Political Crossfire Forums

[Green]

Is it possible to have a stable government without leaders?

It would be difficult to construct such a society out of such a concept, but I think it may be possible.

Now the benifits of having a stable government without leaders would be enormous. There would be no monarchy, or beurocracy.

Also, the cute little animals in Orwell's animal farm would have been all right. The thing that f****d them up were those fat ass pigs they put in charge. Any other animal would have also done the same thing.

So, if a society can be heild together without leaders, then I think a permanent demorcacy would be in place. But, there is the problem of keeping society together.

Why choose between 2 ass holes (dept. of Homland security disclaimer)
for president when you ould run the government yourself.

[Fido]

As much as is possible leaders should have influence without authority. Since today they have authority without responsibility I think this is possible. The democracy should seek consensus, and at the same time give to each person, and each community control over their own affairs that cannot be abridged in some so called national interests. Today national parties trade in rights, and representatives vote on issues affecting people they do not represent that have no true national interest. This is criminal. That two parties could successfully share power between them, and each hold the view that individual rights can be abridged, as in the right of privacy, and in the right to bear arms is a testament to the failure of, and the terminal state of our democracy. Nothing should pass the leaders and become law without the consent and vote of the people. If you need representatives to propose laws you need the sovereignty of the people to have law. Leaders should be able to educate and make their case; but must ultimately vote as instructed, or resign, and never attack the rights of the people through subterfuge or cabal..

[DevilMan]

In a sense it is possible to have a government with no visible leaders. However my vote is on no. There will always be people or a person behind the scenes pulling the strings. There no lack of conspiracies in our country about secret leaders we don't know about... The Illuminati :shifty: But this isn't about the masons and the templar using bush as a puppet. There needs to be officials to lead the people and take the blame. I'm sure a police station could function in some sense without a leader but ou need a chief or sheriff to lead them or they're just a band of vigilantes with badges. Overall I think the question needs to be narrowed down a little. Are we talking a massive government like America or a tribal government like that of the Native Americans? Still my answer would have to be no.

[Fido]

DevilMan wrote: In a sense it is possible to have a government with no visible leaders. However my vote is on no. There will always be people or a person behind the scenes pulling the strings. There no lack of conspiracies in our country about secret leaders we don't know about... The Illuminati :shifty: But this isn't about the masons and the templar using bush as a puppet. There needs to be officials to lead the people and take the blame. I'm sure a police station could function in some sense without a leader but ou need a chief or sheriff to lead them or they're just a band of vigilantes with badges. Overall I think the question needs to be narrowed down a little. Are we talking a massive government like America or a tribal government like that of the Native Americans? Still my answer would have to be no.

The confederacy had representatives, but when they met everyone had a say, and consensus was the rule. Leaders are not the problem so much as the fact that leaders feel they have to lead even if there is no place good to go. But, it is common. Any two people in a room alone will soon consist of a leader and a follower. As Shakespeare said: when two people ride a horse someone has to sit in front. Today we have cars, everybody gets to sit in front; which is no problem if each is going in the same direction. When society loses its cooperative quality; leadership should be distrusted. And I don't care if a President thinks he is God Almighty; If he leads the nations into a stone wall he is no leader, but a fraud, and should get to the back and try to keep up. To have an office as powerful as that of the President, which is like queen for a day for four years without the provision of recall- is suicide. These people we elect have authority without accountability. It's like Janet Reno saying: "I take full responsibility." It is obscene! Is some one, or anyone going to go to that person with a warrant since they have just admitted responsibility in the deaths of innocent people? No. They are above the law, and they know it, and it leads to obscenities and outrages that injures us to our souls.

[DevilMan]

About the cars comment what if there are four people? Who sits in front then. Of course the driver must. Its his car or his country in other words. He gets to decide where the car goes, he has ultimate say over who drives. The other three have to compete for who rides in the passenger seat. They yell shotgun. What does this tell us about government? One man or group will always drive the car or run the country even if every one is on the road trip or making decisions. It doesn't matter if the three want to stop at the worlds largest ball of yarn or go to war. The man behind the wheel or ruling party gets to decide.

[Fido]

DevilMan wrote: About the cars comment what if there are four people? Who sits in front then. Of course the driver must. Its his car or his country in other words. He gets to decide where the car goes, he has ultimate say over who drives. The other three have to compete for who rides in the passenger seat. They yell shotgun. What does this tell us about government? One man or group will always drive the car or run the country even if every one is on the road trip or making decisions. It doesn't matter if the three want to stop at the worlds largest ball of yarn or go to war. The man behind the wheel or ruling party gets to decide.

Your reply reminds of a riddle.: What has white hair, eight eyes, and can't see? Answer... A car full of old folks.

