Quote from: ErisDiscordia on March 25, 2014, 02:17:38 PM

Quote from: Zapffe on March 25, 2014, 12:14:51 PM

Corruption of the central planners is a serious issue, but that could be fixed if people would actually spend more then 5 minutes to do research on who will they elect for the public office.

Quote from: Zapffe on March 25, 2014, 12:14:51 PM

We don't have to change the system, we have to change the people who have control over the system.

Quote from: Zapffe on March 25, 2014, 12:14:51 PM

Don't blame the system, but blame yourself for not caring enough for electing the right people to lead the system.

These are sentiments admirable in its optimism - even for me, a self-proclaimed incorrigible optimist!

I disagree very strongly with them, though. I don't think exchanging people at the top of the pyramid would help. We have tried this many times, after all, but somehow we always seem to end up with the "wrong" and corrupt people up there, if only there was a way to vote in the right people...

No, the problem, to me, seems to be with the system itself, its centralized nature in particular. Even if intelligent people of good will find themselves in the seats of power, they have many obstacles to overcome if they want to steer the system in a way beneficial to many. Obstacles like:

1) power corrupts. And if they don't get seduced by its promises, they can be blackmailed by those who would like to keep the status quo
2) power attracts the corrupted - a corollary to the above point. This increases the likelihood of the "wrong people" finding themselves in power.
3) information flow in centralized systems has poor efficiency due to the absence of effective feedback mechanisms. This might be the most important one. Even if people of good will sincerely work for the benefit of all, the information they base their decisions on is mostly crap, because it gets filtered through the prejudices of those in the line of command before it reaches the person(s) in charge of decision-making.
4) centralized points of failure (even, or maybe especially in decision-making) make the system more fragile, more dependent on the people in charge. Also they amplify bad decisions. A single household making bad financial decisions is sad. A whole country doing so is catastrophic.

Besides, the antithesis to centralization is decentralization, not centralization with machines in charge (as opposed to humans). Based on historical data and current technological development I feel like the changing/dismantling of the current system has better chances of bringing about positive change than exchanging the people in charge of said system. I'm not sure if that is even possible, surely we don't imagine the politicians who we are allowed to vote for, to be actually in charge of the most important decisions?

"We have tried many times" is a weak excuse in my book. Most of the people are illusioned that they have to choose from the choice that is presented to them. "But he looked like a good guy on TV" isn't exactly research on the electee. The right people are mostly the ones that are not promoted through the media. They are the ones who you can value, only after reading their thoughts and looking at their history in-depth. If more people would vote like this, then there wouldn't be the problems that have been addressed in this topic.

From all the virtues that todays generation lacks, the lack of responsibility sticks out the most. People always find an abstract system, or some unknown dark forces to blame for the things that are happening around them. Only few are able to realize that we, the people, are the ones who are causing all of this with our lack of care and responsibility.

Yes, power can corrupt and power does attract the corrupted, but it's the job of the Good Guys to beat the Bad Guys. Whether you like it or not, but human beings have a lot on common with animals, and specifically with herd animals. If the herd is without proper leadership, then the herd isn't competitive in relation to other herds. The heard will be weaker and less capable of progression. Humans also derive from social group animals, who have the same rules of typical herd mentality. There are always the strong who stand out and there are always the weak who will instinctively start to follow the strong. You could also be the lone wolf, but every hunter knows what eventually happens to these lone wolves without a pack.