Is it time to consider professional administrators to run our countries?

Wait so let me get this straight. You want to train responsible people to lead the country? So whats to stop the inevitable corruption with these people? This sounds like a rosy idea in practice, but how many people are going to put the benefits of the many over the few or themselves?

Instead of this money sink (and believe me it would be a huge one) how about something more practical like term limits in congress? Or making it so that a candidate running for office can only use XXX amount of money to run? I feel like either of these two solutions would be far more effective and less costly.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


no. Absolutely not.

You are REALLY going to have to take the country from us by force. It will not be as easy as asking. Words can not express what I want to say right now, since they would violate the T&C and come close to threatening. Almost EVERYONE will fight. That is how stressed you have us with our leaders and their world.

Absolutely not.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Would you elect and trust your peers to decide who performs surgery on you?

Yet you are happy to elect and trust your peers to decide who makes decisions at a country level.

Today, I accept there are very few people who I believe could run our countries for the great good. Please do not judge everyone by our own standards or the standards of leadership expressed today.
There are people who can rule for the great good and we need to start training and maybe we should consider a controlled breeding program to get this social trait.

And why would professional administrators be any more of a money sink that the current system, would many of us continue to vote for. I do agreed that there should be term limits. I find it odd that in the US, there are term limits of the president but not in congress.

No I actually want to see councils of citizens, half men and half women, for each elected position, and don't want anyone in that has any ties to elitism or law, or masonry, or any official bloodlines of any kind, and want to see nurses, teachers, day care workers, alot of children and service oriented caring types of people, only. Consensus. And I don't think party politics matters, so not really interested in the great divide of parties.

I would especially ensure that a certain percentage went to first nation people and the homeless.

I denounce and renounce any other hellzone type of system.

Equality and Freedom and a Voice to the Needy. And would rather see homeless in than the evil psychos and ego based professionals, they're all sold out to darth vader.

Its all about, the Power of Love

versus

the Love of Power!

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


By your post, you must be happy with the current system. Please read the whole thread. Where have I or any of the other posters mentioned taking the countries from their people by force. I and other posters have been discussing how we integrate the views of the people with the professional administration.

reply to post by Unity_99


I see a lot of merit in what you suggest but who executes/enacts the decisions of the citizen councils, someone needs to administer, and that is what my thread is about. Nothing I have posted is about how decisions are made.

In so many walks of life, we want to deal with a trained professional, but we leave the running of our countries to elected amateurs!

reply to post by Freedom ERP

Because people are easily corrupted. I don't have to look at today's leadership to know that. It has happened throughout history. It lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire. These people that you are suggesting to oversee our government won't be immune to the temptations of power, money, and their own ego. Then you suggest a breeding program. That can only lead to these people having tremendous egos and feeling like they are a higher class citizen then the rest of us. How long til politicians are paying tributes to these guys so that they can push their bill into law?

I'm sorry but no amount of training can guard against the temptations of corruption. Look at the Catholic church. It teaches piousness and self-sacrifice yet the clergy was corrupt to the core during the middle ages and one can even argue that they are still corrupt with the relocating of priests implicated in child molestation.

So when I say that this idea of yours would be a huge money sink, I'm serious. Because it will cost money to research how to train these people, training these people, paying their salaries, etc. And we all know how well the Government chooses to spend its money, I guarantee that the payment plan they choose to fund this little project won't be the cheapest or the most fiscally responsible one possible. Your idea sounds good in theory, but I fail to see it being an effective rule of law. In fact I can see it causing us to further become an oligarchy.

reply to post by Carreau


The EU has done this very thing in Italy and Greece - they have appointed 'managers' who were unelected as the Primeministers of these two supposedly sovereign countries.

So you can watch this idea in action as we speak !!!!

The EU loves bureaucrats and 'managers' - they tow the 'company' line .... no need for elections

Here is a link to an article by a well respected journalist and MEP Daniel Hannan that explains it:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by HelenConway


You may have read some or all of the posts in this thread, but I fear you have failed to comprehend what I am suggesting.

