Chris may have covered this before or even covered it in Freedom Scale -- but I wonder if there are examples of near-leaderless societies that have worked well(?) The Amish perhaps(?). Or Native American tribes with their "chiefs".
I recall a scene in a movie where a rancher or army officer was trying to get an encampment of Native Americans to cooperate by talking to their "chief." He said something like "I don't get it. You're the chief. Why don't you just tell them what they must do?" The chief replied: "If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, I won't be chief anymore.".
I'm hopeful Trump will win the election tomorrow and tear through the thicket of corruption and waste in DC. But he will only be president for 4 years, and he's already older than I am (and that is *old*, let me tell you!). We need to make changes to the *architecture* of our government to improve, greatly, our ability to stop abuses like the ones below. I believe at least 3/4 of our citizens would agree that DC is *not* governing with the "consent of the governed" as proclaimed in the first 100 words (or so) of the Declaration of Independence.
Current abuses and usurpations of our federal govt.
1. passing multi-thousand-page, multi-trillion-dollar spending bills at the 11th hour with neither review nor debate,
2. admitting millions of unvetted immigrants into our country, contrary to established laws and procedures,
3. delegating massive legislative and regulatory powers to over 600 unelected, duplicative, and virtually unaccountable federal agencies and departments
Being a minarchist on the Freedom Scale, in the time Trump and I have left on earth(!), I'd sure like to see some attempt at fixing our architecture to make some progress back towards the Founders' vision!
There are the few societies that emerged in abundance (like We have access to now but that We emerged in scarcity) and never developed money, where the caring Ones took care of things, rather than moneyed psychopaths controlling things. They used the social currencies, not tangibles.
Precisely. Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers/masters.
Also, there can be leaders/guides/mentors for all sorts of matters. It is essentially about responsibility and knowledge all within the principles of natural law. We have trustees for these roles. The best man for the job should be able to just get on with it. We also have a mentoring system in place where the experienced trustees mentor the new and inexperienced trustees. Its akin to learning wisdom from wise elders.
Yes, in early days of the native Americans they did not just have one chief, there were several, a chief that led in hunting, a chief that led in warfare and defense, a Medicine Chief, but as David said, they were not dictatorial, they were leaders of free men. A leader is not the same thing as a ruler and should not desire any dictatorial powers of enforcement or he is not a leader in my book. Joseph Smith, the first leader of the Mormons, said this,
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
He went on to point out that "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of [spiritual leadership,] only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned. By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death." "[We may be called to leadership and it may be] conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the [spiritual power and calling] of that man."
He said this is why many are called, but few are chosen.
You are quite correct Jim, I did speak a little too broadly and it was mistake a mistake to imply that all tribes were the same. I know what I said was true in some native American tribes of whom I have read. Some were noble and not the savage stereotypes protrayed by the propagandists of pioneer days. Some tribes as those you mentioned lived in relative peace and cooperation. Look at the history of the Hopi. A lot of the savagery started after many tribes were abused and deprived of important human rights including life. Then these things escalated as they often do today.
Well now isn’t THAT (your mention of your idea of a Xandari prince) interesting and well-timed. I have had something simmering for a long time on the subject of making ourselves into aristocrats (of merit). I have envisioned the possibility of reviving the concept of Houses, and encouraging people to make themselves, and their mark on the world, truly worthy of being called House Cook, House Bailey, etc. I have thought that we could use the term to represent the level of the distributed nation right above the individual. An individual could also be a house, but a house might also be the home of two nation members, their children, and their aging mother. Know what I mean? What do you think?
I was planning this for later, but it might make sense to discuss it sooner. Possibly very soon…!
I have thought for some time that we were pretty much on the same page Christopher, this kind of thing is not coincidence, it is a sign of an idea whose time has come. One that is about to be born into the world for those who are ready for it. It goes along with what we have been saying about recognizing those who have or are making real contributions to a better world by their example and excellent choices. (incentive, encouragement of what is noble and deserving, merit as you said)
There is a pay, a reward, that gives even more lasting satisfaction than money does. I'm sure there is even a way to live in happiness without being required to have money in a loving society, and maybe someday we will see such a society.
