors now with states be directly elected managers of regions and states, the national campaign could be run more or less on a schedule similar to that of GBs national elections.

Regions should be set up to more or less equally and reflect each other with small and large state configurations. With five 10 state regions we would have the beauty of an odd number of regions comprising our basis for national government. So most of what separates us would be housed in regions diffusing then from national debates and the national election would reflect the consensus of all citizens within the republic. Doing this would have deflated the minority vote for president in 2016 from gaining control of the national electoral will.
 
Last edited:

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,155
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Do we really need a "President"? Why?

So the idiot peasants will think that there's a king, and not ask uncomfortable questions about the corporate oligarchy that quietly governs the country?

As for your question, surely Queen Elizabeth II; she has sustained through one of the most complex acting careers in history an entire system of government that is utterly at odds with the general political sympathies of her citizens. Like her 66 year long performance is the only reason an entire theocratic, aristocratically wealth-drenched, and theoretically authoritarian monarchy still exists over a largely secular, socialist, and democracy-hugging nation. And all that largely without serious political challenge. All while giving the strong impression of not doing anything at all. From this outsider's viewpoint, a truly remarkable show.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,155
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Your notion that QE2 was charismatic and changing in any way staggers me. Actually her most significant thing is the actor representing her being pictured seeing The Stagg in the Movie The Queen.

She's the clever kind, not loud kind. Loud kinds end up shooting themselves in a bunker somewhere eleven years in. Clever ones don't give the impression of doing much, but nevertheless prop up a grossly unequal system that heavily benefits themselves and their family for half a century. If Hitler was Commodus, QEII is the Antoninus Pius of our time.
 
Last edited:

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?

First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.

I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
So everyone agrees: We DON'T need a "President" -- right?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

So the idiot peasants will think that there's a king, and not ask uncomfortable questions about the corporate oligarchy that quietly governs the country?

But what if we WANT them to ask the questions? (as you probably do?) What if we don't want to keep them in ignorance? In that case, why do we need a "President"?
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,829
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Sir Winston Churchill

Took the english language into battle. Kept the flame of resistance to Hitler alit.
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
Sir Winston Churchill

Took the english language into battle. Kept the flame of resistance to Hitler alit.

Starved 3 million Bengali Indians in a single year because he didn't like them. Go off king
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?
There are very few independent decisions that the president is empowered to make. The U.S. is run by committee or a committee of committees. We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees. The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,612
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?
The President, usually, is a figurehead. The President doesn't negotiate the treaties, staffing does. Still that is entirely within the Executive Branch. The President doesn't micromanage the military, the Generals/Admirals and down the line do. But there needs to be someone at the top to be the final arbiter. Otherwise, how does a National Government of 50 million, 350 million, 2 billion work fully?

So the question I suppose is are you arguing for axing the Executive Branch and merging it with Congress... and who in Congress has the final say in the execution of laws, treaties, legislation?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?

Well the shooting down of a commercial plane off the east coast of the Soviet Union during Nixon's presidency is the best example at all levels for why individuals given decision power are more apt to be correct than any form of group or centralized control and decision making. They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, fear of making decisions, and rigid and dated control systems.

First elected presidents aren't usually charismatic characters, entertainment stars maybe, but charismatic, naw. The top attribute of a president is perception by people she can make decisions in the national interest.

Right now we have a throw away president who was selected because the public decided the system was broken that there were no eminent threats to our nation, and that the nation needed some wrenches thrown in to it. Now the rats are coming home to roost and the threats are coming out of the woodwork.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.

I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

The camel is a poor example of design by committee. A real world example of design by committee is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It became unsuitable for the original intent, was years late, and cost several times its budget.

 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,966
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Hard to say. Too many self serving shysters and villains...Ghandi, maybe.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?
There are very few independent decisions that the president is empowered to make. The U.S. is run by committee or a committee of committees.

That's not true. The President individually has way too much power.

But if we assume you're right, then we don't need a President, because all the necessary decisions are made without him.


We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees.

You know that he repeatedly goes against their decisions as he wishes.

But he also issues his executive orders which are purely his own decisions, sometimes contrary to what Congress wants.

Why should one person alone have any power to make policy decisions? Why should he even have veto power? Why not instead have a "committee" exercise that power?


The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.

Why should one person alone have that power? Why couldn't a "committee" negotiate the trade deals and treaties (to be submitted for approval)?

