PDA

View Full Version : World News Leadership



elfqueenofrohan
12-10--2006, 02:32 PM
OK, I hope this was the right place to put this :)
Just interested to know what people's views are on what sort of government (if at all) is best.
I know they're all pretty bad, and democracy is apparently the fairest, but sometimes in a way I think you need a strong leader to make a country strong. However I was intrigued by Coyote's hint that you don't need leadership at all...

John
12-10--2006, 02:40 PM
Personally, I have been impressed by the Roman (or was it Greek? I can't remember...) version of democracy - where anyone can just wander down to a polling station and cast a vote on the lastest issue - people get to decide whether laws are passed not just the government who suggest the laws. I like that. That would be truly democratic.

I think a country without leadership would be an easy target for a any other country - it would be impossible to have a standing army and very easy for another country to take over as they wouldn't even have to usurp the current leaders.

elfqueenofrohan
12-10--2006, 02:46 PM
Personally, I have been impressed by the Roman (or was it Greek? I can't remember...) version of democracy - where anyone can just wander down to a polling station and cast a vote on the lastest issue - people get to decide whether laws are passed not just the government who suggest the laws.

I like that too... but by 'everyone' I presume that didn't include the plebs and the slaves?



I think a country without leadership would be an easy target for a any other country


*nods* In a smaller group of people, like the Celtic tribes or Red Indians that's true... but I don't know of any examples where there were actually NO leaders.

John
12-10--2006, 02:53 PM
I like that too... but by 'everyone' I presume that didn't include the plebs and the slaves?



*nods* In a smaller group of people, like the Celtic tribes or Red Indians that's true... but I don't know of any examples where there were actually NO leaders. No plebs, slaves, criminal, women or the mentally ill. Thats not to say we would do it like that though...

I suspect you just don't get large groups of leaderless people - most likely its human nature that when a certain number of people get together you'll have enough dominant personalities that someone is bound to take up leadership of some sort...

Sthenno
12-10--2006, 02:54 PM
In terms of systems that could realistically be actioned in today’s climate, I’m quite a fan of proportional representation meself.

Bodhisurfer
12-10--2006, 02:54 PM
Leadership should be specific. i.e. if we were planning a surfing trip it would make sense for me to be the leader:cool: -but when we got back from that trip and decided to build a shelter, plant some food etc -well maybe someone else would make a better leader:)
I think we live in a world thats become so complicated and interwoven that unfortunately leaders and governments are sadly inevitable. Back in the 80's & 90's when i still beleived that anything was possible:rolleyes: , I'd have put myself down as an Anarchist and maybe in Bakunin's time( a contempory of Marx -look him up ) that might have been possible.
I blame the Paris Commune:rolleyes:

Coyote
13-10--2006, 09:17 AM
OK, I hope this was the right place to put this :)
Just interested to know what people's views are on what sort of government (if at all) is best.
I know they're all pretty bad, and democracy is apparently the fairest, but sometimes in a way I think you need a strong leader to make a country strong. However I was intrigued by Coyote's hint that you don't need leadership at all...
:waves:

Sorry it took me so long to get here....I have to share a PC down here in the pointy bit :D

Right, where was I.....oh yeah;

I dont claim that you dont need leadership, an ordered security-creating society absolutely demands leadership (the most effective kind being a dictatorship with the appearance of a democracy - so you have solid leadership whilst the plebs are kept quiet with the appearance of having a "voice").

However I would counter that by saying not everyone needs leadership as not everyone requires those things only supplied by an ordered society.

mooka
26-10--2006, 11:59 PM
i agree with shibari, it seems to make the most sense that in our inevitably specialist/ specialised world each task be directed by an appropriate, TEMPORARY leader.

temporary i think is the most important, because if we assume that power corrupts etc (haha i bet you alll know that quote) then if there is no time to mobilise/ consolidate power, this may take care of one possibility/opportunity for corruption

also, no sense in having a cook take care of organising a school, or vis versa

the (depressing?) thing is, i dont really believe that there is any satisfactory solution with the population scales we operate on these days.... as in, for most of human existance (and some groups of people still today...) we lived and organised ourselves in groups of roughly 15 to 50 individuals. it seems to me that our social skills allow us to be very efficient (e.g. cooperative) in these numbers, but beyond this size of group, the type of face to face social contact for non-hierarchal organisation becomes difficult....

(not saying that all these groups are non-hierarchal, but def not in the sense of hierarchy in our government)

of course, hmmm, this just came to mind: (duh) at this scale there is much less specialisation, e.g. most people, or most individuals of one gender, or age group or whatever, share knowledge of most basic daily tasks...

but! just because we organise in small 'core-groups' doesnt mean these groups cant be connected and share specialist skills!

and also, sometimes people say 'well hasnt our current system brought lots of technological advances etc? wouldnt another system be really backwards?' but if you look at it historically, just because we srap the current system doesnt mean we have to scrap all the benefits... e.g. there's always room to improve!

ok now i'm just wandering around :)

oh yea: btw just because you are a small self-governing group doesnt mean you will necessarily be taken over by another country. obvioulsy without an army, instead of 'someone else' it might end up being you and me doing the fighting, but look at place like Bougainville in the South Pacific..... and peaceful relations might also be possible? who knows....