There is control that is more ethical and needed than having power over others. It is self control and self discipline leading to mastery of an area that adds value to the world and to others, and it deserves to be valued, recognized and acknowledged.
You can ignore the mediocre, thoughtless and careless, but don't fail to notice and encourage those who you see are putting in some effort to create value in an area and master it. When it comes to role models who do we usually acknowledge and look up to in this world. For many young people it has been the pretenders, whether on the silver screen or the political stage. Is that the best we can do?
In my view you are a Xandari Prince Christopher and would be seen as such in the Xandara I believe in.
Right! It used to be a common claim in the heady days of the birth of this nation that this was going to be a place where it was "every man a king." His personal sovereignty respected over his possessions, his home, his farm, his business. A king is a leader of leaders, and leads by force of character, not force of arms, by ethical altitude, not by glorifying his ego, not by manipulation or deception, but by deep and unquestioned wisdom and real personal power, that bless all who are fortunate enough to be in His Presence. There has been One like that in some incarnations in this world. The chief cornerstone which the builders rejected will return after the next great world cataclysm. Not in vengeance, not to rule by fear, but in love to lead the Exodus to a better world for those who were shielded by their faith in what is true and right. The ones who are ready and qualified to live in that better world. That is my view.
Excellent observations. The problem is that you can change masters but you cannot change human nature. Perhaps the new "system" must be structured in a way that there is nothing to gain for any individual that might want to subvert it. In other words, we take away the enabling factor in some meaningful way.
Its not human nature at all. What you're describing is always the actions of a few individuals that mange to impose themselves through deception. To quote my Geordie pal; ''Only when everybody possesses the means to sustain themselves without inequity, will we be able to accurately gauge whether greed is an inevitable proclivity of the human condition; or a psychological imposition by the engineers of the social system, which cannot function without our ignorance of who and what we really are'. An equitable credit based system will allow individuals and communities to live without being a slave and that's what we're striving to achieve in UCT by reversing decades of institutionalised mortgage fraud into credit for the people.
Something this selection season is teaching me, We vote because we are afraid of too lazy to act against the "authorities" in small matters. To stand up for the weak and marginalized before it becomes a wholesale slaughter. We let the small foxes spoil the vine. I think in tribal societies and clans those who lead are truly shown to be those who sacrifice their own ego for the good of all. It's proven, not just talked about. They are tested and passed the test, over many years.
We have an advertisement system. All you have to be is good at saying what a lot of people want to hear and at least you will be popular, if not powerful. But this is a total failure. As we can see, every day. Power has become the only prerequisite for rule. And that's psychotic. It's so distant from the people it can never be for them. That is the major problem. These people can hide from every single possible exposure. That's because of the scale of the system. It's been global for a long time. There are loopholes built in everywhere, all over the planet. Who could possibly deal with that international mafia?
It would and probably will have to be all of us. I believe that leaders have to be proven. People can trust those who have walked through fire for them. Not just a media ploy like we have now, but lived daily personal experience. That's the difference for me. Creating an actual high standard that cannot be lobbied, or corrupted by it's scale or it's distance from the people. I see them like banks on a river, giving people inspiration and purpose, not rule.
Absolutely. Leadership, Imo, in any other sense is devoid of interaction. And that is a big reason why we are in this pickle. We have almost zero access to the people who are in charge. I differentiate between power and merit, by saying that anyone responsible for others is not paid for that service. It is in fact, a public service. Consider yourself, you are in authority but not on a pedestal of power. You sleep and eat with your clan. They listen to you because you have shown them you are trustworthy. As soon as leaders grow beyond the group boundaries we have problems with accountability. Small is best. But not isolated from other groups. But my big point is, people need the opportunity to know each other, and build trusty foundations.
