In all of our economic and societal woes, the people who frighten me the most are those declaring that "we need a strong leader." It was that kind of thinking that brought Adolph Hitler to power. These people forget that humanity's experience with strong leaders is what led to us learn that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The LAST thing we need is a "strong leader!!"
What we need is a responsible population. A population of citizens who will each take on a share of self governance so as to keep power in the hands of "the people".
The phrase, "of the people, by the people, for the people" has no meaning when governance is placed in the hands of an elite.
Good citizenship includes every citizen accepting some of the work involved in managing a society. Power must be spread horizontally not concentrated vertically. So long as we allow that self aggrandizing pyramid of power to exist is how long we'll keep getting shat upon by the elite who are "above" we the people.
How long does it take us to learn that the members of such "governments" ALWAYS use their power to their own advantage and NEVER to the advantage of those governed? Surely by now we have enough experience of such misuse of power that we should know, beyond any doubt, that such a pyramid of power does NOT work to our advantage. It never has and it is unlikely that it ever could. It is not designed for that purpose.
It's high time we designed a system of self governance that works for us - ALL of us - not just an elite few.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Spike The Chicken
older/exasperated
hyblaean- Julie
Poor Woman
CynMaRose
SpiritManSF
Salon.com
Comments
:-( / r
but i'm not holding my breath waiting for "a responsible population"
a weak leader and an irresponsible population sounds untenable.
how about a wise and principled leader? strength from knowledge?
I'm not at all so sure that it will take so long to come. It likely will, but there is no certainty of that.
b a,
The world has seen many a "wise and principled leader". Then the Law of Power takes over and ALWAYS corrupts. Always.
The nearest we, the human race, has ever seen of a leader who is not easily corrupted by power is the Dalai Lama and he is trained from a very young age to his position. Yet even he, in his own estimation, has been corrupted by his power.
I think that if we once emptied that pyramid of power we'd find that people will indeed fill the vacuum left. We have the example of the pioneers who went out west where there was no such thing and handled things themselves quite nicely until the military moved in and established "law and order" then turned it over to civilian "authorities."
Deeply buried in history are the peoples who lived without a "government" in many parts of the world. Governments have copied religion in claiming that "all people everywhere in all times have has some form of government." It simply is not true. If you read of the early contact by Europeans with the Hawaiian people you'll see that they had no such thing. It was Europeans who insisted on them having one so that they could negotiate "treaties" and "agreements" with them and cheat them to the nth degree by doing so. When Hawaiians saw no need for such, the Europeans designated a highly respected elder as Queen, then pressured her into accepting such treaties as binding upon her fellow Hawaiians.
This mirrors what happened with a lot of peoples in that part of the world, as well as with Hawaii.
.
What is this incredible "need" you (and many others also) have for being "led"?!!! Are you all sheep? Followers? Children?
Can no one take responsibility for their society-as-part-of-their-own-self in this life?
If not then follow your Gengis Khan, your Hitler, your Stalin, your Dubya. Follow them until they sacrifice you on their altar of self aggrandizement and power. You deserve what you get when you do this. Put away your tears of self pity. Sheep don't get to choose the path they'll travel; nor when they'll be shorn. Nor when they'll be on the menu.
Have you not learned yet that in life that you cannot have it both ways? You can't abdicate your responsibilities to another (real or illusionary) and benefit from doing so.
(* I don't mean to sound miserable. I'm just frustrated that so many want a free ride to good governance and won't lift a hand to take the responsibility of governing themselves.*)
.
*Sigh* indeed!
One would think that in America - that supposed bastion of individualism and personal independence, one would have an easy time encouraging personal responsibility to oneself and one's social duties.
Not so it seems. The sheeple demand to be sheeple and will accept masters of any stripe so long as they're never asked to be more than sheeple.
It is to weep.......
.
And besides, we all shot all the true leaders.
