4 ms·

> Imagine what kind of society humanity could have if people didn't constantly allow incompetent and corrupt leaders to take over. I think part of it is the “p

> Imagine what kind of society humanity could have if people didn't constantly allow incompetent and corrupt leaders to take over. I think part of it is the “power corrupts” aspect and another is the likelihood that the kind of people who seek power generally aren’t the kind of people who should be put in power. We haven’t really figured out a solution to that problem that works at scale.

midoridensha 4y ago
>another is the likelihood that the kind of people who seek power generally aren’t the kind of people who should be put in power. That's indeed a problem, but only part: terrible people are still just people, and have no ability on their own to hold onto power. They only do so because a legion of people enables them: security forces, police, military, and ultimately the regular citizenry. All these people either happily risk their lives defending the terrible person, or stand back and do nothing and allow themselves to be abused. Just look at Russia: Putin is an elderly man in poor health. He has no ability to keep himself in power unilaterally. But a bunch of security people are happy to follow his orders and keep him in power, and even murder other rich, powerful people on his behalf. It would be easy for them to murder him in his bathtub like another terrible autocrat long ago, but they prefer to stay loyal to him even while he destroys their country.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  > It would be easy for them to murder him in his bathtub like another terrible autocrat long ago, but they prefer to stay loyal to him even while he destroys their country. No, it wouldn’t. Even if it was and let’s say they do it, then what next? Do you assume that some kind-hearted leader will just fill in the power vacuum instead of war hawks like Yevgeny Prigozhin and Sergei Shoigu?
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    If the security forces were smart and wanted a good leader that wouldn't destroy the country, they'd kill those guys too. Do you really think it's better to just let a horrible leader keep leading, because there's a chance the next guy will be worse? Even if he is, the chaos of transition should make it easier to cut his reign very short and choose again.
    - boeingUH60 4y ago
      The point is it’s never that simple…what you’re proposing is a full revolution, which is very difficult to pull off and not to talk of transitioning to another regime peacefully. I’m not sure if you’re a westerner but one of the issues I notice with people in western developed countries is thinking it’s easy to just fix the government. I live in a country similar to Russia and the issue is that taking out the leader won’t suffice because the entire system is corrupt from top to bottom. You know why those security forces continue to just do their jobs? It’s better to live under a tyrant within a governmental system than in a chaotic failed state.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      There's quite a few people in the Russian security and military forces who think that Putin isn't going far enough, if anything. If Russia actually has a successful coup, I'd say it's a decent change that the new guy will be worse than Putin in all respects. The more extreme forces are more likely to try, and probably more likely to succeed if they do.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        Other than resorting to nukes, how much farther can they even go? Their military is gutted at this point.
        int_19h 4y ago
        Russia hasn't had a true total mobilization yet, so there are still bodies to throw at the enemy. And, well, nukes aren't exactly off limits to the kind of people I'm talking about, either.
M95D 4y ago
> We haven’t really figured out a solution to that problem that works at scale. In fact, we have, but we aren't capable of implementing it. The solution is to select leaders randomly. https://realkm.com/2020/10/13/would-we-do-better-choosing-leaders-at-random/ https://realkm.com/2020/10/13/would-we-do-better-choosing-le...
- midoridensha 4y ago
  This could work, but with an additional step: there should be a background check and/or psych test on the candidates. If they're found to have (or have had) any desire to become one of the leaders, they're disqualified. Only people who don't want the job are allowed to have it (and it's mandatory).

midoridensha 4y ago

>another is the likelihood that the kind of people who seek power generally aren’t the kind of people who should be put in power. That's indeed a problem, but only part: terrible people are still just people, and have no ability on their own to hold onto power. They only do so because a legion of people enables them: security forces, police, military, and ultimately the regular citizenry. All these people either happily risk their lives defending the terrible person, or stand back and do nothing and allow themselves to be abused. Just look at Russia: Putin is an elderly man in poor health. He has no ability to keep himself in power unilaterally. But a bunch of security people are happy to follow his orders and keep him in power, and even murder other rich, powerful people on his behalf. It would be easy for them to murder him in his bathtub like another terrible autocrat long ago, but they prefer to stay loyal to him even while he destroys their country.

boeingUH60 4y ago
> It would be easy for them to murder him in his bathtub like another terrible autocrat long ago, but they prefer to stay loyal to him even while he destroys their country. No, it wouldn’t. Even if it was and let’s say they do it, then what next? Do you assume that some kind-hearted leader will just fill in the power vacuum instead of war hawks like Yevgeny Prigozhin and Sergei Shoigu?
- midoridensha 4y ago
  If the security forces were smart and wanted a good leader that wouldn't destroy the country, they'd kill those guys too. Do you really think it's better to just let a horrible leader keep leading, because there's a chance the next guy will be worse? Even if he is, the chaos of transition should make it easier to cut his reign very short and choose again.
  - boeingUH60 4y ago
    The point is it’s never that simple…what you’re proposing is a full revolution, which is very difficult to pull off and not to talk of transitioning to another regime peacefully. I’m not sure if you’re a westerner but one of the issues I notice with people in western developed countries is thinking it’s easy to just fix the government. I live in a country similar to Russia and the issue is that taking out the leader won’t suffice because the entire system is corrupt from top to bottom. You know why those security forces continue to just do their jobs? It’s better to live under a tyrant within a governmental system than in a chaotic failed state.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    There's quite a few people in the Russian security and military forces who think that Putin isn't going far enough, if anything. If Russia actually has a successful coup, I'd say it's a decent change that the new guy will be worse than Putin in all respects. The more extreme forces are more likely to try, and probably more likely to succeed if they do.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Other than resorting to nukes, how much farther can they even go? Their military is gutted at this point.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Russia hasn't had a true total mobilization yet, so there are still bodies to throw at the enemy. And, well, nukes aren't exactly off limits to the kind of people I'm talking about, either.

M95D 4y ago

> We haven’t really figured out a solution to that problem that works at scale. In fact, we have, but we aren't capable of implementing it. The solution is to select leaders randomly. https://realkm.com/2020/10/13/would-we-do-better-choosing-leaders-at-random/ https://realkm.com/2020/10/13/would-we-do-better-choosing-le...

midoridensha 4y ago
This could work, but with an additional step: there should be a background check and/or psych test on the candidates. If they're found to have (or have had) any desire to become one of the leaders, they're disqualified. Only people who don't want the job are allowed to have it (and it's mandatory).