I don’t think like that. I’m just saying that if a revolution is executed by bad people, they will just move the power to another tyrant. Revolts and revolutions have their place, but that does not mean that they always work. Look at Communist China or Russia. Look at the Arab Spring. Look at Libya, Gadafi was a really bad guy, a rapist even. But what happened after people revolted? Just more corruption, crime and foreign powers taking advantage of the situation.
This is why when people with a certain political leaning in the West say that they want to eat the rich, without having any further plan or clue what that would entail, look like dangerous retards. Excuse my French. Most people are pissed that they are litarelly being robbed every day by their governments, some have even been attacked physically or imprisoned unjustly. These are all legitimate grievences I do not inted to downplay at all. However, when people destroy order, leave everyone vulnerable to internal and external threats, will that make the situation better or worse? Are you willing to take that risk? What is the probability that your country will survive and prosper after such an event? Think hard about that!
If most people suck, and they would do the same as the elites had they been in power, then focusing on the current elites makes no sense. Because the current elites will just be replaced with people like them.
Lastly, in general, people will automatically rearrange themselves into power structures, even after a theoretical reset. That’s human nature. Of course there are degrees to this, but power structures will be there nontheless. You and many others don’t seem to have a clue if a revolution will lead to less totalitarianism, or more totalitarianism, you just assume that it would lead to a better state. Sorry to say, that’s a bit naive.
people will automatically rearrange themselves into power structures, even after a theoretical reset.
Happens every time. Also…
You and many others don’t seem to have a clue if a revolution will lead to less totalitarianism, or more totalitarianism, you just assume that it would lead to a better state.
Quote me saying this. In fact, quote me telling you anything at all about my political beliefs, other than that I am not limited to conceptions that require a leader.
Yes, we can say that it happens almost every time. You are arguing against a very obvious fact of life. A father is a leader to his family. A teacher has authority in the classroom. An employer has authority in the workspace. When you want to efficiently combat criminals, you need commanders (detectives), like in the police. In general, you are going to have disputes between people regarding choice A or choice B. Leadership can resolve such disputes efficiently. Generally speaking, we cannot function without leadership structures.
I am not limited to conceptions that require a leader.
How about several leaders? Because you are not going to escape leadership completely. If you are a functioning member of society, you will have a leadership role over someone, and you yourself will have leaders. It does not mean that you worship them or that you are worshiped, nor does it mean that they have to be tyrants who take other people’s rights, or that you take other people’s rights.
I’m telling you this because you seem to have a very skewed idea of what leadership is supposed to be. You seem to think that it is nothing more than imposition of one’s own will over others.
…Never seen someone just straight up admit that they were bullshitting. Props to you. Just to be clear - you do realise that the thing that “happens every time” is people claiming not to be married to the idea of society being led by an individual, then going on to argue that this is the only way?
You realise that, right?
You are arguing against a very obvious fact of life
Citation needed.
A father is a leader to his family
Citation needed.
A teacher has authority in the classroom
Citation needed.
An employer has authority in the workspace
Citation needed.
I’m getting bored of saying this over and over. Just apply it to the whole comment.
If you are a functioning member of society, you will have a leadership role over someone, and you yourself will have leaders
I suppose I’m not functional, then, because I do not “lead” anyone, not am I “led” by anyone. Stop projecting your opinions on to society at large - you’ll find that your opinion is just that; an opinion. Not a fact.
…Never seen someone just straight up admit that they were bullshitting. Props to you. >Just to be clear - you do realise that the thing that “happens every time” is people >claiming not to be married to the idea of society being led by an individual, then >going on to argue that this is the only way?
There are no problems with power structures per say, not only that, (yes) they are necessary. As long as those given power do not abuse it, there are no problems. I also never claimed to believe that society should be at the hands of one individual and their whims and desires. These two things do not contradict one another.
Secondly, the only one here bullshitting is you, and I will tell you why.
Citation needed.
So you are telling me, that as an employee, you can do whatever you want at work or even not show up at all, because you have no authorities above you?
Or even better, maybe you think that when you are fulfilling your duties at work, you do so purely because you are interested in doing so. Not because you have to earn your salary, which you then must use to pay for your home and put food on the table in order to live. Come on.
I don’t think like that. I’m just saying that if a revolution is executed by bad people, they will just move the power to another tyrant. Revolts and revolutions have their place, but that does not mean that they always work. Look at Communist China or Russia. Look at the Arab Spring. Look at Libya, Gadafi was a really bad guy, a rapist even. But what happened after people revolted? Just more corruption, crime and foreign powers taking advantage of the situation.
This is why when people with a certain political leaning in the West say that they want to eat the rich, without having any further plan or clue what that would entail, look like dangerous retards. Excuse my French. Most people are pissed that they are litarelly being robbed every day by their governments, some have even been attacked physically or imprisoned unjustly. These are all legitimate grievences I do not inted to downplay at all. However, when people destroy order, leave everyone vulnerable to internal and external threats, will that make the situation better or worse? Are you willing to take that risk? What is the probability that your country will survive and prosper after such an event? Think hard about that!
If most people suck, and they would do the same as the elites had they been in power, then focusing on the current elites makes no sense. Because the current elites will just be replaced with people like them.
Lastly, in general, people will automatically rearrange themselves into power structures, even after a theoretical reset. That’s human nature. Of course there are degrees to this, but power structures will be there nontheless. You and many others don’t seem to have a clue if a revolution will lead to less totalitarianism, or more totalitarianism, you just assume that it would lead to a better state. Sorry to say, that’s a bit naive.
Two paragaphs later…
Happens every time. Also…
Quote me saying this. In fact, quote me telling you anything at all about my political beliefs, other than that I am not limited to conceptions that require a leader.
Yes, we can say that it happens almost every time. You are arguing against a very obvious fact of life. A father is a leader to his family. A teacher has authority in the classroom. An employer has authority in the workspace. When you want to efficiently combat criminals, you need commanders (detectives), like in the police. In general, you are going to have disputes between people regarding choice A or choice B. Leadership can resolve such disputes efficiently. Generally speaking, we cannot function without leadership structures.
How about several leaders? Because you are not going to escape leadership completely. If you are a functioning member of society, you will have a leadership role over someone, and you yourself will have leaders. It does not mean that you worship them or that you are worshiped, nor does it mean that they have to be tyrants who take other people’s rights, or that you take other people’s rights.
I’m telling you this because you seem to have a very skewed idea of what leadership is supposed to be. You seem to think that it is nothing more than imposition of one’s own will over others.
…Never seen someone just straight up admit that they were bullshitting. Props to you. Just to be clear - you do realise that the thing that “happens every time” is people claiming not to be married to the idea of society being led by an individual, then going on to argue that this is the only way?
You realise that, right?
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
I’m getting bored of saying this over and over. Just apply it to the whole comment.
I suppose I’m not functional, then, because I do not “lead” anyone, not am I “led” by anyone. Stop projecting your opinions on to society at large - you’ll find that your opinion is just that; an opinion. Not a fact.
There are no problems with power structures per say, not only that, (yes) they are necessary. As long as those given power do not abuse it, there are no problems. I also never claimed to believe that society should be at the hands of one individual and their whims and desires. These two things do not contradict one another.
Secondly, the only one here bullshitting is you, and I will tell you why.
So you are telling me, that as an employee, you can do whatever you want at work or even not show up at all, because you have no authorities above you? Or even better, maybe you think that when you are fulfilling your duties at work, you do so purely because you are interested in doing so. Not because you have to earn your salary, which you then must use to pay for your home and put food on the table in order to live. Come on.