I think there are various reasons for it, but mainly the fact that money, which in fact is quite a simple concept, has been made into a very esoteric subject precisely to prevent the average individual from thinking that they could have a say on any matter related to it.
Thinking deeply and independently about money does not even seem like an option for most people, hence the "orange pill" analogy.
Why do most people require established options in order to think freely and critically
Because especially when it comes to money you don't want to end up broke with all your friends and family members pointing at you as the guy who lost it all on the shiny new thing.
If it turned out that the shiny new thing were the highest instantiation of money humanity had ever seen, it still wouldn't help the average individual since they wouldn't know how to recognize it in the first place.
So in my opinion is not even the case that people need established options to think freely and critically, they need them precisely to avoid having to think. We're social animals and we feel better by being part of a group than by being right. I think it was Naval who said that groups aim at consensus while individuals aim at truth.
I agree, very unfortunately reality.
With this framework, is it then right to use authoritarian, or at least top-down coercive practices to instill good ideas and practices onto the group?
If you could guarantee to me that we could have a benevolent dictator who would never do anything wrong and only implement incredibly great ideas for the benefit of each and every member of humankind, then sure!
Can we do that?
No. But your premise is also false. A dictator shouldn't work for the benefit of each and every member of humankind, they should work on behalf of the good, honest, and productive members of their national community.
It also poses another interesting idea: if groupthink is inevitable and humans are herd-based social creatures, it is the moral duty of a strong leader to instill good onto them.
Does allowing for more autonomy simply allow for different kinds of authoritarian leaders to rule?
I'm not sure that going in this direction is fruitful since my question was really a rhetorical one.
I cannot imagine how we would be able to have any sort of institution/entity/dictator in charge that optimizes for what is morally good and ensures material abundance without ever failing.
I'd also state that this line of thought is based on a hidden premise: do you think we can, as mankind, define a set of objective values and goals to be pursued? The question of how to then pursue these is necessarily secondary
Yes, I do think there are objective values which should be pursued. What do you think of Nayib Bukele? He's a decent example of the type of leadership I'm imagining.
Don't know much about him to be honest, he seems to have done quite a few things for El Salvador as far as I know.
So yes we can have good leaders, I'm just not sure they're reliable over the long term. Best case, they get replaced over the decades and nothing ensures we get good ones again
True. It's a tough balance to strike. These thoughts stem from my desire to have my community and my country share my values and interests.
