I am reminded of an Englishman who objected to the introduction of railways because he saw no reason why the lower orders should wander aimlessly around the country. But, of course, the more they are free to travel and learn, the less they are describable as "lower." Rulers throughout the ages have justified keeping the people down because the people are down. However, rulers themselves have only been with us for the few thousand years since the beginning of civilization. Before that, society would have had leaders, those who led activities from time to time, but there was not as yet any economic surplus to be monopolized and controlled by a class of administrators becoming rulers.
My example of moral leadership, clearly distinguishable from any kind of rulership, is this. A line of people waiting for a bus witness an act of cruelty on the other side of a busy road. They hesitate to intervene, to risk the traffic or to miss their bus, which they see approaching. One steps forward. Some follow the one. More follow the some. The rest follow the more. The one gave a lead. He could not coerce the others. They need not and might not have followed his lead.
So down with rulers and up with leaders!
5 comments:
Hi, Paul!
I feel the need to express qualified disagreement with you here. Unlike you, I don't share the excessive optimism you place on "education." While I would not take as extreme a view as what Chanthavar says, I do agree there are degrees of intelligence and ability among human beings. And that not all humans care in the least about public affairs, the arts, philosophy, etc. And I see no reason to think that will ever change.
I'm a conservative. I'm relatively indifferent merely to FORMS of government. What matters is that strict limits be placed on the state and the rule of law and respect for basic human rights be respected. And I define those rights NEGATIVELY as largely meaning RESTRICTIONS on the state.
Sean
Sean,
Remember there is genetic engineering in this future society which is how they ensure that the Ministers are fit to rule.
I agree there are degrees of intelligence and ability. I cannot sing, draw, write fiction, play a musical instrument, handle the most basic Maths without pen and paper etc. But we need an educational and social system that enables each individual to develop his/her abilities, whatever they are and whatever their level, to the full.
I think that there would then be a release of a tremendous human energy that would transform society and raise the level of succeeding generations.
I also think that THE LONG WAY HOME shows humanity potentially on the verge of such a qualitative transformation but held back by the fact that they have programmed the Technon to maintain stability at the expense of permanently keeping the Commons in low-level.
Paul.
...and, of course, such a change will come about when a majority actively wants it, not when I and a few comrades seize control of the state and impose our idea of progressive education on everyone else!
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Thanks for your interesting comments. But I need more time than I have right now to adequately respond. I have to go to work very soon. After I come back, I hope!
Sean
Hi, Paul!
I forgot how genetic modifying was used in THE LONG WAY HOME to make sure the Ministerial class serving the Technon remained at a higher than average IQ level compared to the Commons.
Of course I agree on the need for a high quality educational system. I'm simply skeptical that any educational system will be all that is needed. I would also advocate keeping the state as much as possible out of the education system. I would far prefer the parents of children to choose (and pay)for the kind of education they desire for their children.
If I seem excessibly hostile to the state having a role in education that is because in many cities and states of the US, "public" education has been a disastrous failure. There have been many contributing reasons for this, but government control and interference certainly has not helped.
I agree that the stability and relative prosperity the Technon brought for most of mankind on Earth came at a high price, including a fossilized culture deliberately keeping the Commons down. But, if most the Commons themselves were satisfied with the stability brought by the Technon, was it that bad?
And I'm glad you reject any idea that your beliefs justifies organizing a conspiracy to seize power in the state and tyrannically forcing your ideas on the vast mass of a people hostile to those ideas and resenting being coerced to accept them.
Sean
Post a Comment