And you omitted the "commander-in-chief" role which permits him to in effect start up a war (including whether to launch a nuclear attack). Why shouldn't there be a "committee" to make those decisions instead of putting all that power into the hands of one person?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
That's not true. The President individually has way too much power.

But if we assume you're right, then we don't need a President, because all the necessary decisions are made without him.


We have two congressional committees that write the laws and establish budgets with 435 members in one and 100 members in the other. The president's primary job is to oversee enforcement of the decisions of those two committees.

You know that he repeatedly goes against their decisions as he wishes.

But he also issues his executive orders which are purely his own decisions, sometimes contrary to what Congress wants.

Why should one person alone have any power to make policy decisions? Why should he even have veto power? Why not instead have a "committee" exercise that power?


The president can negotiate trade deals and treaties but they are not binding until approved by those committees.

Why should one person alone have that power? Why couldn't a "committee" negotiate the trade deals and treaties (to be submitted for approval)?

And you omitted the "commander-in-chief" role which permits him to in effect start up a war (including whether to launch a nuclear attack). Why shouldn't there be a "committee" to make those decisions instead of putting all that power into the hands of one person?
There is too fucking much ignorance in that of how our government is set up and operates. I have to assume that you have never taken a civics class. It is a shame that the public school system has become so piss poor that the majority of current HS graduates can not pass the citizenship test required of emigrants to become citizens.

A sad note when a new citizen that was a refugee from some war torn country in Africa knows more about how the U.S. government works than native born citizens.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
I forget which president, at the end of his term, remarked that there are no easy decisions as president.
The previous pres. told him that on tge way to the inauguration. "Any easy decision will be made much lower down the ladder. Any hard decision gets bucked up a rung. The hardest go highest. And you have no one to buck them up to."

"At first i did not believe him. But, then it proved to be true."


I thought about that a lot as a leading petty officer. I was never the final authority, so i always had the 'buck' option. But a lot of the decisions i did make were bucked up to mebecause they weren't easy for others.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
^ ^ ^
Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.
 
Last edited:

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Talk about dire. How about being lead scientist responsible for deciding whether to include chevron displays for climbing and descending or for changes in altitude or direction or energy superiority management in suite of studies designed to determine recommended display indicators? Now that's critical. Don't want to make that B57 problem back during Vietnam. <chortle>
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,356
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Part of the job of the American president is to ally fears. Male people feel good enough to believe in tomorrow.

JFK used his charisma to inspire us. Hitler used his for personal power.

Gorbachev credited Ronald Reagan's personality and how he came across with Russia agreeing to the detente. They believed Reagan could be trusted. His American nickname was 'the great communicator'. It was a skill he devoped over time. He was paid by GE to travel and make speeches.

A president is essential. He or she is supposed to reelect our values to the world. Trump obviously is horrible and has done serious damage international.

Trump's lack of leadership skill is reflected in the lack of action in congress on key issues. He is unable to form a consensus. He does not know how.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,356
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

The short answer is it all depends on the people and situations.

Trump represents the kind of business leader not uncommon up through the late 70s. Arbitrary and autocratic. Makes decisions and others clean it up. Does not take inputs and is surrounded with sycophants. .Henry Ford a prime example.

The technology business cycle became too fast for that kind of management.

When I rowed at Intel project teams generally worked by consensus by design. It worked because the engineers were all motivated and general of like mind. Disputes were generally resolved without management getting involved.

On the other had I worked as a contractor at a technology company. Multiple meetings with much debate and apparent consensus, yet after the meetings no one world take responsibility for actual doing something. There was no leader. People went off and did what they felt like often at cross purpose. No one would take risk and responsibility for enacting a decision. Drove me crazy.

In an interview the founder of Sun said they they put prole in leadership situations and select the ones who can do it. There was no apparent criteria.

Leadership IMO is a learned skill involving failure. Trump's problem is he has never stood up to his failures.

The tech world in the 80s moved from a top down to a bottom up structure. The saying became do not bring me problems bring me solutions. Solve problems at the lowest level. Trump represents the opposite. 'I' say what it is and your job is to do it.

A good leader has to be able to delegate and trust.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

Do we really need a "President"? Why?

Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?

The President, usually, is a figurehead.

He should always be that. Why should any high policy decision be left to one person? The idea that we need a CHIEF is delusional.


The President doesn't negotiate the treaties, staffing does.

