3 ms·
At what thing would people who govern be competent at to be considered competent? For any regular readers of the Financial Times, the irony of quoting Simon Ku
by motohagiography 8y ago
At what thing would people who govern be competent at to be considered competent?
For any regular readers of the Financial Times, the irony of quoting Simon Kuper in an appeal to competence is surely a bit rich, given his open, haughty, contempt for people who make their livings working at jobs that require physical competence to create value, vs. sustaining cognitive dissonance to achieve political ends.
But the question of what would "qualify," someone for governance is a useful one. Arguably, the bar for representing the interests of a constituency is very low, but mere democratic election does not provide enough confidence to legitimize the pervasive powers of social intervention representatives and modern public employees grant themselves. It's not clear what would confer legitimacy on these new technologically enhanced powers, but it's becoming evident that a ballot is decreasingly sufficient.
- chuckgreenman 8y agoI really like this comment, because I think it gets to the root of the problem. People on Hacker News would probably be happy with an engineer, systems thinker turned politician. That's probably because all of the smart people that we know and interact with regularly are engineers and systematic thinkers. What ever the Business version of Hacker News would probably want someone with a business or economic background. Ditto for medical professionals, artists, etc. What seems clear is that the only bar for being elected is some amount of charisma. Barring that, just stoke fear in your chosen party's base.
- AstralStorm 8y agoSystems thinking is a thing. Choosing and finding other competent people for executives and advisors is even more important. Unfortunately most people cannot gauge competence in areas they are not themselves competent in, falling back on charisma. It is an extremely hard skill to learn and train. Additionally, having stones enough to ignore personal affinities, and just the right level of distrust. Essentially being the ultimate in HR and headhunting is good enough.