I'm not an anarchist, I have often thought anarchists should be offered a free ticket to live in Somalia and I value much of the security the state offers, including it's ability (although not always enacted!) to protect the right to protest.
In regard to smaller scales, I like the presence of a good boss but dislike illogical ones. I'm not always pro devolution of power but can be on occasion. While we have very non democratic elements to UK governance I still feel lucky to be here rather than in countries with much less democracy. Given the choice I'd rather live in China with far too much state control than Somalia with almost none - I should think my life expectancy would be somewhat higher in the former.
So where do people stand on leadership and rules?
Rules and leaders.
Rules and leaders.
"Whatever it is, it spits and it goes 'WAAARGHHHHHHHH' - that's probably enough to suggest you shouldn't argue with it." Mousy.
-
Rum
- Absent Minded Processor
- Posts: 37285
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
- Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
- Contact:
Re: Rules and leaders.
This is a subject dear to my heart and it touches the core of my personal values.
My starting point is that no person should have power or authority over any other if at all possible. I am pretty hot on the American constitutional ideas around personal liberty for example. At the same time I have a strong social conscience and I feel it is right to organise to support and protect thre weakest and most vulnerable in society. So there is a built in tension between those two positions, given that organising society requires rules, taxation and so on. I simply live with the tension and when I see abuse of authority and power I rail against it. I carry this into my professional as well as personal life. I have always been uncomfortable exercising authority, despite at times being line manager for 50 or more people at a time and I would always - and I mean always, try to develop a common understanding and agreement of the objectives were were trying to achieve and then plan as jointly and cooperatively together to reach those objectives. It has generally worked well. I have had perhaps three serious 'disciplinary' issues to do with incompetency, bad or unprofessional conduct to deal with over the years and loathed every one because one is forced into the 'authority' box.
I think you are using the term 'anarchy' in the more recent sense of the word by the way Floppit - as in lawlessness and chaos. Originally political theorists such as Kropotikin, who was around as Russia was moving towards revolution, proposed the idea of groups of people agreeing voluntarily to cooperate and then to trade and work with other similar groups, with no central government - thus 'anarchy'. It was a model that perhaps could only ever have worked in a rural society, but it has its attractions. I read a lot of this stuff when I was actively political in my 20s by the way.
Bottom line? In terms of pragmatism I think our liberal democracies get an impossible task, i.e. maintaining and sustaining huge numbers of human beings with massively differing needs and desires in relative freedom and liberty pretty well right. The stresses and limitations of that are showing though at the moment. It seems to require greater authority and control to maintain those systems as time goes on and as that centralised power grows at some point it may be that we can no longer call them liberal democracies, because they will be something else.
My starting point is that no person should have power or authority over any other if at all possible. I am pretty hot on the American constitutional ideas around personal liberty for example. At the same time I have a strong social conscience and I feel it is right to organise to support and protect thre weakest and most vulnerable in society. So there is a built in tension between those two positions, given that organising society requires rules, taxation and so on. I simply live with the tension and when I see abuse of authority and power I rail against it. I carry this into my professional as well as personal life. I have always been uncomfortable exercising authority, despite at times being line manager for 50 or more people at a time and I would always - and I mean always, try to develop a common understanding and agreement of the objectives were were trying to achieve and then plan as jointly and cooperatively together to reach those objectives. It has generally worked well. I have had perhaps three serious 'disciplinary' issues to do with incompetency, bad or unprofessional conduct to deal with over the years and loathed every one because one is forced into the 'authority' box.
I think you are using the term 'anarchy' in the more recent sense of the word by the way Floppit - as in lawlessness and chaos. Originally political theorists such as Kropotikin, who was around as Russia was moving towards revolution, proposed the idea of groups of people agreeing voluntarily to cooperate and then to trade and work with other similar groups, with no central government - thus 'anarchy'. It was a model that perhaps could only ever have worked in a rural society, but it has its attractions. I read a lot of this stuff when I was actively political in my 20s by the way.
Bottom line? In terms of pragmatism I think our liberal democracies get an impossible task, i.e. maintaining and sustaining huge numbers of human beings with massively differing needs and desires in relative freedom and liberty pretty well right. The stresses and limitations of that are showing though at the moment. It seems to require greater authority and control to maintain those systems as time goes on and as that centralised power grows at some point it may be that we can no longer call them liberal democracies, because they will be something else.