Leadership is an inessential point if the goal for each is the same. This is easy for smaller communities than larger ones, but a goal demands communication which is a skill few possess. They talk about people like Reagan being a good leader or a good communicator. Bull. He could express himself. He had his opinions, but nothing ever got in. He was propped up most of the time and in the beginnings of dementia. He was cheer leading, but not leading, and rather, being led. Communication is an essential part of any relationship, on a horse, in a car, or in a society. It is not convincing people to go where they do not want to be, as Bush has done, and then to point out that there is no way out. Rather, as Abby Hoffman declared in effect, leadership is getting to the front of a movement.
Its nice to ask. Where do people want to be? Are we going there now? How do we get there? What will we do to get there? Who are we willing to jettison along the way? Is this a short term goal or a long term goal?
We do not ask these questions in our society today because we are disunited and willing to drag others along or leave many at the starting gate. We do not have a sense of the future, and have only short term goals, which is to say we want to be the driver even if we have no financial stake, no license, no glasses and no keys because we got there first. It isn't where they go that matters for some, but where they sit. It clearly does not matter to some. They don't care if they ride, or drive, or where they go, but it is only for the moment a chance to be sociable.
Leadership without the involvement of the followers is worse than no leadership at all.

[Korimyr the Rat]

It is impossible for two people to order dinner without a leader, much less for a much larger group of people to organize a government.

Where there are two or more people, there is always at least one leader.

[The Comrade]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: It is impossible for two people to order dinner without a leader, much less for a much larger group of people to organize a government.

Where there are two or more people, there is always at least one leader.

Exactly.


government without leaders is an oxymoron as well.

[Katsumoto]

It is impossible to have government without leaders, but it is possible to have leaders without government.

[Fido]

Katsumoto wrote: It is impossible to have government without leaders, but it is possible to have leaders without government.

The object is to have each person under their own control, and having respect for all others, and then to have rights over their own affairs that none without equal right can challenge, and to the extent that there is representative government, that it be subject not only to change of personnel, but to the approval of legislation. If we are to be free, we must reserve that freedom to our own selves, and delegate only that amount of our power as is expedient for organization for the prevention of waste or duplication. Our leaders must be teachers, and scholars, but after learning and teaching must be faithful to their electors, and allow no trespass on their rights. Politics may be the art of compromise, but this is not government, but division of spoils. Government is the task of protecting those rights which should never be compromised as the individual would protect his own life, as rights are designed to protect.

[good90]

Only for a small region. In a larger region like the US or even places half the size of the US it would be very difficult to keep the people in tact with each other, because the people need a common leader to help unite them.

[Fido]

good90 wrote: Only for a small region. In a larger region like the US or even places half the size of the US it would be very difficult to keep the people in tact with each other, because the people need a common leader to help unite them.

Would you suggest that our leaders unite us? We do not have to look for unity. We are united, but that is disparaged. Unions, associations and cause oriented organizations of all sort are referred to as special interests. People raise funds by nickles and dimes to bring a cause before the eyes and minds of the government, and for their effort are called special interests. How much money does a person have to have to not be a special interest? Do the states as different in population and area as can be measured rate Senators at two apiece? Is there any way one individual can represent the hundreds of thousands of constituents they now represent? When this land had no bridges it had representatives at the rate of one per thirty thousand. Now we can afford less per citizen? In what sense has divided interests, literally areas gerrymandered to evenly divide the population for a bare majority for one party, serve the interests of all the people. The whole process is begun from the desire to deny representation, and continue to deny representation. What then is the guarantee that good government will result? Good government will not happen, because it is designed to not happen.
As my old German uncle used to say take care of your pennies, and your dollars will take care of themselves. If small numbers are represented well, and limits are set on the trading of rights, then enlarging concerns will be no less well covered. Not all interests are national. To have good government people must have charge of their own affairs and have a say in every affair likely to affect them .

[bob.appleyard]

What is meant by government? There are a number of definitions. I would go along with Katsumoto, in that leaders and government are not mutually inclusive.

[Korimyr the Rat]

bob.appleyard wrote: What is meant by government?

A group of armed men who provide protection services in exchange for obedience and tribute.

[Fido]

bob.appleyard wrote: What is meant by government? There are a number of definitions. I would go along with Katsumoto, in that leaders and government are not mutually inclusive.

There are all kinds of leaders not a part of government. There are lot of people associated with the government who couldn't lead a cheer.

The ideal is with the citizens educated and independent enough to control their affairs who delegate necessary authority to organize public efforts, and emergency authority for a war chief to act in international affairs in our defense. The line between government and citizen should be seamless. Some people have charisma, and are leaders with influence. I think the best place for leaders it outside of government. Government should follow the lead of the people, and people in government with bright ideas are not necessarily good followers. Nor are they necessarily good leaders. To say government should be our best defense for rights does not mean innovation. In the recognition of, and anticipation of future needs government could do good; but as it stands the government has no more foresight than business, which seems to be about a quarter at a time.

