Institutions focus the power of sovereign individuals, creating Great Leaders. While it is obvious that nefarious parties will seek that power, and so corrupt institutions, that will not be my point here.
The problem is more fundamental. We are neither Ubermensch, nor untermensch. There are not really Great Leaders, and the creation of them through institutional mechanisms deranges the natural social function of humanity. We are peers, and our societal mechanisms should be designed to effect our ends without creating artificially superpowered parties.
While the extant system is what there is, the distortion of our human society such institutional mechanisms cause is revealed here, with the several ways in which those vying for the Great Leader status compete to seize it invariably producing apparent deception.
I cannot support such a system for implementing the mutual ends of the peers in society. I don't think elevating peers to the status of Great Leaders can be more than occasionally beneficial, like a broken clock telling the right time. I am sorry you are dismayed by this clusterfuck. I know you feel your candidate for Great Leader is the best choice of those on offer, but I submit that there should be no such Great Leader at all, and the clusterfuck is simply a specific example of the unavoidable failure any system of delegating our sovereign authority to a Great Leader must inevitably produce.
Thanks!
Now, wouldn't that be nice..? I agree with all you're saying here @valued-customer, which is why Sanders is the only choice here; he'll be on top of an institutional hierarchy, but as a human he exhumes modesty and a willingness to fight for his peers, all other humans.
I appreciate your intellectual grasp of my point, but note the latter part of your reply simply restates your intention of supporting the extant system.
Our ability to undertake rational systems of social function are only possible insofar as we do not expend our effort otherwise. Support for any Great Leader is support for the extant system, and opposes the natural functioning society we are responsible for.
I do encourage you to end that support for demonstrably harmful social mechanisms, and to act to effect rational and endemic social modalities.
Thanks!
I'm a dreamer myself and dream often about a communist anarchy (which is just communism as communism is a stateless society without money). All I'm saying is we're not there yet, not by a long shot. Until then we work with what we've got. And every other election, when there isn't someone like Sanders on the ballot, I hold your position and refuse to support the system.In The Netherlands, where I live, there's no one even close to Bernie, so I do not vote here, just to give an example. If those lucky Americans didn't have Sanders, all my posts would be about refusing the vote, as I've written often in the past. Here's a chance, even if it's a small one, to change things a little closer to what we want; a more equal distribution of power.
I do appreciate your call to inaction though; it's the principled position to hold, without doubt.
I myself did the same thing regarding Ron Paul, which today I would not do for the above reasons, so I appreciate your position.
Thanks!