this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
39 points (89.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35767 readers
833 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I mean, if we talk about leadership positions

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RightHandOfIkaros 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Not really. Other than specifically identifying them and blacklisting them from leadership positions, there is not anything you can realistically do. And even then, people in positions of leadership may become that way over time anyway.

Realistically the only way to prevent this is to not have humans in positions of leadership.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Do not put people who strive for power into power, and vice versa.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Obviously "good luck with that" 😁

Hitchikers guide comes to mind...

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'd love emathy being a part of the assessment of people when they want to deal with, and especially manage people.

Many of those people doesnt have very much of. Or at all (actual scary territory, just think about it).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This answer isn't satisfying. Society, law, and morality all exist because of empathy. You can't count on empathy to solve any more problems than it already has, or promote the value of empathy where it can not stand on it's own.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

What is it supposed to solve more?

I also think law exist to control, not because if some empathic being wrote it. Morality doesn't need empathy either, it's just another morality for someone without empathy, morality in itself isn't good or bad, it's what peopje think is good or bad, so even a dictator has his moral.

[–] CookieOfFortune 13 points 10 months ago

Select people at random. Otherwise it’s self selecting.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean, I would argue that this is an area ripe for discussion when drafting new governance.

I know new nations and new constitutions don't happen often, but I would think this would need some political philosophy behind it to figure out how to do it effectively and democratically, meaning that you could trust that there wasn't corruption ongoing from people who cannot be trusted in positions of power.

The real issue is put very simply by Douglas Adams:

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

It's why some in this thread have already suggested sortition (selection at random), but I would think there are other ways around it.

For example, representatives could be being reduced to more figurehead roles where they are there to draft legislation and bring it to the floor for a vote, but at that point, it shifts to a direct vote of the people to pass legislation. Also, before the vote is taken, the draft legislation could be put online and discussed by citizens (who can log in to the wiki using their state-issued ID or their social security number) in a Wiki format, allowing individuals to have more empowerment over how legislation is drafted and the final outcome of legislation.

Who would waste time bribing a Senator if the vote and final legal wording actually relies on the people?

Anyway, just spitballing, obviously lots of issues with that back-of-the-napkin sketch.

Lots of possibilities, the issue is finding a way to implement them reasonably in any currently existing society, which will push hard to resist such changes, because the kind of people who would exploit it are already entrenched and will do to great lengths to prevent real accountability and being expected to, you know, actually do their jobs.