Best Suited To Rule

 Ray Butler (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago

This is the age old question; for a reasonably enlightened person you would conclude that someone with a good blend of intellect and empathy, or even a large group of people who have such traits could find a way to organise society in a way that addresses quality of life, opportunity and justice across the board in the most efficient ways they can conceive.

The reality is that wealth can afford to take societies brightest and employ them for service to the agenda of that position, it can also afford to silence criticism or alternatives to that method, and obviously will.

Wealth comes from innovation, meh true to a degree, the investors that fund the innovators and provide the resources for innovation have a vested stake in the product, by law they own rights, innovators are just employees in this sense; they are paid a reasonable reward for their contribution but they simply do not have the distribution network to capitalise on it themselves, so distributors and investors generally claim the most wealth from innovation.

So that is how the system works; Wealth ultimately decides everything and in that power they naturally direct more wealth back toward themselves, there is no real point to this, no distinct goal for humanity, innovation is just a bi-product of wealth amassing power in order to amass more wealth to maintain the potency of power in the goal of amassing wealth etc.

December 9, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Anonymous (328) (@) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79, Yes. Fake innovation. At the same time, it’s made to look like the only way of innovation. In reality it’s just stealing that is justified by laws for a power funnel.

Take the Luddites for example. It’s like nothing has changed since then.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@motorik, I was looking at materialism; we desire a range of things, things we perceive will improve our lives, and indeed there are a range of things that will do that, but there is a singularity where fear takes over; we fear to lose those things, and so when we gain power we believe we can stop other thing from being a threat to what we have, desire gets us things while fear compels us to keep them.

And that is the root of the situation; we all want to improve our own quality of life, but when we have qualities others don’t have we gain an edge over others, so we have more power to control others, then we can protect what we have more efficiently. So you get stuff, want to keep it, want to protect it, so you gain power to keep privilege and control others, to stop them from taking it, you keep them down and yourself up.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (328) (@) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79, Yezzur, affirmative. Easier than ever with technology; materialism, technology and politics are very related if you ask me. Wouldn’t you think? Yes? No? Maybe?

“but there is a singularity where fear takes over; we fear to lose those things, and so when we gain power we believe we can stop other thing from being a threat to what we have, desire gets us things while fear compels us to keep them.”

We confuse technology with human wealth. It’s not the problem of materialism or technology, it’s how the lot is applied and how it affects us socially. So the fear we get is just a constant reminder that something is wrong, but to some people the only solution they are familiar with is to “greed for more”. What could you do if you are faced with a complex problem that has yet to be focused on and taught in school? It would just be as good as nonsense to anyone in that train of thought, in the same sense of how you laid out how wealth operates.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@motorik, Well people who have a lot are automatically seen by people who don’t as bad guys, people become jealous and want what they have, to the point they will just take it. That is what those people of wealth/power are afraid of, so they build a fortress of security to protect themselves and what they have.

If you look at Bill Gates, he is ridiculously rich, but he is also a humanitarian so no one really wants to stop him or destroy him, the world loves him. Think about that; if the rich and powerful were seen as humanitarians then no one would want to destroy them, they would not need their “fortress of security” to protect them.

Of course there are people who would still rob Bill Gates if they could, but generally he doesn’t have to worry about society taking him out. What he would have to worry about is if other rich/powerful elite think he is making them look bad, they will either join him or stop him.

But yes, to answer your question; wealth or materialism, including technology, is related to power and politics, they all play on the desires and fears of people. Ideologies, or principles/cultural or traditional values and conditioning, are concepts designed around fear and desire, and they are exploitable towards whatever whoever decides is best, if that is for themselves or humanity, that is another choice they have.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (328) (@) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79, “Well people who have a lot are automatically seen by people who don’t as bad guys, people become jealous and want what they have”

I don’t think so. Not everyone at least. I do see the tendency of people to become jealous of people who are portrayed to have a lot and they are idolized. They will swallow the dumbness and superficiality that comes with it.

Gates is a good example. I also do not think the recent surveillance scandals make him a bad person. He as a person has no control of that, or does he? Tech giants do work together, it’s just a matter of marketing. That is the point, we are keen on personality, the ‘celebrity type’, how stuff is made to look. Speaking of the ‘singularity’, it somehow makes sense to think that corporations are the most realistic manifestation of a singularity.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@motorik, Jealous is a bad word for it, but obviously people are getting fed up with some people getting paid phenomenal fortunes to drink champagne on their private yacht while the rest of us slug it out for chump change. That kind of thing upsets people, it can quite easily lead to a revolution and I am just saying that these kinds of people would do better to secure their position by being a little more thoughtful with how they are perceived, they would do us and themselves a big favour.

I didn’t hear about his involvement in those scandals :p But yeah, he seems to be a fairly nice guy, doing a lot of work eliminating disease around the world.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (328) (@) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79, Yeah it’s all publicity. Gates is not Microsoft, although people would rather cling to that idea of a “company that cares” even just by his acts as an individual. It’s politics and economy that’s given a celebrity twist to it.

[Hidden]
Quincy (13) (@forward) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79 I think what you ultimately get at IMO is no person or group will be ideally suitable to govern/maintain/organize etc. a group or population because material boasts always end up devouring, clouding, and/or blinding them to perform their duties as those who govern/maintain/organize etc. ???

Does this touch base as a general statement, correct e if I’m wrong?

[Hidden]
Manimal (2,998) (@manimal) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79, The thing is, NOBODY is suitable to be a ruler.

