Dictatorships fail worse in those circumstances compared to systems where criticism is accepted.
Some dictators are more inspired than others.
History undoubtedly incorporates a lot of myopia in over-simplifying the real complexity of life in the past... But, it is true, still, that monarchy was pretty much the only political system there was for most of human history, with only a few noteworthy exceptions. And, in those societies ruled by kings, while unquestioning of the legitimacy of that system... it was still clear enough that some Kings were good kings, others not... and a few, like Solomon, legendary... That meant "change" tended to occur only with death... or dethronement.
There's still nothing in that which doesn't have it fit well within my "shorthand" as: "Don't be ignorant" and "There are a lot of ignorant people."
And then... great... how do we use that to get better at solving problems and avoiding mistakes... individually... or by incorporating some bit of logic that needs to be defined... into our systems... or into our selection of leaders... in a way that "tends" to help us avoid obvious error ?
How do you "exercise good judgement"... when operating in a sphere in which you lack information... lack awareness you lack it... and have no real ability to determine what that "exercise" might be... that will still approximate "good judgement" ?
Soros and Gates... in my recent presentation... (others too, clearly) are purely nefarious characters... imposing existential risks on society because "they are ignorant"... and, as we allow them to... in a system they have crafted that essentially leaves society without a means of challenging them...
And, it does appear that one of the "don't be ignorant" issues links to that concern in "no social filters" meaning the competition enabling "leadership" tends to be a process of selecting in sociopaths... as misidentify some features in that as being indicators of "beneficial" leadership traits... ?
I think the story you supply is a nice bit of nuance, in context... even as it shifts focus to "change" occurring by "good choices" made by "good kings"... to show the "choices" in that system depend on "good kings" [while in reality what we often get is... not that,] with good kings (or not) emerging from within the system by means, in removing predecessors, that are "accepted" within the system... without there being any means of screening them other than... each enabling a singular success in the singular instance...
Of course, the winner in a regicide... or, the winner in an election enabled by fraud... might be expected to bring some "not a good king" type baggage to the job... the selection process not weeding out the moral misfits... rather than rewarding them...
The story also shows... the "good king" going bad... with change in a correction depending on "good king" getting, and accepting, good advice... without killing the messenger. That story, of course, isn't unique in the presentation of "how things work" in historical reality under monarchy ?
The element in "a good king" committing errors needing correcting... but the system being based on violence and fear... preventing most people from even considering "helping"... is spot on. And, "the hero" who proceeded "within the system" to seek "correction" while not simply seeking to remove the dysfunctional king in a regicide to take the throne, himself ? In the aggregate... it doesn't contribute much of utility in "fixing it"... as it still leaves it the case that good kings will be good, and bad kings will be bad, and good kings can have bad days... making the cowering population not wrong in thinking sticking your head up is a good way to get it cut off. In my experience, the "hero" character as presented... is only rarely valued and rewarded... which is why it is "exceptional enough" when you get that from someone... to make it worthy of note... ?
As our history is mostly one of "monarchy"... and in many of us our brains are still wired to think that way... those sorts of stories resonate deeply... with people who, innately, understand being left at the mercy of a system constantly doing stupid things to them... and having to balance the "threshold" issues in which path (submission and avoidance, or seeking correction) is the least threateningly existential...
That is still hardly an "optimal solution" to generating more optimal solutions ?
It's just showing you, again, how insanely (ignorant and) resistant to "correction" humans are... and how (wrongly) submissive and (wrongly) tolerant of abuse we can be... in the face of monumental inequity... as is always a key feature enabled in dysfunctional systems...
The U.S. Constitution... made an attempt, in "checks and balances" and in republican structure... to reign in those worst tendencies in monarchy... to ensure "correction" is enabled without "killing the messenger"... still is only able to function in that way... when those in the system understand it, value it, and operate in good faith to enable it to work ? Lack of good faith being an clear indicator of "ignorance" in context... I'm OK with as a stipulation... but, even a system intended to circumvent "the function" of ignorance, and the means by which it operates... is liable to failure when... you put ignorant people in charge of operating it ?
One of the weaknesses of the U.S. Constitution... as much of a leap forward in the evolution of human ideas as it does represent... is that it was conceived of as a corrective to monarchical abuses... by those with no meaningful experience of any system other than monarchy (and its expectations re Kings right to abuse)... Post revolutionary American history is rife with examples... of "founders" whose innovations we laud... proving to us that their thinking was still mired in the historical patterns of thinking monarchy imposes...
That legacy persisted, until recently... as clear in the U.S., only more in Canada... in relation not only to the abuses imposed on native children subjected to cultural genocide... but, in the passive acceptance of it by the majority of the population... That "instance" is noteworthy... but, useful in context here to recognize that element in "ignorance" in that instance... is not a singular instance... but a reflection of deeper conditioning ?
And, don't think that because natives, in this instance, were the victims... that means they're not just as deeply mired in the same patterns in thought as were their abusers ? Clearly, they recognize the wrong done them by a bad king... without that meaning they're equipped to address the problem, rather than the wrong in the instance enabled by the problem ?
I've noted the biologists addressing limits on GMOs... and those advocating for using the tech to save the American Chestnut... might offer a proper look at "how to"... in avoiding existential risks by proceeding to fill known voids in our awareness of risks, with research, learning, proceeding carefully, and slowly... at a pace that ensures decisions are made only at a pace, and at that point, that "good judgement" allows us to avoid acting out of ignorance... when we know we are still ignorant enough that we should avoid making those decisions that might impose existential risks.
The U.S. Constitution incorporates similar logic in its structure... intending to avoid enabling sudden and radical changes in governance... to enable systemic stability... and with a steady hand, generally, an unchanging hand in application of "the rule of law" . In result, any significant changes in focus are intended to require persistence in changing trends in opinions, requiring they be held over a long enough period of time... before they can alter fundamental things, not on a whim, or in the passion of the heat of a moment. That feature works... to provide stability... and delay change. But, while that is likely useful in helping us to avoid making mistakes... it fails if the rest fails... so that "lack of good faith" that is persistent long enough... then, enables mistakes that can still be forced as change into the core of the system, corrupting it. And, that same "safety" feature built into the system will then require a long period of suffering under the errors imposed, if they are recoverable, as the design of the system makes it hard, not only to make mistakes, but to correct them...
That emerges in U.S. history as... the Civil War... in which that inability to "innovate" a universally acceptable compromise and correction to obvious error... and implement it without tearing society apart... gave us that in result. And, again... in the post-Civil War era... the assassination of Lincoln itself enabled imposing changes, preventing eliminating the debt and containing the power of the bankers... leading to our being saddled with the Federal Reserve as a quasi-government... that has long since usurped the function of legitimate government. That system is on its last legs... and, where is the debate about what we will replace it with ? When the system has already been co-opted... it forestalls correction... and takes it as its mission to do so.
And, today, of course... when the Democrats have seized power... and refuse to let go... so, cheat in elections... deny, and claim your own awareness of the frauds they are practicing... from first hand experience... makes you "an election denier"...
Perhaps some of what's required... is to pair mine re "Don't be ignorant" and "There are a lot of ignorant people"... after the AI post yesterday... with a redefinition of the word "sentient"... to ensure that it eliminates most people, and all software, from inclusion ?
|