Do you suppose that it's barely possible that I might have had this thought on my own? Without "quoting" it from anywhere? That others too might have had this, or a similar thought? Some of whom could have lived a long, long time ago?
Would it surprise you to know that I think there is much wisdom in the major holy books of the main religions of the world? Oh, not the silly god stuff; I mean the parts that reflect the experience and wisdom developed by many different peoples the world over as they lived their lives and gained experience.
Yeah, I know that religion likes to claim to be the source of all 'good' but that's just another foolish lie. All of us, religious or not, can and do agree on certain general and specific things. For instance, "Thou shalt not steal" makes much sense to all people everywhere; including atheists like me. It takes no great leap of the imagination to envision people who have lived under a king finding out that this isn't such a bed of roses. Even people who lived in old testament times.
;-)
.
Society is subject to an endless barrage of marketing on political issues as well as consumer. Outlaw marketing and ads and maybe the voters will have to do some thinking.
Thanks for you cogent comment!
Most of us have no trouble at all in declaring what we DON'T want in a government. It is a little more helpful if one also includes what one DOES expect of one.
Suppose you were going to design a system that works better than our present one: How would it look? What are the problems your design would encounter? How would you solve those problems? How would you keep it "democratic" yet not be "rule by referendum"?
I'd be very interested in your opinions on this......
;-)
.
However, when the dust settles the 'spooks' will make way for the businessmen to trade with whatever replaces the current dictatorships. Shit Evolves.
At last!!
I thought no one was EVER going to catch on.
;-)
Creek,
They're trying WHAT in the middle east? They've designed and implemented a system that replaces the usual pyramid of power with one of horizontal shared social responsibility? New to me!
;-)
For example, during the recent Costa Concordia ship disaster in Italy, the Captain fled the sinking ship on a lifeboat, leaving the panicked, unorganized crew and panicking passengers to fend for themselves.
Had the Captain stayed behind to manage, organize and control the emergency situation, as he was trained to do, and not flee like a coward, there is a good chance fewer people would have died.
Those who say "strong leadership" isn't needed don't live in the real world.
It may come as some surprise to you but I was speaking of political leadership. Obviously you and I both could write up a long list of other situations in which leadership would be required. How could you possibly have misunderstood my intent to this degree?
Your use of that poor sad excuse for a captain was unfortunate for he is an excellent example of why "leaders" cannot ever be relied upon to have the interests of the public in mind. Sometimes they panic, sometimes they get in a funk, sometimes their intentions are not what we are led to believe, and sometimes they are just in it for the money. At least with shared responsibility, others can see what one is doing and offer aid or assistance when necessary. There is no secret agenda; there are only people doing their best to fulfill their duty to their society.
.
You need leaders, even in politics. Big leaders and small leaders. But you can't rely on all the people to collectively act in unison like the Borg all the time. Even ants have a queen (and special pheremones to make them go after the right bread crumb trail)
"Do not lead - I'll not follow"
"Do not follow - I'll not lead"
"Walk beside me as my equal"
"I obey no master"
"I ask no obedience of another"
"If I cannot live as a free man, I'll die as one"
"I'll not give you freedom, for what I give I can also take away"
"But I'll give my life to help you take your freedom for yourself."
These are words I live by.....
To do this we increased the sale of munitions worldwide .
Case in point:- we sold Churchill Tanks to Iran who were loosing at that point knowing Iraq would capture them. We then negotiated a repair contract with another good friend , SadMan Hussein to repair and replace the cannons on his newly acquired Tanks.
Not very horizontal and just released secret documentation under our Freedom of Info Act.
A horizontal system of governing an economy and socially will never be achieved in my lifetime if ever. No profit.
The perfidy of government/industry that you outline is a perfect example of how a pyramidal social/economic/political structure, under a strong leader (or a weak one) is a failure and why a horizontal structure is clearly needed if we are ever to progress out of the stage of being mere warrior tribes - cavemen with A-bombs - and seek to rise to our full potential as human beings.
