If we limit the discussion to leadership from afar, as in political leadership, then I think most people suck.
Like most things, the closer to the individual, the better, in general.
Discussion
Maybe true for some. But many people wants to be told what to do.
If you use this discussion to go into the direction of having or not having leadership, because some might not need it. I think far too many people needs it.
But it does not mean, it has to be organized in the way we have now. Centralized, one authority above all, decides in everything.
I always advocate for local, mostly autonomous communities. Local meaning that everyone can know everyone in a reasonable geographic area. More dense than that, you get way too much urge to centralize. Less dense than that, you get completely ineffectual response times to (actual) emergencies.
It's a bit of a double-edged sword. Allow me to explain. When it comes to leadership on a grand scale, one doesn't necessarily need to have a good nature to be a good and effective leader. There are two essential and core aspects that we always seem to end up neglecting when choosing our leaders: assurance that they have and will maintain their good intentions, and honesty. Lol. Throughout my 39 years I don't think I've ever seen a politician who possesses those two essential qualities.
Lol. It's quite diffiult for me to debate with you on that one! All I can do is add the fact that many people often fail to realize that wanting to be led frequently creates a type of vulnerability and opportunity where it can become too bloody easy for corrupt rulers to gain dominion over the masses. Apparently, society loves making this same stupid mistake. 🙄
Yes, I agree.
I agree with your statement of agreement. 😝
Well, what do you think? 🤔
Well, you said you agree with me, so, that's obviously the correct way to think. 😝