Under natural law everyone is sovereign, self determined and self governing. I consider MoB, the founder of UCT to be a 'leader' on many issues. For example, if I want legal advice on say, mortgage fraud, there is no one better to ask than him. The same way in a battle, I would want the most learned strategic general leading the field. Leaders/kings etc of ancient times were not roles of imposed authority like they are now. They were roles of responsibility and protection. Like when Brutus founded Briton upon common right and assumed role of military dictator in times of national conflict such as invasion. It was simply a matter of best man for the job. Today we have fake manufactured crisis where fraud is used to impose fake authority. Many of the trustees have walked the path of most resistance which has enabled the individual to acquire knowledge on various matters which makes them perfect for roles of responsibility and leadership on specific matters and tasks. The idea is to create a people that learn and grow from each other which will naturally create tight communities full of wisdom.
Early in his "Inventing Freedom" book, your countryman Daniel Hannan cites Tacitus as forging a distinction: potestas (rule by power) and auctoritas (leadership by merit). Seems a good distinction to make.
I have always used argument #2 as my main reason for my dislike and mistrust of politics and politicians - the system really does seem to be built for the worst kind of narcissistic and power hungry personalities, the last people you want as leaders.
The mistake we've all been making for so long is to blame the personalities rather than the system that attracts them. The system is the problem. (But you probably knew I would say that 🤣)
Some good observations in this article. Seems like the obvious was stated centuries ago when a wise man wrote, it is not in man to direct his step(so how could he direct others? We could look for guidance from someone who, oh maybe created mankind. The same person that said you will not be happy choosing (voting for a king to rein over you) And since the information he wanted man to have and understood he had written in 66 books using over 40 penmen and did the writing spanning 1500 years, don't tell me God told me this or that, as if you just had a conversation with him. You do have a big ego if stating this. It is already written, Check it out. There is a description of what mankind can and should be like in Isaiah 65. Manmade governments will never achieve anything like this. Why put any trust in men to govern men?
David Friedman notes in his PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE (I think e-copies are still available on his web page.) that Iceland, for around 300 years had no king, no executive leader; " ...King was replaced by an assembly of local chieftains. As in Norway (before Harald) there was nothing corresponding to a strictly feudal bond. The relationship between the Icelandic godi and his thingmen (thingmenn) was contractual,..."
> Dominance hierarchies are a natural fact of life.
So are other hierarchies. Hierarchies of values and hierarchies of competence exist, pre-politically. Might leaders be part of the emergent, spontaneous order, based on hierarchies of values and competence, rather than hierarchies of dominance/imposing?
I'm not sure the reality of leaders and leadership is tied to dominance and so opposing decentralized, consent-based societies.
Yes, you are right. There are many different hierarchies to climb, and not all of them involve involuntary authority and force. In fact, I think most do not.
Very happy to hear your thoughts here. Leaders that aren't transitory and meant for a moment in time (maybe today I need a person who helps me with an emotional problem, tomorrow I may need someone who leads me in how to hold a weapon) scare me. I've seen great people become horrible people and horrible people be great leaders. It all depends on the topic and sometimes even the mood.
Interesting timing for declaration of a leaderless society. I can understand why some people simply had a meltdown during this conversation because it's election week and we're electing leaders, right now.
IMO, leadership is temporary, once they've done their job, and the rest of the us get the idea behind the mission, then there's no need for that leadership and the rest of us can do it for the rest of us. Until there's a situation that requires the fortitude of another more experienced individual and/or group of people who are willing to succeed in resolving the matter. Then just go back to being a part of the human race.
“ I can understand why some people simply had a meltdown during this conversation because it's election week and we're electing leaders, right now.”
—I am presuming that is the reason for the two sudden unsubs I had right after this went live. I get it. Some people are not yet at the stage of their journey where they can accept the idea of leaderlessness.
I suggest a solutocracy. When a problem arises, Those it affects can solve for it in any Ethical way They choose. Leaders of the moment will emerge to solve any problem, and if there are no problems to solve for...no problem!