He appoints the staff, dictates the decisions, if he wants to. It's fine if he appoints the best decision-makers and lets them do it. But most often he dictates the outcome, and appoints those who agree with his bias.


The President doesn't micromanage the military, the Generals/Admirals and down the line do.

Sometimes, and other times the Commander in Chief does micromanage it. Why wouldn't a committee do it better?

What's to stop a dictator from making a mistake, if he alone makes the decision? If it's a committee of 3 or 4 or 5 which makes the decision, there are extra minds involved which could prevent a bad mistake.


But there needs to be someone at the top to be the final arbiter.

One person only? That's just a slogan. A committee at the top can do it better. Less likely to commit a bad mistake.


Otherwise, how does a National Government of 50 million, 350 million, 2 billion work fully?

It works better if a committee does it. The decision-maker has to be checked by something which can overrule him if he makes a mistake. Which is less likely if there's only one who decides it.


So the question I suppose is are you arguing for axing the Executive Branch and merging it with Congress...

No, keep the Executive Branch but have a committee do the decisions rather than only one person. Makes a Donald Trump less likely.

This doesn't necessarily mean a Constitutional amendment. Rather the President should become a symbol only. Or, he could be a member of the Committee, having one vote. There are probably ways this could evolve without a Constitutional amendment.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Why do we need a DEMAGOGUE-IN-CHIEF blowhard pundit "leading" the country?

I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?

Well the shooting down of a commercial plane off the east coast of the Soviet Union during Nixon's presidency is the best example at all levels for why individuals given decision power are more apt to be correct than any form of group or centralized control and decision making.

I don't believe this example.


They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, . . .

Assuming you're right, the solution is to have a committee design a better system, creating a decentralized committee to make the critical decision(s), limiting the number of "masters" but still a committee instead of one decision-maker only.

Also, your description sounds like a case of a committee that was too large. A "committee" doesn't have to mean a dozen or 2 dozen committee members. It means a small group rather than only one person dictating the outcome.


. . . fear of making decisions, and . . .

A committee would have less fear, because the chance of a mistake is reduced by having more decision-makers present who are more likely to catch a mistake, i.e., each one is an additional mind who could notice a possible mistake.

. . . rigid and dated control systems.

That's not more likely with a committee making the decisions. Each member of the committee is an additional mind which can see the need to change something, make it less rigid, and update it.

There's nothing here fundamentally flawed about a committee doing it. All the flaws are just as likely with one person at the top dictating everything. More likely.


First elected presidents aren't usually charismatic characters, entertainment stars maybe, but charismatic, naw. The top attribute of a president is perception by people she can make decisions in the national interest.

And more often a FALSE perception.

That's part of what "charismatic" means. It's someone who is good at deceiving people, giving them a false perception, making them believe that s/he can make good decisions. Instilling that false impression in people is a big part of what "charismatic" means.

A "president" gets elected by giving good speeches which persuade listeners that s/he has all the answers and is appointed by God to lead our Country to the Promised Land.

It doesn't necessarily mean the charisma of a Martin Luther King or Billy Graham, etc. That kind of charisma has a different function than that of a political candidate charisma. The President/political candidate transmits vibes of being fully in control and strong and powerful and omnipotent. This is a dangerous kind of charisma.

It's the Donald Trump -- Barrack Obama -- Ronald Reagan MESSIAH/HERO kind of charisma to lead us to the Promised Land. A committee is less dramatic, less entertaining, less thrilling. But it would make better decisions, and would not be able to perpetrate the deception of the charismatic speech-maker demagogues we are getting and will get more of.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

The camel is a poor example of design by committee. A real world example of design by committee is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It became unsuitable for the original intent, was years late, and cost several times its budget.

So, which President are you saying should have designed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? all by himself without any "committee" getting in the way?

Or which one General?

Would you have one person only design all weapons -- every weapons system, every submarine, every jet fighter, etc.? so as to prevent mistakes which might happen by too many cooks in the kitchen? and get them all produced on time within budget?

Let's have an example of something now decided by one person, i.e., by the President, which could not be decided better by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
^ ^ ^
Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.

Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I don't believe this example.

Agreed. People thought Nixon was on it in 1983. He had resigned in 1974.

 Korean Air Lines Flight 007

They took too long and did the wrong thing because of centralized control, indecisive by group serving several masters, . . .

Assuming you're right, the solution is to have a committee design a better system, creating a decentralized committee to make the critical decision(s), limiting the number of "masters" but still a committee instead of one decision-maker only.