[political scientist]

good90 wrote: Only for a small region. In a larger region like the US or even places half the size of the US it would be very difficult to keep the people in tact with each other, because the people need a common leader to help unite them.

Yes!
In an egalitarian society, which is generally comprised of a small band of foragers such as the ju'hansi of Africa, the Pigmies of South America, or the Innuit of Northen Canada, yes, a society/government does not need leaders.
BUT........
Only in egalitarian forager band societies can this be possible. In cultural anthropology, there are four main types of social structures: bands with simple kin units, tribes with complex kin units, chiefdoms with a centralized authority that's usually decided by bloodline (much like feudalism), and states which have layers of authority (all world governments recognized by the UN fit in this category).
In tribes, usually people are seperated based on abilities and how ell they excercise their abilities, as opposed to bands where everyone gives and takes as needed; so while leadership is usually minimal in tribes, there is still a leadership presence. In chiefdoms, there is one central authority that decides the greater good for everyone; so obviously it's impossible for leadership to be absent there. In states, well, I don't even need to explain that, just look around at world nations.
So basically what I'm saying is that the possibility of a government without leaders shrinks into impossibility as the society gets larger.

~Political Scientist

[Green]

DevilMan wrote: In a sense it is possible to have a government with no visible leaders. However my vote is on no. There will always be people or a person behind the scenes pulling the strings. There no lack of conspiracies in our country about secret leaders we don't know about... The Illuminati :shifty: But this isn't about the masons and the templar using bush as a puppet. There needs to be officials to lead the people and take the blame. I'm sure a police station could function in some sense without a leader but ou need a chief or sheriff to lead them or they're just a band of vigilantes with badges. Overall I think the question needs to be narrowed down a little. Are we talking a massive government like America or a tribal government like that of the Native Americans? Still my answer would have to be no.

We are talking about a massive government like the US.

[Fido]

political scientist wrote: good90 wrote: Only for a small region. In a larger region like the US or even places half the size of the US it would be very difficult to keep the people in tact with each other, because the people need a common leader to help unite them.

Yes!
In an egalitarian society, which is generally comprised of a small band of foragers such as the ju'hansi of Africa, the Pigmies of South America, or the Innuit of Northen Canada, yes, a society/government does not need leaders.
BUT........
Only in egalitarian forager band societies can this be possible. In cultural anthropology, there are four main types of social structures: bands with simple kin units, tribes with complex kin units, chiefdoms with a centralized authority that's usually decided by bloodline (much like feudalism), and states which have layers of authority (all world governments recognized by the UN fit in this category).
In tribes, usually people are seperated based on abilities and how ell they excercise their abilities, as opposed to bands where everyone gives and takes as needed; so while leadership is usually minimal in tribes, there is still a leadership presence. In chiefdoms, there is one central authority that decides the greater good for everyone; so obviously it's impossible for leadership to be absent there. In states, well, I don't even need to explain that, just look around at world nations.
So basically what I'm saying is that the possibility of a government without leaders shrinks into impossibility as the society gets larger.

~Political Scientist

All societies have leaders. Two people under any conditions have leaders. I think what is missing from your definition is community, because states, and republics reflect a composition of a class struggle. Even some communities not qualifying as states have changed hereditary governments from matriarchal to patriarchal, which tends to put political power in the hands of those with the physical power; which I think is a bad move. This lowers the status of women, and this disparity is the beginning of the state.
The primitive societies you mention, and many more besides have existed for eons, and delivered humanity intact to the modern age. In this modern age States, and Republics, and dictatorships of all sorts have come and gone while there are still community based governments working much as they have always worked. Why do States have such a high failure rate? Why do primitive democracies survive better than modern ones?
Big governments, with unresponsive bureaucracies are the result of large conquests which are themselves not possible without leadership, but are a gloss over the internal division of society, which are met by some unity among enemies without. It is possible that no state without internal and external enemies could survive. But many societies in finding a naturally defensible frontier have died in their success, and from their successes. Why?

We make much of liberty, but only so we can trade it for peace. If we have no liberty or peace we must find our communities and democracies anew even if they have lain dormant for centuries. The very qualities that make primitive democracies a success make all democracies successful when they are successful; and this is: that they are responsive, they involve and invite the common intelligence, and they are no more expensive than the normal costs without government. They do not tax so much as pay a dividend on the investment of time and energy. They almost universally, as far as I can see, reflect a different economy and system of exchange; not of money, but of honor. This is reflected in the oath taking of modern government officials; but one should ask why honor there means so much while money everywhere has more value?

Government detached from the people begins with a division of labor which makes all wealth accumulation possible. Wealth flows to power, and luxury goes with authority, and it is differences and disparities in wealth that destroy governments, and make them aloof and disinterested in the problems that plague the people. Among primitives, separate government is a cost no one can afford, so it does not happen. Among more modern peoples it is afforded until it saps the vitality from the rest of society, and leaves society without defense.