Re: Rules and leaders.
Those who seek power over others should never have it bestowed upon them as they will undoubtedly abuse that power.
The quality of a society should be judged not by the wealth of its rich but the care of its poor.
No two people are born equal, all people are unique, society should value variety not conformity.
The individual should put the well being of society before their own well being.
Society requires some simple common rules to function e.g. which side of the road should we drive on.
The quality of a society should be judged not by the wealth of its rich but the care of its poor.
No two people are born equal, all people are unique, society should value variety not conformity.
The individual should put the well being of society before their own well being.
Society requires some simple common rules to function e.g. which side of the road should we drive on.
Re: Rules and leaders.
I barely recognise authority except in situations were force is genuinely needed. I have never acquiesced to any of my bosses in the past, a trait which they tend to recognise in me very quickly and tend to speak to me different to other employees, some of them even approaching me on tenterhooks (which always makes me lol because I'm not irreproachable). The last time I was in McDonalds late at night a big fight broke out, I remained seated eating my food calmly even as people came close to bumping off my chair, even as the police came in and dragged every single person in the place out kicking and struggling leaving me the sole customer. I have been started on by men way bigger than me and by standing my ground and keeping stern eye-contact have been able to talk them down, I have also calmed down fights between others.
I feel that I am a self guiding and controlled citizen. In work I don't need to be told what to do or corrected repeatedly or told to pull my weight. I commit no crime or have no criminal intent so I feel the cops have no reason to be near me. I am pacifistic and trust worthy to the extent that in the past I have been trusted by gangsters and drug-dealers who never talked to me in a threatening way even when they were so with everyone else (especially the paranoid ones on issues like giving stuff out on tick, I would always have the money when I said I would and would never try to pull a fast one). I think the reason fights never come my way is because I'm not seen as a threat by anyone. I've never had an enemy in my life.
I don't vote because I don't feel any party represents what I'm about although I hear there's a humanist party up and coming now so they may get my vote. I see the government as managers. I do not issue them any respect unless deserved, same with anyone else. I don't care if you're famous, if you have a Do you know who I am? attitude I will treat you with scorn and derision.
I agree that there are rules that have to be adhered too for the common good, I do these things without complaining or criticizing(never once complained about the smoking ban) if I feel it is a good idea. I hate laws that impinge on personal freedoms, like getting arrested for smoking a plant, or affect poor and disadvantaged communities in a negative way.
I feel that I am a self guiding and controlled citizen. In work I don't need to be told what to do or corrected repeatedly or told to pull my weight. I commit no crime or have no criminal intent so I feel the cops have no reason to be near me. I am pacifistic and trust worthy to the extent that in the past I have been trusted by gangsters and drug-dealers who never talked to me in a threatening way even when they were so with everyone else (especially the paranoid ones on issues like giving stuff out on tick, I would always have the money when I said I would and would never try to pull a fast one). I think the reason fights never come my way is because I'm not seen as a threat by anyone. I've never had an enemy in my life.
I don't vote because I don't feel any party represents what I'm about although I hear there's a humanist party up and coming now so they may get my vote. I see the government as managers. I do not issue them any respect unless deserved, same with anyone else. I don't care if you're famous, if you have a Do you know who I am? attitude I will treat you with scorn and derision.
I agree that there are rules that have to be adhered too for the common good, I do these things without complaining or criticizing(never once complained about the smoking ban) if I feel it is a good idea. I hate laws that impinge on personal freedoms, like getting arrested for smoking a plant, or affect poor and disadvantaged communities in a negative way.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.
Re: Rules and leaders.
I'd be interested to know more but at first glance I can't see that working, and although it is 100% tongue in cheek - why not travel to a stateless country to see if it's possible to set up?think you are using the term 'anarchy' in the more recent sense of the word by the way Floppit - as in lawlessness and chaos. Originally political theorists such as Kropotikin, who was around as Russia was moving towards revolution, proposed the idea of groups of people agreeing voluntarily to cooperate and then to trade and work with other similar groups, with no central government - thus 'anarchy'. It was a model that perhaps could only ever have worked in a rural society, but it has its attractions. I read a lot of this stuff when I was actively political in my 20s by the way.
