Monday 25 February 2013

The Leaders And The Led

Looking at the stories on the day, all is confusion, error and uncertainty.  One of the features of all the disruptions and stresses around the world are about where are we being led, who should lead and how. 

Our democracies seem to have lost the ability to choose leaders who are honest and know what they are about and the non-democracies, which do not offer choice seem to be no better governed, some are worse and many others rank bad.

The short item below was sent by a member of the family and sets out how easy it is to be saddled with a bad leader in whatever sphere you can think of:

By coincidence on the same day Zero Hedge had a long and discursive item on the subject of inequalities of income and wealth in the modern world.  This, it would appear is where our leaders have taken us and continue to do so:

Another longish item is from Sunday’s Rowans Blog again on his major theme derived from long personal experience.  In this case the closeness of politicians, bankers and the others has produced an exploitative and determined elite of leaders who are little concerned about the extensive damage they have done and are doing:

As an example of all this, today had a short post from The Enlightened Economist on the grip Comcast has on communications in the USA that has had the effect of putting it well down the table of comparisons about the capability and the cost of using the internet and related facilities.

Perhaps the ancient system of choosing the elders or leaders by the simple process of casting lots wasn’t such a bad idea.

The National Lottery could turn the selection of members of the government into an extra feature.  Say, tickets with a premium price of a fiver each?

As things are it could not be much worse.

1 comment:

  1. Well said! The only thing the modern election process proves is which candidate is in the money interest's pocket.

    The Old Way of picking leaders was via competition (often personal combat) that would prove the individual had the 'right stuff' to lead.

    Naturally this myopic method has some obvious blind spots (The biggest and the strongest is also usually the dumbest!)

    Thus tests of wisdom and problem solving ability came into vogue...

    But big and dumb liked contests of strength better and King (along with the tradition of succession was born...until the wickedly evil concept of 'let the led choose the leader' came along (after years of relative killing relative showed the 'flaw' in royal succession.)

    And we have the staged performances we have today, the 'illusion of participation'.