Also, your description sounds like a case of a committee that was too large. A "committee" doesn't have to mean a dozen or 2 dozen committee members. It means a small group rather than only one person dictating the outcome.

The solution is for a committee to assign a person who is qualified to develop the solution then have the sense to approve what he/she had created. All committees are 'too large'. Groups should never be more than eight persons.

Committees don't design better systems. Committee leads design better systems then get the committee to go along if there is going to be a better system. Small groups usually work at cross purposes leading to Camel designs, good for the desert but useless in urban society. Committees usually assign one person as lead. The committee signs off. So no dictation.


. . . fear of making decisions, and . . .

A committee would have less fear, because the chance of a mistake is reduced by having more decision-makers present who are more likely to catch a mistake, i.e., each one is an additional mind who could notice a possible mistake.

Obviously you were never in a soviet communist system where the people are always right and the person is always wrong. Guns are fearsome things.

. . . rigid and dated control systems.

That's not more likely with a committee making the decisions. Each member of the committee is an additional mind which can see the need to change something, make it less rigid, and update it.

There's nothing here fundamentally flawed about a committee doing it. All the flaws are just as likely with one person at the top dictating everything. More likely.

For the most part we disagree. I know some problems require many minds. Usually they are formed by those interested in the problem rather than those trying to make a profit. that is an important distinction. Interested minds working together on well defined problems subject to empirical verification are much different than hirelings or politicians. All committees subject to coercion by stakeholders or salary givers are to be avoided. If there is to be a committee it best be like minded persons interested in a particular problem that has a material solution.


First elected presidents aren't usually charismatic characters, entertainment stars maybe, but charismatic, naw. The top attribute of a president is perception by people she can make decisions in the national interest.

And more often a FALSE perception.

That's part of what "charismatic" means. It's someone who is good at deceiving people, giving them a false perception, making them believe that s/he can make good decisions. Instilling that false impression in people is a big part of what "charismatic" means.

A "president" gets elected by giving good speeches which persuade listeners that s/he has all the answers and is appointed by God to lead our Country to the Promised Land.

It doesn't necessarily mean the charisma of a Martin Luther King or Billy Graham, etc. That kind of charisma has a different function than that of a political candidate charisma. The President/political candidate transmits vibes of being fully in control and strong and powerful and omnipotent. This is a dangerous kind of charisma.

It's the Donald Trump -- Barrack Obama -- Ronald Reagan MESSIAH/HERO kind of charisma to lead us to the Promised Land. A committee is less dramatic, less entertaining, less thrilling. But it would make better decisions, and would not be able to perpetrate the deception of the charismatic speech-maker demagogues we are getting and will get more of.

You went through a lot of googledogock disproving your thesis. Charismatic is "exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others". There is nothing to do with deceiving since it is the charmed who embody the word. One can build a whole world of reasons why one would be charmed by another but what it comes down to is being charmed by others is a human attribute for reasons to follow without thinking.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
^ ^ ^
Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.

Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?

Short answer people are more comfortable with identifiable characters.

I'm sure we all remember Ted Sorensen President Kennedy's speechwriter right? "Ask not ...."

So what grade did you skip to miss the great man theory? I don't think committees inspire peoples. What I remember is leaders like Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan ... Never a committee unless it's something bad like CABAL which is actually five people or The Central Committee lead by Stalin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev ....

As for products how about the SR 71 and Kelly Johnson, Nuclear submarine force and Admiral Rickover, Forty minutes over Tokyo and Dolittle ....

Its getting to be like you're entitled to your own facts.

You're not.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
^ ^ ^
Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.

Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?
A committee of 535 (our House and Senate) demagogue speech maker pundits whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for them take forever to make a decision even when a delay would be disastrous.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,356
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
proletariat appears to be one of those without any real world experience.

Without presidential leadership our congress is design by multiple committees and we see how that is. Curently no possible compromises. Democrats and republics ms have internal party divisions.

The analogy is trying to hrtd cats.

Pelosi is a good leader but she has not got enough authority to force issues.

It is all about decision making and resolving disputes regardless of system. With us humans it is not easy. The USA from the start was and is an experiment in self rule which right now is failing. Trump wants to n
be a Mussolini and make all decisions and his administration is like his businesses which failed. .Back during OWS someone who said he was connected said the leaders were squabbling over how to send a few hundred dollars in petty cash.

