I appreciate what you are saying Gene. Politicans are not integrous. Hawkins says the same thing. Interestingly, he suggests a solution in his book TRUTH VS. FALSEHOOD - a solution that dates back to Greek times. He recognizes that politicians are unable to be integrous. He suggests that a "confluence of wise, seasoned, experienced, brilliant, accomplished, balanced, proven, gracious, sagacious, educated, good-will statemen (cal.430) rather than politicians (cal.190) be added to governmental structures. They would be mentor, advisor, mature, objective, well-rounded, well-spoken, successful, top level, self-fulfilled, and beyond the desire for gain, whether personal, political, or financial. This is the level of high-calibration experts of their own domains who are beyond neediness and who serve others by simply being who they are and feeling fulfilled by offering and sharing their wisdom." pp. 353-354 I know this sounds pie-in-the-sky - however, if it were attempted in one jurisdiction it could spread to others. With such a structure, war and totalitarianism would be avoidable. The question is where to find such individuals with a willingness to learn how to tell truth from falsehood using a proven method recently discovered by Hawkins himself.
Thanks Frances. There are many possibilities that could be considered to bring a balance of responsibility between the individual and the state. Your suggestion are welcome.
I hope that you will read my book when I finally get it on Kindle. (Feb 17?). It offers my preferred approach to establishing that balance.
And just how does Hawkins suggest these "integrous" individuals be selected and added to the government. And given the existing government censorship, will they be free to speak their mind without being attacked by the left wing?
Hi Jim. This is something that would need to be created. Honestly, I love the suggestion by Dr. Hawkins. I think one needs to start small in a jurisdiction that is open and ready. The challenge is to not only identify the people who have the skill that Dr. Hawkins teaches for distinguishing truth from falsehood and determining calibration levels, but also whether those individuals would be open to being on an advisory team. I know there are many people who have attended Hawkin's lectures and may be in a position to take on such a role. One would need to do some research.
I see a few problems, even in a small province or even a city.
First, I would think each minister (or department) would need their own (small?) group of integrous individuals. I would hope that most of them would be individuals who understand there are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs. Would they be able to predict the unintended consequences of a particular regulation. Given all the attributes you specified, I would be surprised if they did not believe in the philosophy of none-interference in the lives of individuals, i.e. individual freedom and free speech. That force should only be used by individuals and organizations to protect life, liberty and property. would your "integrous" individuals make an exception for government?
Most good parents teach their children not to hurt other kids, or steal their stuff, in order to get along in society.
I appreciate what you are saying Gene. Politicans are not integrous. Hawkins says the same thing. Interestingly, he suggests a solution in his book TRUTH VS. FALSEHOOD - a solution that dates back to Greek times. He recognizes that politicians are unable to be integrous. He suggests that a "confluence of wise, seasoned, experienced, brilliant, accomplished, balanced, proven, gracious, sagacious, educated, good-will statemen (cal.430) rather than politicians (cal.190) be added to governmental structures. They would be mentor, advisor, mature, objective, well-rounded, well-spoken, successful, top level, self-fulfilled, and beyond the desire for gain, whether personal, political, or financial. This is the level of high-calibration experts of their own domains who are beyond neediness and who serve others by simply being who they are and feeling fulfilled by offering and sharing their wisdom." pp. 353-354 I know this sounds pie-in-the-sky - however, if it were attempted in one jurisdiction it could spread to others. With such a structure, war and totalitarianism would be avoidable. The question is where to find such individuals with a willingness to learn how to tell truth from falsehood using a proven method recently discovered by Hawkins himself.
Thanks Frances. There are many possibilities that could be considered to bring a balance of responsibility between the individual and the state. Your suggestion are welcome.
I hope that you will read my book when I finally get it on Kindle. (Feb 17?). It offers my preferred approach to establishing that balance.
And just how does Hawkins suggest these "integrous" individuals be selected and added to the government. And given the existing government censorship, will they be free to speak their mind without being attacked by the left wing?
Hi Jim. This is something that would need to be created. Honestly, I love the suggestion by Dr. Hawkins. I think one needs to start small in a jurisdiction that is open and ready. The challenge is to not only identify the people who have the skill that Dr. Hawkins teaches for distinguishing truth from falsehood and determining calibration levels, but also whether those individuals would be open to being on an advisory team. I know there are many people who have attended Hawkin's lectures and may be in a position to take on such a role. One would need to do some research.
I see a few problems, even in a small province or even a city.
First, I would think each minister (or department) would need their own (small?) group of integrous individuals. I would hope that most of them would be individuals who understand there are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs. Would they be able to predict the unintended consequences of a particular regulation. Given all the attributes you specified, I would be surprised if they did not believe in the philosophy of none-interference in the lives of individuals, i.e. individual freedom and free speech. That force should only be used by individuals and organizations to protect life, liberty and property. would your "integrous" individuals make an exception for government?
Most good parents teach their children not to hurt other kids, or steal their stuff, in order to get along in society.