This will work brilliantly as long as there is no monetary profit motive, and I again state that money (in any form - anything that accounts for the energy We add into a system is "money," be it goods and services exchanged or electronic bits, or anything in between) is an archaic tool and explain here:
Chris may have covered this before or even covered it in Freedom Scale -- but I wonder if there are examples of near-leaderless societies that have worked well(?) The Amish perhaps(?). Or Native American tribes with their "chiefs".
I recall a scene in a movie where a rancher or army officer was trying to get an encampment of Native Americans to cooperate by talking to their "chief." He said something like "I don't get it. You're the chief. Why don't you just tell them what they must do?" The chief replied: "If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, I won't be chief anymore.".
I'm hopeful Trump will win the election tomorrow and tear through the thicket of corruption and waste in DC. But he will only be president for 4 years, and he's already older than I am (and that is *old*, let me tell you!). We need to make changes to the *architecture* of our government to improve, greatly, our ability to stop abuses like the ones below. I believe at least 3/4 of our citizens would agree that DC is *not* governing with the "consent of the governed" as proclaimed in the first 100 words (or so) of the Declaration of Independence.
Current abuses and usurpations of our federal govt.
1. passing multi-thousand-page, multi-trillion-dollar spending bills at the 11th hour with neither review nor debate,
2. admitting millions of unvetted immigrants into our country, contrary to established laws and procedures,
3. delegating massive legislative and regulatory powers to over 600 unelected, duplicative, and virtually unaccountable federal agencies and departments
Being a minarchist on the Freedom Scale, in the time Trump and I have left on earth(!), I'd sure like to see some attempt at fixing our architecture to make some progress back towards the Founders' vision!
“ The chief replied: "If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, I won't be chief anymore."
DL, bro, can you tell me what movie this is from? I would like to quote it properly!
There are the few societies that emerged in abundance (like We have access to now but that We emerged in scarcity) and never developed money, where the caring Ones took care of things, rather than moneyed psychopaths controlling things. They used the social currencies, not tangibles.
Social Currency (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/social-currency
Accounting For the Energy We Add (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/accounting-for-the-energy-we-add
Greed is a Symptom of Energy Accounting (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/greed-is-a-symptom-of-energy-accounting
Why Does Money Promote Psychopaths? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/why-does-money-promote-psychopaths
Excellent Christopher! I have been wondering where you were going to go on this topic and you chose the High Road and Best way!
Perfect:
" I want to see humanity liberated." "No more masters."
I am pleased you agree!
I had two unsubs within a few moments of posting this. What am I to make of that? "YES, MORE MASTERS!"? 🤣
That is the Governments Plan!
Precisely. Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers/masters.
Also, there can be leaders/guides/mentors for all sorts of matters. It is essentially about responsibility and knowledge all within the principles of natural law. We have trustees for these roles. The best man for the job should be able to just get on with it. We also have a mentoring system in place where the experienced trustees mentor the new and inexperienced trustees. Its akin to learning wisdom from wise elders.
I love it!
Yes, in early days of the native Americans they did not just have one chief, there were several, a chief that led in hunting, a chief that led in warfare and defense, a Medicine Chief, but as David said, they were not dictatorial, they were leaders of free men. A leader is not the same thing as a ruler and should not desire any dictatorial powers of enforcement or he is not a leader in my book. Joseph Smith, the first leader of the Mormons, said this,
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
He went on to point out that "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of [spiritual leadership,] only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned. By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death." "[We may be called to leadership and it may be] conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the [spiritual power and calling] of that man."
He said this is why many are called, but few are chosen.
Nothing wrong with real leadership, but that is not synonymous with rulership. https://substack.com/home/post/p-151072802
I fault a little your broad brush. Some native Americans tribes, in the early days, had several chiefs, some were not dictatorial, some were free men.
Noble Savage no, Seminoles, Natchez, Iroquois, Crows, Athabaskans, etc., etc., etc., yes.