The EU has not appointed professional administrators for Italy and Greece, but put in one of their own to run these countries on their behalf and for the good of Germany.

I have suggested and will continue to post that professional administrators are just part of the executive, and if you have read all the posts in this thread, you will see that there have been discussions about how we marry these professional administrators with the views of the people.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

There is definitely a problem with the "democracy" practiced in our republic. Corruption runs amok in our elected officials at all levels allowing special interests to "buy" legislation that is often contrary to the best interests of the interests of the citizens collectively (ie tobacco and big pharma lobbies). The problem with "professional administrators" that area not accountable to the electorate is that the administrators in Russia, China and North Korea consider themselves "professional" as well. Obviously the answer lies somewhere between the two poles.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Not all people are corruptible, so please have more faith in your fellow humans, and history is just that. History.

The professional administrators will run the country, making decisions that we today “trust” to elected amateurs, in consultation with citizen committees. Of course, there needs to be rigorous checks and balances, which we allegedly have today.

Any administration will cost money, but I can not see this cost costing any more than the current costs of running the US or the UK administration, and maybe we can use this new concept for running our countries as a test bed for the whole concern.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


Hi Freedom - I understood what you were saying, the point I am making is that, until we evolve as a species, greed, ego and competition will always mean that any ' manager' will have special interest masters, be that the EU or a political party or just favours garnered from those close.

I wish politicians and the governing elite ' ruled' for the benefit of all their countrymen but they don't and even if they were non political they would be corrupt.. it is the way of men [ as in men and women] who aspire to these positions .. IMO of course.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


BTW the professional administrators in Britain were called the civil service, until Tony Blair politicised them .. and got rid of them in favour of special advisors, who are political, young and PPE graduates.

I think all that would need to be done is abolish the central banking act. Ban lobbying.
Make all news stations public and all reporters sworn in under oath. Legalize all drugs (let the market decide
If people think they are bad) No more private schools, pay teachers double and make the job
Higher in esteem. No more private Big pharm companies. No more processed foods or growth accelerants.
No income tax (everything is a write off except what you have not spent by years end) more interest and esteem for
Our seniours. Campaign ONLY with an equal amount of public dollars. No more stock market and no more corporations.

Most importantly, and yes this is covered with no more corporations but more directley... No more Banks not owned by
The public. Distribution of currency is where everything starts.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


And how do you find these uncorruptable people? Because if you could figure out a reliable way to do so I'm sure you'll win the nobel prize. How do you figure this will cost the same as now? You are increasing the size of the people in charge of the government. What world do you live in that when government increases in size it doesn't cost more money?

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Freedom ERP

 

And how do you find these uncorruptable people? Because if you could figure out a reliable way to do so I'm sure you'll win the nobel prize. How do you figure this will cost the same as now? You are increasing the size of the people in charge of the government. What world do you live in that when government increases in size it doesn't cost more money?

How about picking COOL people for once. Every politician that i see seems like the type was not very popular in high school. Picking someone that is naturally popular would rule out a lot of corruption. Money makes up for no friends (what if he/she already has lots) Sex makes up for the fact that your ugly (what if the leader never had any issue getting a woman into bed) cant bribe a guy with sex if he's had plenty. and then there is POWER, if you have always been able to influence others with your natural popularity then power isn't big on the want list. All a popular person wants is to stay popular.

All we have today are a bunch of geeks that scramble to acquire power that they never new how to deal with growing up and money to make up for the fact that they are lonely and nobody cares about them. Except Dick Chenney... that guys a rock star! And George W, it's not his fault Americans were too stupid to see he was lying to you, he didn't even try hard. It seemed like he was always a little shocked that the public bought anything he said

reply to post by Krazysh0t


An issue that has vexed me, and I would suggest looking in our local communities first for those who serve the community, and put those needs above their own. There are one or two people in my local community who I might consider.

This idea is not to increase the size of Government and if we have professional administers, we will not need to have the current system of MPs and the costs associated, and this cost can be spend on the citizen committees and to start research on getting the right people.