As the commenter quoted in yesterday, here's my perspective on rulers vs leaders.
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)
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.