Keith I agree with you, but would add that I don't believe our historical ability to most effectively work in small teams need constrain us - if we properly understand the concept of subsidiarity. Over the centuries some things have become so big and important that they do need to be delegated upwards and dealt with by the brightest and the best - but this is a relatively small number of things (much less than what our current political leaders want to delegate to themselves) and most of them are long term issues which can stand a little committee time.
Subsidiarity is one of my favourite concepts, and much under appreciated. -- Charles Brass mobile 0409 198 738 Quoting Keith Hudson <[email protected]>: > Ed, > > OK, here goes. > > I am totally persuaded from a mass of anthropological evidence that humans > live, work and make decisions best in groups of no more than about ten or > adult individuals. For various ergonomic and environmental reasons this is > how we had to spend at least 100,000 years of our existence on fairly open > savannahs and our genes have shaped our behaviours accordingly. This is the > size of football teams, terrorist cells, army platoons and special squads. > Boards of directors, inner cabinets, royal commissions, special committees > (as in our House of Commons), are rarely larger. And it is this size of > opinion-making, decision-taking body that I am pretty sure takes place at > the top of governments when important decisions have to be taken on this or > that. > > However, there can be several groups of this size at any one time, > depending on the number of particular problems and issues that happen to > have landed on the government plate. Undoubtedly a smaller number of > individuals immediately around the leader -- one or two key civil servants, > one or two influential public individuals, one or two personal friends > perhaps -- form a pivotal group that, in turn, creates the other more > specialized groups and remains key decision-making members of them. > > Whatever the constitutional complexion of the government -- whether a > dictatorship, a bureaucracy or a so-called democracy -- I'm sure that a > similar pattern exists in all of them. It's a moving feast with only a > passing resemblance to what might be expected if you were to draw an > organizational chart of the government or describe it formally in a text > book. > > If you like, it's hunter-gathering all over again -- but then I don't think > we've ever left them. They're always there -- sycophants or independants -- > at the very top in all organisations immediately around the leader. > > Keith > > > > > At 10:18 29/10/2009 -0400, you wrote: > >I posted the following a few days ago and got no response. I'm posting > >again because I think the question I raise at the end of the original > >posting is an important one. > > > >Ed > >We tend to see societies like Canada and the US as liberal and democratic > >and responsive to the general public. But is that how they really operate? > >Are political parties really open and responsive to the public at large or > >are they corporate entities doing what they have to in order to promote > >themselves in seeking and maintaining power? Do they really hold the > >interests of the public as primary or do they largely behave in their > >self-interest? When they show themselves to the public, are they showing > >their true and honest selves, or are they behaving like soap adds on TV? > >Hey, look, there's Harper playing piano and singing a Beatles' song at the > >NAC. Gee, he's a nice open guy after all, not someone who's closeted away > >from scrutiny at the PMO. IMHO, it's no better than selling soap. > > > >And one also has to think about the complex linkages that exist between the > >political and corporate sectors. Lobbying, getting the political sector to > >do what the corporate sector wants, has become a major industry -- invisible > >to the public but enormously powerful. Consider health care reform in the > >US, beneficial to the general public but potentially very harmful to the > >health insurance industry. So send in the lobbyists to make sure it doesn't > >emerge as something that threatens corporate power and profitability and > >doesn't do much for the public either. > > > >Who really governs us? And what really is ethical behaviour when it comes > >to government and the corporate sector? > > > >I think the question is particularly relevant in light of the recent > >invasion of the House of Commons by young people who were very concerned > >about the lack of a firm government stance on what to do about climate > >change. Given that the December conference on this issue and the > >government doing little more than politely trading insults with the > >opposition during question period, were the kids right in invading the > >sacred space of the politicians? I tend to think they were. How else > >could they get their point across? While the politicians regard the House > >of Commons as sacredly theirs, who really does it belong to? Might not > >arrangements be made to let members of the public in to make their case > >directly instead of making them have to shout from the gallery and be > >dragged out? > > > >And I know the committee system exists, but it too tends to slow, > >cumbersome and exclusive, used most often to shed darkness instead of light. > > > >Ed encore > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Futurework mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, > <<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020/>www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1906557020/>/>, > <www.handlo.com> _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
