"I'll believe that when I see large numbers of people at the top giving up their positions, rather than usually being more than happy to deal with the burdens compared to the rewards."

You only see those who chose to be at the top. You don't see the many who could be at the top but chose not to take on the burdens involved. You don't see those at the top in their private lives when they discuss the difficulties involved. You see that type in their public life where they put on an appearance of strength to reassure those they are leading, or you see those who delight in accepting the benefits and displaying their power without ever taking on any of the responsibilities.

In former times, the latter were shunned by decent people as charlatans and con men.


Regarding my previous comment: "In actual fact, there are a great deal of people in the world that are just not very smart, who don't have much in the way of useful skills, and who need other people to watch out for them and help them out."

You broke this down into three parts to reply to it, but it is in fact a single thought: there are many people who are not smart and are unskilled and need guidance.

I am quite aware of the many necessary jobs performed by people who are less than geniuses. I recall working with one man - a very friendly, hard-working man who always tried to do right by others. One day we were given a repetitive task, and he had difficulty with one part of it:

"This isn't moving."

"Lift up on one side instead of in the middle."

"Oh, that works!"

He repeated this task all day long. The next day, at the beginning of the shift:

"This isn't moving."

"Lift up on one side instead of in the middle."

"Oh, that works!"

Again, he worked all day repeating this task, doing a good job. The third day:

"This isn't moving."

"Lift up on one side instead of in the middle."

"Oh, that works!"


Point is, this guy was actually useful, but he needed guidance. (He was not even a hard case - this was just a particularly humorous incident that illustrates the point.) I would have been just as happy if he could have retained this know-how from one day to the next. I had no special desire to tell him how to perform a simple task that he had repeated hundreds of times the day before.

"Power tends to corrupt far more than any other factor."

Power does not so much corrupt, as power attracts the corruptible.

"Then please tell these supposedly smart people who control the resources to start taking care of everyone, since they have yet to do so."

They have been taking care of people for a long time. The problem is people moving the goalposts. It wasn't so long ago that famines were fairly common (they still happen occasionally in especially mismanaged parts of the world). Just five generations ago central heat and plumbing was incredibly rare, and air conditioning unheard of. If we go back to Europe, just a few hundred years ago most people would never in their lifetime go more than five miles from their home. Doctors? more likely to kill you than cure you. Communications? You might not be able to understand the people in a town ten miles away, if you ever got a chance to meet them at all. Clothing? This is an important interview - borrow the good shirt from your cousin! (Actually heard that from a Belarussian, regarding the state of things only 40 years ago. He was part of the elite, so he had access to a dress shirt when it was needed! But a hundred years earlier it might have been a conversation in a moderately prosperous family in the U.S.) Meanwhile in Venezuela the ordinary folk sent the smart people packing ... and now they are killing rats for food, in a country with the biggest oil reserves in the world at a time when oil prices are high, in a country with plenty of fertile land and a year-round growing season.

Why do we live in such comparatively prosperous times? Because of a lot of smart people and a system that made it easy for them to help themselves by helping others.

"Which, again, is a rationalization for controlling other people "for their own good.""

A valid criticism. But that was discussing how that state of affairs came about, not saying we should return to it.

Though there comes a point at which a person is making such a mess of things, and if those who care about that person do not know a better way of protecting them.... Well, at what point is intervention ethical? That can be a very difficult call.

What I do know is that the people who cannot make good decisions for themselves, should not be put in a position where they can dictate their demands to others.




Baldur