I think out of the responses so far I probably have the most ease with rules and authority. All of us have mentioned our working lives and for me that was where I gained the values I have now. At school I was forced to be there and had never agreed or signed up to being there, therefore I considered it reasonable behaviour to truant whenever I could get away with it (which was a lot as the strikes disrupted classes and teacher's memories for who should be in them!). No amount of force, detentions, being on report could get me in line - I simply did not possess exercise books, or do homework for most subjects. But when I went to work that changed completely.
Working with powerful and hot horses WAS what I signed up for, was what I had agreed to and I never questioned the right of those in charge to tell me how to do it. My part in the equation was to choose where I worked, and I chose well, beyond that my behaviour would be shaped by them, my boss and the head girl. I cannot remember anything short of my best effort to comply, I can't even imagine it because I was there to learn and respected those who told me how to achieve that. I had to learn to do as I was told without question, if the head girl shouted 'DROP YOUR HANDS' on a bolting horse I had to stop pulling the bloody reins, regardless of fear (and there was plenty of that!). Or on my first gallops when said head girl came alongside and said 'Take the fucking handbrake off and gerrup 'is neck!' But JESUS the rewards were HUGE and that is what ultimately fuelled my continued obedience. Years and years later that obedience dwindled with the head girl, although we are still good friends as we became equals the relationship went through a very brief shock phase and came out as every bit mutual respect for each other's strengths. My old boss, to this day, in any situation on a horse I would listen to him, we are not equals in that respect.
As I became head girl my philosophy was one of good manners - I wasn't one for shouting at anyone, but I expected absolute compliance training younger grooms, the few (2) exceptions were fired. If I tell a trainee 'Do not wind the lunge line round your hand' there are 3 possible outcomes, 1 the groom listens and learns, 2 the groom doesn't and gets fired or 3 the groom doesn't listen and gets hurt. If I was to say 'Stay out of that horse's box' - same 3 outcomes. I always mucked out alongside other grooms, even if I had to turn in early to do it alongside the extra horses I had to work, I'd always offer a choice of tasks and be willing to do the least favoured myself, I'd bend over backwards to explain and listen to any argument or disagreement carefully, but when push came to shove I can see no other safe way of being in that trade except compliance, my compliance to those who know more than me and the compliance of ones who knew less. Also, to do something wrong puts the animals at risk and that's 100% unacceptable. That makes me sound like a right toss pot autocrat - but I never minded either side of the fence and was on both.
I went back to school - big girls school, and came out working with people not horses and TBH I miss the discipline of the yards. I loathe it when colleagues bad mouth a service user, saying 'they' are impossible. If there was I horse I couldn't ride I had to say 'I don't know how to do X with that horse' not - 'that horse is impossible/nuts/evil'. I find it so sad people are so undervalued, to work with a valuable horse is a real honour, so is to work with a person. I want to do it, because I want to do it well if I struggle I need to know where I AM going wrong - I can't get my head round the lack of that discipline.
For me, rules and authority are about respect and choice, I would challenge openly a boss I didn't respect (and have done!) but at the same time, I accept that in doing so I may lose my job (and have done!). But while I agree to stay I have made a choice, I don't cheat or skim off the top. Re the country and it's laws, I believe in democracy, I think we have it better than most but if the law required of me to do something which I knew was counter to my principles, and harmful - I would break the law. I can't imagine it in Blighty but if I needed to break the law to feed my kid, I would break the law.
Smeg - That was long! Sowwy....
"Whatever it is, it spits and it goes 'WAAARGHHHHHHHH' - that's probably enough to suggest you shouldn't argue with it." Mousy.
-
Rum
- Absent Minded Processor
- Posts: 37285
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
- Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
- Contact:
Re: Rules and leaders.
