![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"It's astonishing how some people think we are supposed to have 'rulers' in a free country, rather than elected representatives who answer to our authority.
"I think there is a percentage of the public who genuinely want to be stomped on. They wish for a charismatic ruler---yes, a ruler---to march in, kick our asses until we stop whining, and then kick everyone else's asses while we swoon at the exercise of raw power.
"I wonder if the concept of a Messiah is just hard-coded into human nature, expressing itself in major religions , folklore, as well as the political desire for a ruler that takes charge like this."
-- Caj, 2007-08-21
[Compare this to yesterday's QotD, from
![[info]](https://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
maugorn,
regarding absolutist, 'received wisdom' morality, and free will.]
(no subject)
(no subject)
"It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees."
The reason? I have started to think that it is easier that way for people. Bah.
(no subject)
Just goes to show, some things don't change.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Or maybe it's mother.
That Freud dude was on to something.
(no subject)
Lots of people think that they do want rulers and that ruling and leading are congruent. Sadly, most of them are simply unaware of the subtle difference. And again, it comes down to abdicating responsibility. Responsibility brings consequences which, especially when unpleasant consequences are in the offing, they wish to avoid.
In my book, there is no form of governance that is better than the others.
All systems of "<>ocracy" can work, and all of them sometimes/often don't.
It all comes down to whether the bottom line is treating those in your charge well. If you view leadership as a responsibility and a trust, and strive to do well and to be trustworthy, then your <>ocracy will thrive.
If you view it as having set up or played the game so that your class is on top of a pecking order and rationalise abuse as your right or some sort of twisted "necessity", then your system will fail or be overthrown. And if you're overthrown by those who are more interested in simply getting their way than doing what's right, then it's just
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Human evolution DOES point to alot of potential for growing out of the need for a "boss". But alas, we ain't there in consensus yet.
(no subject)