3 ms·

> Or to find a way of life that doesn't include "people at the top" as the primary decision making apparatus. How exactly does that work? “Mr. President, a for

> Or to find a way of life that doesn't include "people at the top" as the primary decision making apparatus. How exactly does that work? “Mr. President, a foreign nuclear submarine just surfaced off the coast of Florida. They are not responding to our hails and their launch tubes are open. What do we do?” “Well we need to have a referendum and ask everyone, regardless of training, intelligence, and with no clearance or access to intelligence briefings what orders I should issue.” The point of having leaders is to lead. Humans don’t do well without leaders. The most successful leaderless movement we’ve seen was the Occupy movement and nobody would ever call that any kind of success. It’s is in our nature as much as it is in the mathematics that describes our society.

tsimionescu 6y ago
Millitary-style leaders will probably keep being a necessity. But perhaps in a less top-down controlled society, there would be less chance that things get to the point of the submarine surfacing at all. Most large conflicts in human history have been about imperialism - one powerful ruling class trying to expand their power to new lands. Without the ruling class, it is hard to imagine millions of people caring whether they "control" some piece of land thousands of miles away. Would the US have gone to Vietnam if there weren't a ruling class that cared about extending their influence? To Irak? To Afghanistan? To El Salvador? Would they have orchestrated coups against the democratic leadership of Iran to protect BP's operations, and reinstalled their ousted absolutist monarchy? Would they have assassinated Iranian generals?
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Counterexample: the US is having by far the worst response to the COVID-19 pandemic due to lack of top down leadership.
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    It’s far more complex than that. I live in a country that has successfully implemented a regional response to COVID 19 with the national government playing the role of coordinator but not dictating policy. The failure in the US is a failure at all levels and on all sides. Forcing policy from the top wouldn’t have worked any better if you don’t have trust and competence at local levels.
hliyan 6y ago
You just constructed and knocked down two strawmen in rapid succession. The first is about long term direction vs. short term coordination. The second one is a cherry-pick and you call it both successful and unsuccessful in the same sentence. Logistical challenges in themselves do not invalidate an idea. They may make it impractical, but not invalid.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  What can I say? I am a man of talent :) My point is the same as George Carlin’s: think of an average person and realize that 50% of the population is stupider than that. If people are dumb enough to fall for the Plandemic videos they are easy to manipulate. Leadership requires training, intelligence, wisdom, and expertise, which is why so few people possess those qualities. Do you truly think an average person is capable of making decent decisions when governing? Hell, something like 3/4 of the US voters don’t bother voting once every two years. An average person is neither qualified nor interested in making decisions that affect their country. If you want another counterexample: California. It’s the only place where the ballot can contain a referendum to lower taxes and another referendum to increase spending and people sincerely vote yes to both without ever realizing wtf they are doing or what it means. I would rather live in a society where politicians just do their jobs, don’t steal or fuck up, and I don’t have to think about it because their decisions are rational. There is nothing rational about a mass of random citizens.

tsimionescu 6y ago

Millitary-style leaders will probably keep being a necessity. But perhaps in a less top-down controlled society, there would be less chance that things get to the point of the submarine surfacing at all. Most large conflicts in human history have been about imperialism - one powerful ruling class trying to expand their power to new lands. Without the ruling class, it is hard to imagine millions of people caring whether they "control" some piece of land thousands of miles away. Would the US have gone to Vietnam if there weren't a ruling class that cared about extending their influence? To Irak? To Afghanistan? To El Salvador? Would they have orchestrated coups against the democratic leadership of Iran to protect BP's operations, and reinstalled their ousted absolutist monarchy? Would they have assassinated Iranian generals?

IgorPartola 6y ago
Counterexample: the US is having by far the worst response to the COVID-19 pandemic due to lack of top down leadership.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  It’s far more complex than that. I live in a country that has successfully implemented a regional response to COVID 19 with the national government playing the role of coordinator but not dictating policy. The failure in the US is a failure at all levels and on all sides. Forcing policy from the top wouldn’t have worked any better if you don’t have trust and competence at local levels.

hliyan 6y ago

You just constructed and knocked down two strawmen in rapid succession. The first is about long term direction vs. short term coordination. The second one is a cherry-pick and you call it both successful and unsuccessful in the same sentence. Logistical challenges in themselves do not invalidate an idea. They may make it impractical, but not invalid.

IgorPartola 6y ago
What can I say? I am a man of talent :) My point is the same as George Carlin’s: think of an average person and realize that 50% of the population is stupider than that. If people are dumb enough to fall for the Plandemic videos they are easy to manipulate. Leadership requires training, intelligence, wisdom, and expertise, which is why so few people possess those qualities. Do you truly think an average person is capable of making decent decisions when governing? Hell, something like 3/4 of the US voters don’t bother voting once every two years. An average person is neither qualified nor interested in making decisions that affect their country. If you want another counterexample: California. It’s the only place where the ballot can contain a referendum to lower taxes and another referendum to increase spending and people sincerely vote yes to both without ever realizing wtf they are doing or what it means. I would rather live in a society where politicians just do their jobs, don’t steal or fuck up, and I don’t have to think about it because their decisions are rational. There is nothing rational about a mass of random citizens.