Bit of a late reply, but why is it so hard for you to imagine any leader caring about their people? (This sounded more accusatory than I meant, that’s not my goal, it’s more of a “why is it so hard to imagine a caring leader?” not a personal attack.)
Most of us in the west have never actually had a leader who wants to help anyone other than the stockholders of big companies. So the concept of leadership that actually cares about people is entirely alien to us.
To look at it another way: Do you consider yourself a good person? And if you were in a leadership position somewhere, would you try to do the best to help out the people under you? Good people do exist in the world. Not necessarily saying Xi is one of them, just that it is possible for a leader to care about people. Power doesn’t corrupt, corrupt people are attracted to power. But they aren’t always the ones who get it.
This sounded more accusatory than I meant, that’s not my goal, it’s more of a “why is it so hard to imagine a caring leader?” not a personal attack.
Thanks for being clear, it’s easy to misunderstand emotions via text. I get that we’re having a conversation about topics we’re passionate about and don’t necessarily agree so unless you’re clearly direct an insult at me personally we’re good :) I repect your position and can tell you’re a good person.
I agree with everything you said. Now what happens with those good people in charge step down, die, or are overtaken by not so good people?
I can imagine being a benevolent dictator, that I would do a great many things to help people. And then it would click in my head that this situation is temporary. And other than democracy, there’s no even close to acceptable method of transferring this power and especially in ensuring that it remains with good people. We have history to look at at see how that works.
If it were possible for good people to be in charge and stay in charge, it would’ve happened already. Now you might make that same claim about anarchism, if it were possible, why don’t we see any anarchist states (which would be an oxymoron of course). Any my reply is that anarchism was the effective state (as in status) for a hundred thousand years and is the default status of any group – that is until in a given group the psychopaths win and stop the game (by claiming exclusive right to violence).
Am I a supporter of democracy then? Not really, I think it’s better than alternative methods of choosing state leadership, but it’s not the choosing method that’s the problem, it’s the power that’s the problem.
Bit of a late reply, but why is it so hard for you to imagine any leader caring about their people? (This sounded more accusatory than I meant, that’s not my goal, it’s more of a “why is it so hard to imagine a caring leader?” not a personal attack.)
Most of us in the west have never actually had a leader who wants to help anyone other than the stockholders of big companies. So the concept of leadership that actually cares about people is entirely alien to us.
To look at it another way: Do you consider yourself a good person? And if you were in a leadership position somewhere, would you try to do the best to help out the people under you? Good people do exist in the world. Not necessarily saying Xi is one of them, just that it is possible for a leader to care about people. Power doesn’t corrupt, corrupt people are attracted to power. But they aren’t always the ones who get it.
Thanks for being clear, it’s easy to misunderstand emotions via text. I get that we’re having a conversation about topics we’re passionate about and don’t necessarily agree so unless you’re clearly direct an insult at me personally we’re good :) I repect your position and can tell you’re a good person.
I agree with everything you said. Now what happens with those good people in charge step down, die, or are overtaken by not so good people?
I can imagine being a benevolent dictator, that I would do a great many things to help people. And then it would click in my head that this situation is temporary. And other than democracy, there’s no even close to acceptable method of transferring this power and especially in ensuring that it remains with good people. We have history to look at at see how that works.
If it were possible for good people to be in charge and stay in charge, it would’ve happened already. Now you might make that same claim about anarchism, if it were possible, why don’t we see any anarchist states (which would be an oxymoron of course). Any my reply is that anarchism was the effective state (as in status) for a hundred thousand years and is the default status of any group – that is until in a given group the psychopaths win and stop the game (by claiming exclusive right to violence).
Am I a supporter of democracy then? Not really, I think it’s better than alternative methods of choosing state leadership, but it’s not the choosing method that’s the problem, it’s the power that’s the problem.