You are quite correct Jim, I did speak a little too broadly and it was mistake a mistake to imply that all tribes were the same. I know what I said was true in some native American tribes of whom I have read. Some were noble and not the savage stereotypes protrayed by the propagandists of pioneer days. Some tribes as those you mentioned lived in relative peace and cooperation. Look at the history of the Hopi. A lot of the savagery started after many tribes were abused and deprived of important human rights including life. Then these things escalated as they often do today.
Well now isn’t THAT (your mention of your idea of a Xandari prince) interesting and well-timed. I have had something simmering for a long time on the subject of making ourselves into aristocrats (of merit). I have envisioned the possibility of reviving the concept of Houses, and encouraging people to make themselves, and their mark on the world, truly worthy of being called House Cook, House Bailey, etc. I have thought that we could use the term to represent the level of the distributed nation right above the individual. An individual could also be a house, but a house might also be the home of two nation members, their children, and their aging mother. Know what I mean? What do you think?
I was planning this for later, but it might make sense to discuss it sooner. Possibly very soon…!
I have thought for some time that we were pretty much on the same page Christopher, this kind of thing is not coincidence, it is a sign of an idea whose time has come. One that is about to be born into the world for those who are ready for it. It goes along with what we have been saying about recognizing those who have or are making real contributions to a better world by their example and excellent choices. (incentive, encouragement of what is noble and deserving, merit as you said)
There is a pay, a reward, that gives even more lasting satisfaction than money does. I'm sure there is even a way to live in happiness without being required to have money in a loving society, and maybe someday we will see such a society.
There is control that is more ethical and needed than having power over others. It is self control and self discipline leading to mastery of an area that adds value to the world and to others, and it deserves to be valued, recognized and acknowledged.
You can ignore the mediocre, thoughtless and careless, but don't fail to notice and encourage those who you see are putting in some effort to create value in an area and master it. When it comes to role models who do we usually acknowledge and look up to in this world. For many young people it has been the pretenders, whether on the silver screen or the political stage. Is that the best we can do?
In my view you are a Xandari Prince Christopher and would be seen as such in the Xandara I believe in.
"it is a sign of an idea whose time has come."
—Agreed!
"One that is about to be born into the world for those who are ready for it."
—And we have no need to force those who are not ready.
" It is self control and self discipline leading to mastery of an area that adds value to the world and to others"
—Obviously birthright nobility is a fiction. But choosing to be of noble character—anyone can do that!
" For many young people it has been the pretenders, whether on the silver screen or the political stage. Is that the best we can do?"
—This is an excellent point,. And it's not just young people!
"In my view you are a Xandari Prince Christopher and would be seen as such in the Xandara I believe in."
—I am trying to do my part. To bring to life the thing that is in my head, begging to be brought to life.
We can all be princes, right? If we choose and work at it?
Right! It used to be a common claim in the heady days of the birth of this nation that this was going to be a place where it was "every man a king." His personal sovereignty respected over his possessions, his home, his farm, his business. A king is a leader of leaders, and leads by force of character, not force of arms, by ethical altitude, not by glorifying his ego, not by manipulation or deception, but by deep and unquestioned wisdom and real personal power, that bless all who are fortunate enough to be in His Presence. There has been One like that in some incarnations in this world. The chief cornerstone which the builders rejected will return after the next great world cataclysm. Not in vengeance, not to rule by fear, but in love to lead the Exodus to a better world for those who were shielded by their faith in what is true and right. The ones who are ready and qualified to live in that better world. That is my view.
It's a good view.
Excellent observations. The problem is that you can change masters but you cannot change human nature. Perhaps the new "system" must be structured in a way that there is nothing to gain for any individual that might want to subvert it. In other words, we take away the enabling factor in some meaningful way.
Oooh, intriguing. Any thoughts on what that might look like?
