[liberallarry]

Well, if the "first 500 names in the Cambridge phone book" or 500 people chosen at random, are more capable of running the country than those chosen by present methods (which invariably include a strong record of success in difficult endeavors involving intelligence) then they are certainly good enough to run large corporations. Why then do stockholders waste all that money on CEOs and other expensive officers?

Also, slaughters by mindless mobs are common as dirt in human history. When they're led by intelligent people they just do a better job of it.

[js1138]

The specific issue was whether I would rather be led by 500 people at random, or the faculty of harvard (or any other Ivy League university). My response remains the same. Political leaders do not need to be geniuses or technicians. As Henry Ford said, these kinds of people can be hired.

What is necessary in a leader is a good heart and common sense. Any group of university plutocrats is going to be dominated by overly ambitious, self-important back biters. I six years of college, I met perhaps three professors that I would support for political office.

[js1138]

But back to the issue of being led by smart people vs being led by dumb people. I would, in fact, rather be led by the first 500 members of the Chamber of Commerce than either people at random or university professors. Given a choice between thinkers and doers (of similar IQ), I prefer the company of people who make things.