4 ms·

By wishing to assemble "groups of people supremely competent in certain relevant disciplines — investigators, activists, lawyers, lobbyists, policy experts, po

By wishing to assemble "groups of people supremely competent in certain relevant disciplines — investigators, activists, lawyers, lobbyists, policy experts, political strategists, journalists, and publicists — who could combine their efforts and advocate effectively for any issue, big or small", he was showing his desire for the same kind of power Bertrand Russell was discussing in the later quote: "Since power over human beings is shown in making them do what they would rather not do, the man who is actuated by love of power is more apt to inflict pain than to permit pleasure." This is just an early stage of common elite pathology. Aaron was a good kid. They all start out as good kids.

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
> Aaron was a good kid. I'm inclined to agree with everything up to and including this. > They all start out as good kids. ...but I would disagree with this point in particular. Not all.
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  Sounds like you've got a Damien story behind this comment. Would you like to share?
naasking 10y ago
Notice Aaron said "advocate for", and you quoted Russell saying "making them". I think that's a meaningful difference, don't you?
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  With "democracies" and mass-media, it's the same thing.
canadian_voter 10y ago
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” ― Margaret Mead (disputed, but still catchy) What would be your alternative strategy for positive change? Is desire for change a desire for power, and thus corrupting? How is an individual supposed to make their voice heard?
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  If we are all God's children, why would I need to make my voice any louder than anyone else's?
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    ... I think we're working from a different set of assumptions. Edit: To ask "Why should anyone have more power than anyone else?" is missing the point: people clearly DO have different amounts of power in the world. What part in particular of "groups of people supremely competent in certain relevant disciplines — investigators, activists, lawyers, lobbyists, policy experts, political strategists, journalists, and publicists — who could combine their efforts and advocate effectively for any issue, big or small" do you have issue with? Is it that he would be at the head of this group (thus showing his desire for power)? Is it that the group would be made up of experts (and thus presumably elitist?) Is it that people should not form groups and make collective decisions or take collective action? Is it that people shouldn't seek to make change in the world at all, since it's all up to God anyway? Or something else entirely? Please clarify. Thanks! :)
    - jstewartmobile 10y ago
      Look at it from a townie perspective. We all go to the town hall. I say my piece. You say yours. The people decide. If they choose right, great. If they choose wrong, also great. When you start getting into increasingly leveraged situations, that's where it all goes wrong. There's the momentum problem (people mobilized for a once-noble cause carry on long after it ceases to be noble). There's the advocacy problem (right-or-wrong you have to present your side as strongly as possible because it's an adversarial system--no room for compromise or subtlety). And of course there's good old demagoguery where the alpha-dog rides rough-shod over everything else. All of this evolves into a mono-culture problem where they're all reasoning from bogus premises they re-enforce among themselves. Anything that exacerbates the problem of one man having more than one voice is not a step in the right direction.
      - 10y ago

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago

> Aaron was a good kid. I'm inclined to agree with everything up to and including this. > They all start out as good kids. ...but I would disagree with this point in particular. Not all.

jstewartmobile 10y ago
Sounds like you've got a Damien story behind this comment. Would you like to share?

naasking 10y ago

Notice Aaron said "advocate for", and you quoted Russell saying "making them". I think that's a meaningful difference, don't you?

jstewartmobile 10y ago
With "democracies" and mass-media, it's the same thing.

canadian_voter 10y ago

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” ― Margaret Mead (disputed, but still catchy) What would be your alternative strategy for positive change? Is desire for change a desire for power, and thus corrupting? How is an individual supposed to make their voice heard?

jstewartmobile 10y ago
If we are all God's children, why would I need to make my voice any louder than anyone else's?
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  ... I think we're working from a different set of assumptions. Edit: To ask "Why should anyone have more power than anyone else?" is missing the point: people clearly DO have different amounts of power in the world. What part in particular of "groups of people supremely competent in certain relevant disciplines — investigators, activists, lawyers, lobbyists, policy experts, political strategists, journalists, and publicists — who could combine their efforts and advocate effectively for any issue, big or small" do you have issue with? Is it that he would be at the head of this group (thus showing his desire for power)? Is it that the group would be made up of experts (and thus presumably elitist?) Is it that people should not form groups and make collective decisions or take collective action? Is it that people shouldn't seek to make change in the world at all, since it's all up to God anyway? Or something else entirely? Please clarify. Thanks! :)
  - jstewartmobile 10y ago
    Look at it from a townie perspective. We all go to the town hall. I say my piece. You say yours. The people decide. If they choose right, great. If they choose wrong, also great. When you start getting into increasingly leveraged situations, that's where it all goes wrong. There's the momentum problem (people mobilized for a once-noble cause carry on long after it ceases to be noble). There's the advocacy problem (right-or-wrong you have to present your side as strongly as possible because it's an adversarial system--no room for compromise or subtlety). And of course there's good old demagoguery where the alpha-dog rides rough-shod over everything else. All of this evolves into a mono-culture problem where they're all reasoning from bogus premises they re-enforce among themselves. Anything that exacerbates the problem of one man having more than one voice is not a step in the right direction.
    - 10y ago