No matter who you put on top, that person will exploit and manipulate people. Just like how even the best and nicest farmer uses the livestock and crops for profit and keeps them captive and ends up killing them.

People say they love their cats and dogs, yet they take them to the vet to remove parts of them to change their behaviour and prevent them from procreating. Then they feed them canned rubbish until they die, after a lifetime of being used and mistreated.

That’s not love, and there’s no compassion in it either.
Just a selfish urge.

Domestication is an atrocity. Yet people ask to be domesticated.

Nobody is fit to rule over mankind. People will never be happy slaves, they will always be disappointed and jealous and greedy. Selling themselves and one another for nickels and dimes, and then whining about it and looking for scapegoats.

And anyone who doesn’t follow their pattern becomes a social pariah and gets showered in hatred on a daily basis.

Is that what you want for mankind and planet earth?

If yes, I have two words for you, and those words can be summarized on one finger.

As for the notion that wealth controls everything, well you’re just scratching the surface. Looking deeper, there are other more fundamental and crucial things driving the development.
Always look deeper.

[Hidden]
Obviously, you’re not a golfer (605) (@donjaime23) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

Is this a question or a rant?

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79,

the best suited to rule are the strong who do not desire such power, this is not their life’s ambition, to rule,

^these make the best leaders

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@manimal,

what’s deeper about your statement bro? i see nothing in there that suggests you know anything more than Ray does, in fact, it seems like you are more just finding reasons to disagree…. then not offering any other alternative,

you basically just took what he said to the furthest, most abstract extreme, and acted like he was saying that, then talked to him like he was silly,

[[ let me ask you a very serious question ]] when you address people on this forum, who are you speaking to? are you speaking to the audience of possible readers? are you speaking to a concept?

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@forward, @manimal, I’d have to say there would be a difference between organising things toward a goal and ruling humanity, obviously any one of us would have our own goal, just as any group distinction would.

Leadership means exactly that, no one knows where to go so they follow, but if everyone did know where to go then no leader could get side tracked, because the moment they did they would cease to be a leader. But that is an oversimplification.

The way I see it is people need to be manipulated until they realise they can be manipulated and until they realise they don’t have to be manipulated, it is up to people who are at that stage to make sure those people are not being manipulated toward a harmful or dead end goal.

What drives people? It is powerful whatever it is, and either they are embracing it blind or they are following the blind, because there doesn’t seem to be any real method to all this. Maybe to a degree you have people building quality of life/standard of living, personally tailored to their preference. But as you can take a Bull and yoke it to plod the field, you can take wild stubbornness and give it a productive function.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@tine, I’d say people who already have what they need/want, with or without leadership, are the incorruptible ones, regardless of any other factors, they would be best suited to rule, as long as they don’t lose sight of that condition. It would then just depend on how far their intent to serve humanity goes, does it stop at some border that has been marked with conceptual emphasis or do they go all the way?

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79,

i think though, manimal had point when he said, nobody is fit to rule,

this implies man needs a ruler that is not hiself, i think this is almost like an excuse system, man is placed within a context where there are betters,

i dunno, maybe its the word [ rule ], do you think it makes any difference to call it { lead }?

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@tine, He does have a point, and rulership is a bad word. We all have strengths and weakness, so you would think it would be a case of organising people into a function where they are suited but not allowing them to over-reach into functions that they are not so suited for.

That is the problem with the dynamics of power; it can give you the opportunities to cross lines into where other people have more appropriate skills in handling information or situations, but that doesn’t mean we cant figure out how to arrange conditions in that kind of order.

I will say there is a difference between freedom and anarchy, people insist life is a power struggle and the winners deserve their place, but I think it is distinctly possible for people to have a quality life, have the opportunity to reach their own potential and all this while remaining within standards of decency toward others.

People want to put that in the “too hard basket” and accept things as nature, even justify them by that, but I tend to believe that kind of nature is really just residual behaviour of a time when we were not equipped to keep them in perspective.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@manimal, Fortunately, some people are willing to become social pariahs, even if it never pays off, maybe some of us are masochistic gluttons for punishment ;)

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@trek79,

i think the problem with power is power, power should only be given to those who truly feel unworthy of it, i think the problem with our current system arises from the fact that, those who hold power are those that seek it and now we have an entire system designed for these people, the entire political platform now is centered on {{ how can i appear a certain way to appeal to the highest amount of people }},

bc the people that seek power are not those that can really handle it, so they pretend, and they pretend to achieve power, so, we have a system that spits forth a group of pretenders, every time,

and bc money is key, we have a system of pretenders controlled by money,

i think this is the only real problem today and why there should be reform to allow everybody the chance to run, not just the rich and seekers of power-grasper, reaching for what they havent personally earned.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

@tine I agree that it shouldn’t depend so much on wealth, but we have elitism in education also; while the lower classes are heaped into a common room with a common technique of education, you have people of resource who can customise education tailored to their childrens unique needs and strengths, and grooming them for the top jobs.

So to even run for the top jobs you have to be qualified for them in the first place, it doesn’t hurt to have solid referees behind you either, so simply having the potential is not enough, it is an expensive road to the top, wealth can buy that privilege, keep the talent pool shallow, so our leaders are not chosen from our best and brightest, they are chosen from those who look good on paper.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (1) (@) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

my friend’s mother makes $75 hourly on the internet. She has been without a job for ten months but last month her income was $15203 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit here…. http://www.Rush64.com

[Hidden]
load more