Our state governments tend to work well. More manageable. In Washington we have referendums which become law if there are enough votes. We have them every year.

Our federal system is a good one in principle. The problem is it requires people who are ethical and will do the right thing most of the time. Which is not happening.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

The camel is a poor example of design by committee. A real world example of design by committee is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It became unsuitable for the original intent, was years late, and cost several times its budget.

So, which President are you saying should have designed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? all by himself without any "committee" getting in the way?

Or which one General?

Would you have one person only design all weapons -- every weapons system, every submarine, every jet fighter, etc.? so as to prevent mistakes which might happen by too many cooks in the kitchen? and get them all produced on time within budget?

Let's have an example of something now decided by one person, i.e., by the President, which could not be decided better by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5.

That is really sad. You really don't have a clue how the real world works.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
So, which President are you saying should have designed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle? all by himself without any "committee" getting in the way?

Or which one General?

Would you have one person only design all weapons -- every weapons system, every submarine, every jet fighter, etc.? so as to prevent mistakes which might happen by too many cooks in the kitchen? and get them all produced on time within budget?

Let's have an example of something now decided by one person, i.e., by the President, which could not be decided better by a committee of 3 or 4 or 5.

That is really sad. You really don't have a clue how the real world works.
Or analogies. He's the one that brought up 'designed by committee,' and thought he made a good point. No one else is suggesting that we need a president to design shit.

Maybe he'd do better with a football analogy? Ever see the picture of the football game with the field goal? The one where the ref on one side of the goalpost is signaling that it's good, the other side is signaling a miss? Depends on their perspective.

If the officiating is a committee, with every referee having equal say on every play, then there will be great unrest. Each play will take longer to get everyone's views, for one thing, and it'll be a mess as each one will have the same responsibilities.
In reality, they've developed areas of responsibility. They watch specific things on each play. And there is one guy that makes the final call. It's his job to gather the inputs of the specific officials and make the one decision and the game goes on.
This makes the fans and the players a little more open to a delay on tricky calls, in the hopes that there will be a good call in the end.
But if you've never worked a committee, you may never understand how a committee-officiated game would drag on and on and on, with each call revisited after later plays... Eugh.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,356
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
'design by committee' is a general metaphor for haphazard decision making and uncoordinated efforts in problem solving where leadership is lacking. The opposite is team play with a good coach,

Congress is a prime example of design by committee. With both Republicans and Democrats tax and health care efforts consist of small groups unconnected usual working at cross purpose. No central leadership setting a direction.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I'm pretty sure that congress, the representative branch, was set up to reflect points of view. It was not set up to get things done. Getting things done is the job of the president who was put in charge of the executive the branch assigned to get things done. As Plato described 3600 years ago representative government is the worst form of government for getting things done, yet it is the best form of one for reflecting the will of the people.

So government is outside the frame for showing the values of committees in getting things done. Committees are good because they include more than one mind making them superior to one mind in overall probability that a good solution will result. Single persons always have single perspective which, on average means their solutions will be spotty. So a committee of motivated persons are more likely to result in one mind that has the best solution. It is a committee of individuals. The correct individual is identified to carry out the solution. My examples are Jefferson writing the declaration of independence and madison being the father of the constitution. These were committees of like minded men who found the individual to reflect their intended purpose.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,356
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
I would have to disagree. Human nature and human interactions have not changed since the days of ancient Greece. Differences in technology does not change that. The only change is the number of people in the groups interacting. Where there was once tens or hundreds of thousands in the groups, now there are tens or hundreds of millions in those groups.
 

Jokodo

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
4,617
Location
Riverside City
Basic Beliefs
humanist
The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
I would have to disagree. Human nature and human interactions have not changed since the days of ancient Greece. Differences in technology does not change that. The only change is the number of people in the groups interacting. Where there was once tens or hundreds of thousands in the groups, now there are tens or hundreds of millions in those groups.

Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
I would have to disagree. Human nature and human interactions have not changed since the days of ancient Greece. Differences in technology does not change that. The only change is the number of people in the groups interacting. Where there was once tens or hundreds of thousands in the groups, now there are tens or hundreds of millions in those groups.

Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.
The technology used in interactions has changed but the interactions themselves are still the same. Nations still confront each other with arguments over power, territory, morality, etc. which, if heated enough, lead to wars just as they always have. Just as there is and always has been various agreements for mutual benefit.
 