10.20 and two glasses of good red under my belt so I won't respond now! Just logging my intention to say summat tomoz!floppit wrote:I'd be interested to know more but at first glance I can't see that working, and although it is 100% tongue in cheek - why not travel to a stateless country to see if it's possible to set up?think you are using the term 'anarchy' in the more recent sense of the word by the way Floppit - as in lawlessness and chaos. Originally political theorists such as Kropotikin, who was around as Russia was moving towards revolution, proposed the idea of groups of people agreeing voluntarily to cooperate and then to trade and work with other similar groups, with no central government - thus 'anarchy'. It was a model that perhaps could only ever have worked in a rural society, but it has its attractions. I read a lot of this stuff when I was actively political in my 20s by the way.
I think out of the responses so far I probably have the most ease with rules and authority. All of us have mentioned our working lives and for me that was where I gained the values I have now. At school I was forced to be there and had never agreed or signed up to being there, therefore I considered it reasonable behaviour to truant whenever I could get away with it (which was a lot as the strikes disrupted classes and teacher's memories for who should be in them!). No amount of force, detentions, being on report could get me in line - I simply did not possess exercise books, or do homework for most subjects. But when I went to work that changed completely.
Working with powerful and hot horses WAS what I signed up for, was what I had agreed to and I never questioned the right of those in charge to tell me how to do it. My part in the equation was to choose where I worked, and I chose well, beyond that my behaviour would be shaped by them, my boss and the head girl. I cannot remember anything short of my best effort to comply, I can't even imagine it because I was there to learn and respected those who told me how to achieve that. I had to learn to do as I was told without question, if the head girl shouted 'DROP YOUR HANDS' on a bolting horse I had to stop pulling the bloody reins, regardless of fear (and there was plenty of that!). Or on my first gallops when said head girl came alongside and said 'Take the fucking handbrake off and gerrup 'is neck!' But JESUS the rewards were HUGE and that is what ultimately fuelled my continued obedience. Years and years later that obedience dwindled with the head girl, although we are still good friends as we became equals the relationship went through a very brief shock phase and came out as every bit mutual respect for each other's strengths. My old boss, to this day, in any situation on a horse I would listen to him, we are not equals in that respect.
As I became head girl my philosophy was one of good manners - I wasn't one for shouting at anyone, but I expected absolute compliance training younger grooms, the few (2) exceptions were fired. If I tell a trainee 'Do not wind the lunge line round your hand' there are 3 possible outcomes, 1 the groom listens and learns, 2 the groom doesn't and gets fired or 3 the groom doesn't listen and gets hurt. If I was to say 'Stay out of that horse's box' - same 3 outcomes. I always mucked out alongside other grooms, even if I had to turn in early to do it alongside the extra horses I had to work, I'd always offer a choice of tasks and be willing to do the least favoured myself, I'd bend over backwards to explain and listen to any argument or disagreement carefully, but when push came to shove I can see no other safe way of being in that trade except compliance, my compliance to those who know more than me and the compliance of ones who knew less. Also, to do something wrong puts the animals at risk and that's 100% unacceptable. That makes me sound like a right toss pot autocrat - but I never minded either side of the fence and was on both.
I went back to school - big girls school, and came out working with people not horses and TBH I miss the discipline of the yards. I loathe it when colleagues bad mouth a service user, saying 'they' are impossible. If there was I horse I couldn't ride I had to say 'I don't know how to do X with that horse' not - 'that horse is impossible/nuts/evil'. I find it so sad people are so undervalued, to work with a valuable horse is a real honour, so is to work with a person. I want to do it, because I want to do it well if I struggle I need to know where I AM going wrong - I can't get my head round the lack of that discipline.
For me, rules and authority are about respect and choice, I would challenge openly a boss I didn't respect (and have done!) but at the same time, I accept that in doing so I may lose my job (and have done!). But while I agree to stay I have made a choice, I don't cheat or skim off the top. Re the country and it's laws, I believe in democracy, I think we have it better than most but if the law required of me to do something which I knew was counter to my principles, and harmful - I would break the law. I can't imagine it in Blighty but if I needed to break the law to feed my kid, I would break the law.
Smeg - That was long! Sowwy....
Re: Rules and leaders.
A single, official body where the only available candidates are all professionally qualified in the necessary areas - including practical experience.
No more "professional politicans" legislating on Hospitals and criminal law.
No more "professional politicans" legislating on Hospitals and criminal law.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests