5 ms·
Those with an intellectual and/or engineering bent (myself included) often make the mistake of assuming people can be purely rational. If people were purely rat
by _bxg1 8y ago
Those with an intellectual and/or engineering bent (myself included) often make the mistake of assuming people can be purely rational. If people were purely rational, you might be able to make a case for this type of benevolent authoritarianism. But every human is always flawed, power corrupts, etc. Despite all its problems, some form of democracy is the only (known) way to truly hold those in charge accountable when they inevitably become corrupt.
- quacked 8y agoI think you could achieve it with a slightly less intense qualifier than "purely rational", actually- if people were more in tune with coordination problems and more willing to make a personal sacrifice on behalf of cooperation, democracy could work. This has implications all over the place- like someone deciding not to throw a tantrum at an airport counter because they didn't understand what "standby" tickets are, or someone deciding not to commit financial fraud because it makes the system a little more unfair and wasteful (instead of not committing financial fraud because they're worried about getting caught).
- _bxg1 8y ago"more willing to make a personal sacrifice on behalf of cooperation" The problem is that a lack of checks and balances means a single bad egg is all it takes. It doesn't just take some people being good people - or even most - it takes everyone being a good person to make that work. Humans as a species just aren't like that.
- quacked 8y agoRight. As soon as one person can gain an advantage by sacrificing a common value, that becomes the new default, and anyone that doesn't try to get in on it gets outcompeted.