Jokodo

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
4,617
Location
Riverside City
Basic Beliefs
humanist
Human interactions have changed quite a lot in the last 300 years. Widespread literacy and virtually instantaneous global communication are biggies. When the Bastille fell, people in other parts of Europe would read about it weeks after the fact - that is, the small minority that could even read. Were it too happen today, almost every one can follow commentary by people on both sides of the barricades live on Twitter as it unfolds.

The telegraph and general schooling can not be overestimated in how they've changed interactions.
The technology used in interactions has changed but the interactions themselves are still the same. Nations still confront each other with arguments over power, territory, morality, etc. which, if heated enough, lead to wars just as they always have. Just as there is and always has been various agreements for mutual benefit.

The difference between an instantaneous interaction and one where you wait six weeks for a response is more than a difference in the technology used, it changes the nature of the interaction itself.

Never underestimate the telegraph!
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Part of the job of the American president is to ally fears. Make people feel good enough to believe in tomorrow.

Maybe, but then we don't need him to make decisions. Let him give his speeches and make us feel good. While a committee makes the decisions.


JFK used his charisma to inspire us.

That's OK. But he blew the Bay of Pigs invasion. That should have been left to a committee. Let the President give his inspiring speeches, while a committee makes the decisions.


Hitler used his for personal power.

You're making my point. Had Hitler only given speeches while a committee made the decisions, the outcome would probably have been much better.


Gorbachev credited Ronald Reagan's personality and how he came across with Russia agreeing to the detente. They believed Reagan could be trusted. His American nickname was 'the great communicator'. It was a skill he developed over time. He was paid by GE to travel and make speeches.

A president is essential.

Maybe just to give speeches and radiate good vibes, as you're proving with your examples. But not to make the decisions. A committee would do better.


He or she is supposed to reelect our values to the world. Trump obviously is horrible and has done serious damage international.

A committee would have done better.


Trump's lack of leadership skill is reflected in the lack of action in congress on key issues. He is unable to form a consensus. He does not know how.

A committee would form the needed consensus.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

The short answer is it all depends on the people and situations.

Trump represents the kind of business leader not uncommon up through the late 70s. Arbitrary and autocratic. Makes decisions and others clean it up. Does not take inputs and is surrounded with sycophants. .Henry Ford a prime example.

The technology business cycle became too fast for that kind of management.

When I rowed at Intel project teams generally worked by consensus by design. It worked because the engineers were all motivated and general of like mind. Disputes were generally resolved without management getting involved.

On the other had I worked as a contractor at a technology company. Multiple meetings with much debate and apparent consensus, yet after the meetings no one world take responsibility for actual doing something. There was no leader.

Let the committee make the decision what's to be done. Then appoint the one to do it. Probably one of the committee members, appointed specifically to do what was decided. That's a better system than having one top dog demagogue "president" make the decisions.


People went off and did what they felt like often at cross purpose. No one would take risk and responsibility for enacting a decision. Drove me crazy.

That wouldn't happen if the committee decides exactly what is to be done and appoints one person to do it. Or appoints one person to do this thing and another to do that. Tell each appointee what s/he is to do. Each appointee is responsible to enact what was assigned to him/her.


In an interview the founder of Sun said they they put prole in leadership situations and select the ones who can do it. There was no apparent criteria.

Leadership IMO is a learned skill involving failure. Trump's problem is he has never stood up to his failures.

The tech world in the 80s moved from a top down to a bottom up structure. The saying became do not bring me problems bring me solutions.

The committee should decide the solutions.


Solve problems at the lowest level. Trump represents the opposite. 'I' say what it is and your job is to do it.

A good leader has to be able to delegate and trust.

The committee would do that better than one demagogue president like the system we have now.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
First elected presidents aren't usually charismatic characters, entertainment stars maybe, but charismatic, naw. The top attribute of a president is perception by people she can make decisions in the national interest.

And more often a FALSE perception.

That's part of what "charismatic" means. It's someone who is good at deceiving people, giving them a false perception, making them believe that s/he can make good decisions. Instilling that false impression in people is a big part of what "charismatic" means.

A "president" gets elected by giving good speeches which persuade listeners that s/he has all the answers and is appointed by God to lead our Country to the Promised Land.

It doesn't necessarily mean the charisma of a Martin Luther King or Billy Graham, etc. That kind of charisma has a different function than that of a political candidate charisma. The President/political candidate transmits vibes of being fully in control and strong and powerful and omnipotent. This is a dangerous kind of charisma.

