This evening in our colloquium magnum we had a dicussion on an essay of Michael Oakeshott.
Michael Oakeshott was an English philosopher and political theorist who wrote about philosophy of history, philosophy of religion, aesthetics, and philosophy of law. He is widely regarded as one of the most important conservative thinkers of the 20th century.
[links left in to define these circle of thought]
Overall, his methods of thinking concern me, but everyone has a different set of preconcieved notions that bias our views, and cover our lens in which we interact and observe the world. His notions were to limit the influence of governeance. That oversight came from a third and objective party. That this apparently omni-present party would judge and mediate conflict rather than have any direct influence in preventing a problem.
As leaders we need to realize that situations are predictable and therefore preventable. That fires should be put out before they become an inferno.
He also believed that events, and happenings should only come to fruition by organic means. This meaning the realm of governance is very limited and constrained. However, this can be seen as allowing innovation to be created from private citizens. These citizen would then have a vested interest in proposed ideas, making these happening more successful.
I personally believe that this is somewhat narrow-minded, although not completely false. When a person believes in a cause they are more motivated, but it is less likely for something to occurs in the first place as individuals as resistant to change and uncertainty, clinging to tradition and familiarity.
Just something to think about. How should people govern people?