Its not human nature at all. What you're describing is always the actions of a few individuals that mange to impose themselves through deception. To quote my Geordie pal; ''Only when everybody possesses the means to sustain themselves without inequity, will we be able to accurately gauge whether greed is an inevitable proclivity of the human condition; or a psychological imposition by the engineers of the social system, which cannot function without our ignorance of who and what we really are'. An equitable credit based system will allow individuals and communities to live without being a slave and that's what we're striving to achieve in UCT by reversing decades of institutionalised mortgage fraud into credit for the people.
Indeed, this.
Something this selection season is teaching me, We vote because we are afraid of too lazy to act against the "authorities" in small matters. To stand up for the weak and marginalized before it becomes a wholesale slaughter. We let the small foxes spoil the vine. I think in tribal societies and clans those who lead are truly shown to be those who sacrifice their own ego for the good of all. It's proven, not just talked about. They are tested and passed the test, over many years.
We have an advertisement system. All you have to be is good at saying what a lot of people want to hear and at least you will be popular, if not powerful. But this is a total failure. As we can see, every day. Power has become the only prerequisite for rule. And that's psychotic. It's so distant from the people it can never be for them. That is the major problem. These people can hide from every single possible exposure. That's because of the scale of the system. It's been global for a long time. There are loopholes built in everywhere, all over the planet. Who could possibly deal with that international mafia?
It would and probably will have to be all of us. I believe that leaders have to be proven. People can trust those who have walked through fire for them. Not just a media ploy like we have now, but lived daily personal experience. That's the difference for me. Creating an actual high standard that cannot be lobbied, or corrupted by it's scale or it's distance from the people. I see them like banks on a river, giving people inspiration and purpose, not rule.
Your last metaphor is lovely.
It seems that the kind of leadership you're describing might only be able to exist in small-scale scenarios.
Absolutely. Leadership, Imo, in any other sense is devoid of interaction. And that is a big reason why we are in this pickle. We have almost zero access to the people who are in charge. I differentiate between power and merit, by saying that anyone responsible for others is not paid for that service. It is in fact, a public service. Consider yourself, you are in authority but not on a pedestal of power. You sleep and eat with your clan. They listen to you because you have shown them you are trustworthy. As soon as leaders grow beyond the group boundaries we have problems with accountability. Small is best. But not isolated from other groups. But my big point is, people need the opportunity to know each other, and build trusty foundations.
"You sleep and eat with your clan."
🧡🔥🧡
My goal is to get this done, and to seek help and collaboration to do it. The vision beats in my brain. I just want to see it done!
Under natural law everyone is sovereign, self determined and self governing. I consider MoB, the founder of UCT to be a 'leader' on many issues. For example, if I want legal advice on say, mortgage fraud, there is no one better to ask than him. The same way in a battle, I would want the most learned strategic general leading the field. Leaders/kings etc of ancient times were not roles of imposed authority like they are now. They were roles of responsibility and protection. Like when Brutus founded Briton upon common right and assumed role of military dictator in times of national conflict such as invasion. It was simply a matter of best man for the job. Today we have fake manufactured crisis where fraud is used to impose fake authority. Many of the trustees have walked the path of most resistance which has enabled the individual to acquire knowledge on various matters which makes them perfect for roles of responsibility and leadership on specific matters and tasks. The idea is to create a people that learn and grow from each other which will naturally create tight communities full of wisdom.
Early in his "Inventing Freedom" book, your countryman Daniel Hannan cites Tacitus as forging a distinction: potestas (rule by power) and auctoritas (leadership by merit). Seems a good distinction to make.
Good point. Its like when a pipe bursts. You want the man who knows about pipes to sort/advise the situation.
I have always used argument #2 as my main reason for my dislike and mistrust of politics and politicians - the system really does seem to be built for the worst kind of narcissistic and power hungry personalities, the last people you want as leaders.