It is fairly common knowledge that our present way of doing things is going to lead us to the edge of extinction, if not over that edge. If our species is to survive it is time for us to look for a better way of doing things.
What I suggest may or may not be viable. The whole point of me making such suggestions is to indicate that things need not stay "as they've always been"; that we CAN devise other ways of doing things. Ways that will suit us much better, in the long run, than the way we presently suffer under.
Unfortunately our present systems have made the majority of the populations of all major nations, who influence the rest of the world with their decisions, into sheep who can see no way to better their situation than to whine and bleat to "those in power" of their dissatisfaction and desire for "something to be done." They are thoroughly indoctrinated with the concept of "following a leader" rather than of personal social responsibility accepted gladly by free men who see benefit to co-operation rather than conflict.
This means that you are perfectly correct in your assessment that change will not likely happen soon. It also points up your own indoctrination in that you appear to dismiss any concept that "......will never be achieved in my lifetime........". Such short term thinking gave us our present situation. It will continue to do so. We might be well served if we were to begin to think in terms of centuries instead of years.
.
So no leaders, of any kind, in government? Not even a judge in court? Not even a prosecutor, or an attorney? Just juries? Who decides who gets to be on a jury?
And in terms of government, you mean you would abolish the House, the Senate and the Presidency and just have something like pure the pure collective will, like the anarchy we experience on the internet, dictate the public policy of major nations?
So for you it's either a "leader/follower" society or "pure anarchy"?
Your thinking is very narrow, my friend. Believe it or not, there ARE other options. Let us not forget the adjective I used in the title of this blog; "strong". Any leader designated as being "strong" is usually one who uses his position to impose his will upon the population. He will often happily use any means, fair or foul, to do so.
There is much difference between this type of leader and other types of leader.
As to anarchy; you might look into the actual philosophy of anarchy rather than accept the modern interpretation of it as "chaos" and/or managing all aspects of a society by full consensus. Anarchists were among the first in all of the "civilized world" of the day, to openly advocate the abolition of slavery. They were also first in calling for the emancipation of women. Some died for those advocacies. Today's anarchists are among the strongest supporters of full equal rights for all people.
The definition of anarchy, imposed by those who hate the idea of themselves not having "power" to govern, is wrong. They've gone so far as to even change the dictionary meaning of anarchy. Don't get me wrong here; I do not advocate anarchy. Yet I don't dismiss it out of hand as having nothing to contribute to human social advancement.
And please stop trying to put words into my mouth. What I "mean" is what I said.... NOT what you keep trying to say that I said. Your puerile attempts at a "straw man" argument are not appreciated.
.
Anyway, back to topic. I honestly believe that some people and it can be individuals or even nations need firm leadership. I recently entertained over one hundred German businessmen who were individuals around the tables but had group leaders who ordered them using a whistle to rise and clap and get their collective arses onto the two coaches to go home.
They seem to love it but it scared the crap out of some of the other nationalities that businessmen from competing companies could be herded in such a disciplinary manner.
Efficient though.
I see where you are coming with your argument(s) on this post and respect them. Somehow though I can't see it happening in anything other than small groups within a capitalist or communist state. As opposed to another commenter it would be the opposite of anarchy.
As I said to you above.....
""""It also points up your own indoctrination in that you appear to dismiss any concept that "......will never be achieved in my lifetime........". Such short term thinking gave us our present situation. It will continue to do so. We might be well served if we were to begin to think in terms of centuries instead of years."""
Let me ask you a question: "Is the world you will leave behind when you die a better one than the one you were born into, or not?"
If it isn't then our generation has failed ALL of our progeny for all generations to come. Can you break free of the ME, ME, & NOW, NOW mind set that you've been indoctrinated with in our present society? No?
If YOU can't think in longer terms, I weep for the rest of mankind!
.
YOU could never live long enough to "sort the world out". But you CAN put one little brick in place during your time here. If each of us does that, then in time we'll have rebuilt the world.
.
,