3 ms·

But good, wise, and just men and women cannot effectively win races in our current political system. Instead, power-hungry, hyper-wealthy sociopaths willing to

But good, wise, and just men and women cannot effectively win races in our current political system. Instead, power-hungry, hyper-wealthy sociopaths willing to form unconditional alliances with powerful groups and sacrifice any moral principles to 'win' debates, bury controversy, and gain advertising dollars will instead get selected at every first-past-the-post race above the hyper-local. When you write: > People should vote for good people that they believe will do the best possible job. The most important part of that sentence is the "that they believe" part. The actual goodness, wisdom, and justice of the people who form the set of all eligible candidates has almost nothing to do with the distributed beliefs of those eligible to vote; the process of disseminating information about the former to the latter is EXTREMELY lossy. And power-hungry, hyper-wealthy sociopaths can successfully exploit that.

petsfed 3y ago
I'm honestly not convinced that good and wise men or women can effectively rule. I'm not sure how to get around the necessity to occasionally make decisions that will cause suffering and death, either through violence or neglect. Occasionally, the most well-intended of decisions will cause death or suffering by accident. And the reality of the situation is that we need leaders who while trying to minimize the harm of their decisions, keeps making clear decisions even after their decisions cause enormous harm. Ordering a missile strike that kills 100 people, even if they are evil to the last, requires a certain kind of callousness, a certain amount of seeing the bad people as bad first, and people last. I think a lot of folks in the military square that spiritual cost as their obligation and find strength in being the one to make that sacrifice. To win elections, you have to want to be that kind of person from the jump.
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  I'd argue that someone unwilling to choose the lesser of two evils is either not good, not wise, or not good and not wise. Sure, if you believe that your goodness, wisdom, and competence are less than that of your likely successor, even after you recruit advisors who can help you be more competent, surrender that mantle... but that's an unlikely level of humility to find in someone who needs to win a popularity contest.

petsfed 3y ago

I'm honestly not convinced that good and wise men or women can effectively rule. I'm not sure how to get around the necessity to occasionally make decisions that will cause suffering and death, either through violence or neglect. Occasionally, the most well-intended of decisions will cause death or suffering by accident. And the reality of the situation is that we need leaders who while trying to minimize the harm of their decisions, keeps making clear decisions even after their decisions cause enormous harm. Ordering a missile strike that kills 100 people, even if they are evil to the last, requires a certain kind of callousness, a certain amount of seeing the bad people as bad first, and people last. I think a lot of folks in the military square that spiritual cost as their obligation and find strength in being the one to make that sacrifice. To win elections, you have to want to be that kind of person from the jump.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago
I'd argue that someone unwilling to choose the lesser of two evils is either not good, not wise, or not good and not wise. Sure, if you believe that your goodness, wisdom, and competence are less than that of your likely successor, even after you recruit advisors who can help you be more competent, surrender that mantle... but that's an unlikely level of humility to find in someone who needs to win a popularity contest.