It's the Donald Trump -- Barrack Obama -- Ronald Reagan MESSIAH/HERO kind of charisma to lead us to the Promised Land. A committee is less dramatic, less entertaining, less thrilling. But it would make better decisions, and would not be able to perpetrate the deception of the charismatic speech-maker demagogues we are getting and will get more of.

Charismatic is "exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others". There is nothing to do with deceiving since it is the charmed who embody the word.

"embody the word"?

The charmed are the ones deceived by the leader/demagogue's charm. I.e., those who hear the "brilliant" speeches and are inspired to vote for the speech-maker who is good at lying to them in order to manipulate them to vote for him/her. That's the primary talent of the good speech-maker leader president demagogue. I.e., to manipulate the listeners to vote for him/her, whatever s/he has to say to accomplish this.

And there's no reason to think that those talented at giving such speeches would be good decision-makers. The talent to manipulate masses of voters is a totally different talent than that of making good decisions.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Charismatic is "exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others". There is nothing to do with deceiving since it is the charmed who embody the word.

"embody the word"?

The charmed are the ones deceived by the leader/demagogue's charm. I.e., those who hear the "brilliant" speeches and are inspired to vote for the speech-maker who is good at lying to them in order to manipulate them to vote for him/her. That's the primary talent of the good speech-maker leader president demagogue. I.e., to manipulate the listeners to vote for him/her, whatever s/he has to say to accomplish this.

And there's no reason to think that those talented at giving such speeches would be good decision-makers. The talent to manipulate masses of voters is a totally different talent than that of making good decisions.

There you go. You shift from measurement outcomes of material evidence as explanation to cause and effect for what is seen as explanation.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,356
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The founders could not have foreseen the scope and complexity of today.
I would have to disagree. Human nature and human interactions have not changed since the days of ancient Greece. Differences in technology does not change that. The only change is the number of people in the groups interacting. Where there was once tens or hundreds of thousands in the groups, now there are tens or hundreds of millions in those groups.

Then I would say we have reached the human nature limit of coping with complexity at the federal level. Congress has failed. Congress is too large and the problems too complex for congress to be effective. Beyond human capacity to compromise coupled with the vernal lack of experience solving complex problems. Look at the new progressives, totally inexperienced. Compromise is a learned skill.

The level of foreign and domestic issues occurring simultaneously is beyond the capacity of a democratic process. We all have a limit to capacity to cope.

Jefferson was a pastoralist. He envisioned a nation of gene man farmers.

The speed and complexity of issues is far beyond anything imaginable 200 years ago.

Smaller countries without foreign entanglements like Denmark are functional. China's rabid development was possible only with an authoritarian system. It would be ungovernable by a western style system. They get things done and got could at developing and executing a series of 5 year plans. While they are consuming a lot of coal they are also push solar and wind at the national level. Not possible in our system.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Why do we need a DEMAGOGUE-IN-CHIEF blowhard pundit to "inspire" us? or decide what the "facts" are?

^ ^ ^
Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.

Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?

Short answer people are more comfortable with identifiable characters.

OK, something like that. But the point is: the reason demagogue speech-maker pundits end up having power is not that they're good at making decisions. They are no better at decision-making than the average commoner. Probably even worse than most ordinary persons without charisma. But there are psychological factors which give the demagogue speech-makers a high profile and drive them upward into positions of power where they end up making the important decisions. This makes people more "comfortable" but not better off in terms of getting better performance from the characters put into power.

And the President is the most obvious example of this, of someone who has ability to manipulate people with speeches and thus to seize power and set much of the public policy, even though ordinary people would do just as well. We could just as easily choose someone at random, through drawing lots, and get an equally good or better decision-maker to serve in the highest office.

Or the executive functions would be better performed by a committee than by one person alone whose only superiority is his ability to make speeches and convince voters with his personality, rather than any merit or better talent to make good decisions for society.


I'm sure we all remember Ted Sorensen President Kennedy's speechwriter right? "Ask not ...."

So what grade did you skip to miss the great man theory? I don't think committees inspire peoples.

If you need inspiration from someone, why not just pick your own personal favorite inspirational guru? Why does a vast population need to all choose one guru only to inspire the entire population with one single mystical experience?

Why not instead have one system with good decision-makers as needed to serve the whole population, while at the same time individuals in the population can each choose their own separate gurus to give them inspiration?