The mistake we've all been making for so long is to blame the personalities rather than the system that attracts them. The system is the problem. (But you probably knew I would say that 🤣)
I would have expected nothing less, Lol 😉
Some good observations in this article. Seems like the obvious was stated centuries ago when a wise man wrote, it is not in man to direct his step(so how could he direct others? We could look for guidance from someone who, oh maybe created mankind. The same person that said you will not be happy choosing (voting for a king to rein over you) And since the information he wanted man to have and understood he had written in 66 books using over 40 penmen and did the writing spanning 1500 years, don't tell me God told me this or that, as if you just had a conversation with him. You do have a big ego if stating this. It is already written, Check it out. There is a description of what mankind can and should be like in Isaiah 65. Manmade governments will never achieve anything like this. Why put any trust in men to govern men?
"Why put any trust in men to govern men?"
—And that's not a rhetorical question. Someone please answer why…
I have not found a reason of any kind to trust men to govern men. They simply aren't equipped to do that.
David Friedman notes in his PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE (I think e-copies are still available on his web page.) that Iceland, for around 300 years had no king, no executive leader; " ...King was replaced by an assembly of local chieftains. As in Norway (before Harald) there was nothing corresponding to a strictly feudal bond. The relationship between the Icelandic godi and his thingmen (thingmenn) was contractual,..."
It can be done!
"Francis is clearly a communist masquerading as a religious leader."
Unless communism is really a religion. And a religion bent on conquest, like Islam.
Yup. It has many of the characteristics of a religion, and it is absolutely bent on conquest.
Speaking of which, have you ever read Karl Marx’s Satanic poetry?
No, I didn’t know anything about that (probably will be skipping it TBH). But I know that Saul Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals to Satan.
If you do end up interested, it is a short article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/murray-n-rothbard/marx-loved-satan/
> Dominance hierarchies are a natural fact of life.
So are other hierarchies. Hierarchies of values and hierarchies of competence exist, pre-politically. Might leaders be part of the emergent, spontaneous order, based on hierarchies of values and competence, rather than hierarchies of dominance/imposing?
I'm not sure the reality of leaders and leadership is tied to dominance and so opposing decentralized, consent-based societies.
Yes, you are right. There are many different hierarchies to climb, and not all of them involve involuntary authority and force. In fact, I think most do not.
Very happy to hear your thoughts here. Leaders that aren't transitory and meant for a moment in time (maybe today I need a person who helps me with an emotional problem, tomorrow I may need someone who leads me in how to hold a weapon) scare me. I've seen great people become horrible people and horrible people be great leaders. It all depends on the topic and sometimes even the mood.
Leaders who help, rather than leaders who rule. How’s that?
Perfecto!
Interesting timing for declaration of a leaderless society. I can understand why some people simply had a meltdown during this conversation because it's election week and we're electing leaders, right now.
IMO, leadership is temporary, once they've done their job, and the rest of the us get the idea behind the mission, then there's no need for that leadership and the rest of us can do it for the rest of us. Until there's a situation that requires the fortitude of another more experienced individual and/or group of people who are willing to succeed in resolving the matter. Then just go back to being a part of the human race.
I get that.💯🔥💯
“ Interesting timing for declaration of a leaderless society.”
—I did not plan the timing to work out this way, but I do think it’s hilarious and somewhat delightful that it did!
“ I can understand why some people simply had a meltdown during this conversation because it's election week and we're electing leaders, right now.”
—I am presuming that is the reason for the two sudden unsubs I had right after this went live. I get it. Some people are not yet at the stage of their journey where they can accept the idea of leaderlessness.
"Good leaders are transitory. Good ideas are forever."
And both are rare.
I suggest a solutocracy. When a problem arises, Those it affects can solve for it in any Ethical way They choose. Leaders of the moment will emerge to solve any problem, and if there are no problems to solve for...no problem!
Solutocracy – A Way to Govern (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/solutocracy-a-way-to-govern
This will work brilliantly as long as there is no monetary profit motive, and I again state that money (in any form - anything that accounts for the energy We add into a system is "money," be it goods and services exchanged or electronic bits, or anything in between) is an archaic tool and explain here:
The End of Entropy (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-end-of-entropy
Quantifying Wealth (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/quantifying-wealth
Social Currency (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/social-currency