Plus, not everyone necessarily needs an entity to "inspire" him/her.


What I remember is leaders like Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon, Caesar, Genghis Khan ... Never a committee unless . . .

That's the point. If instead those decisions had been made by committees rather than by "leaders"/dictators, the results would have been better. In each case a committee would have made better decisions.

. . . unless it's something bad like CABAL which is actually five people or The Central Committee led by Stalin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev ....

Yes, the selection of who serves on the committee is important. It can't be a "Central Committee led by" some dictator who chose the other members of the committee. The committee members have to be separate persons independent of each other, representing separate interests, not chosen by one Party in Power. Maybe they'd each be equal, and any mistakes by one committee member would be corrected by other members.


As for products how about the SR 71 and Kelly Johnson, Nuclear submarine force and Admiral Rickover, Forty minutes over Tokyo and Dolittle ....

It's getting to be like you're entitled to your own facts.

You're not.

That's why we need a committee to make the decisions instead of one "Leader" dictator who makes up his own "facts" and can't be corrected because he has absolute power to impose his "truth" onto everyone else.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
^ ^ ^
Yes. The really, really tough decisions are those needed to resolve some really dire and threatening situation within the constraints of current laws or regulations when it would be easily resolved by ignoring approved procedures or the law. Lower echelons can decide how to resolve problems by following procedures. Going beyond normal approved procedures requires higher authority.

Why can't the higher authority be a committee rather than one demagogue speech-maker pundit whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for him?
A committee of 535 (our House and Senate) demagogue speech maker pundits whose only talent is an ability to manipulate idiots to vote for them take forever to make a decision even when a delay would be disastrous.

"committee" does not mean hundreds, or dozens.

3, 4, 5, 6, 7 members of the committee.

The "committee" would be something like a jury, for a trial to determine guilt or innocence.

But a small jury of 6 would be a closer ideal than 12.

For some crucial emergency decisions it might be necessary for the number to be only 3. Executive power by "committee" is something which would require experimentation to determine what is the appropriate number of members.


How could Executive Power by "committee" ever evolve from our present system?

There's no way this could come about by the Constitutional Amendment process.

What would need to happen is that a presidential candidate would offer to submit to a "committee" system in which he would not choose the other committee members.

And eventually there would be a process for choosing the committee members, with perhaps the elected president being one of them. Probably the "committee" system would evolve slowly over many years.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Short answer people are more comfortable with identifiable characters.

....

That's why we need a committee to make the decisions instead of one "Leader" dictator who makes up his own "facts" and can't be corrected because he has absolute power to impose his "truth" onto everyone else.

Your problem is that you are talking to your talking points rather than responding to my comments. Your above answer was in response to:

As for products how about the SR 71 and Kelly Johnson, Nuclear submarine force and Admiral Rickover, Forty minutes over Tokyo and Dolittle ....

It's getting to be like you're entitled to your own facts.

You're not.

Johnson, Rickover and Dolittle were geniuses and experts in the fields which they shone as well as leaders in those fields.

My point being that often great men become leaders.

That should have lead us to a discussion about how one, by committee, can assure great men are members of committees. You ducked. You even missed my shot about committees being incapable of leading. My comments about the necessity of combining emotional and operational in the job of leading was avoided studiously by you.

Bottom line you miss the fact that humans need inspiration as well as quality decisions to move forward. Committees are incapable of providing both - at least neither of us provided an example of a committee that generated faith and progress in leadership - whilst individuals sometimes do provide both.

My point is not your point. I cited competent persons not charismatic persons as examples. You immediately switched on your charisma blinders and plowed forward. Not good for individuals, lethal for committees. For instance the German hero leading Germany in early thirties was in dotage. So he listened to cautious committees which avoided decisions by finger point. Thus through inactivity lost power to aggressive Hitler. It turns out that quickness of decision usually swamps slower arrived at good decision.

I'll just leave you with a thought shared by my advisor when I was in school leading our team in CCUN in conference held in San Diego in '61: "The UN is a place where good ideas go to die in committee" ... and yes, the students from UCLA as the US paired with students from NYU as the USSR to quashed our petition as students from Central Washington representing Greece claiming from The students from Eastern Michigan as Albania reparations for the of stealing Greece's beautiful children in WWII. Problem still hasn't been resolved in 2019 which should tell you something about how people hold grudges even after the problem becomes moot because there are no remaining persons needing that claim.

Nuff sed.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom