Comment 38979

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted March 22, 2010 at 20:32:16

I define a leader as someone who people CHOOSE to follow, ergo good leadership includes both persuasive talents and a knack for serving the people. A ruler, on the other hand, directs the people under their command with force, fear and punishment. Which of the above better describes the government?

The apathy of the electorate is a direct result of the failures of our government to consult or represent them. Have you ever tried to participate in these decisions? The bureaucrats at city hall don't want any help with their jobs. Ever wonder where areas with more representative voting systems have much more voter turnout? And as for the electorate demanding statdia and whatnot - they don't. We have a political system and media which reward such shenanigans and bring very little attention to issues like basic food or housing.

Not that I feel the average neighbourhood association represents the population much better, they very rarely speak for anyone but the most privileged property owners in an area. Or, for that matter, investors, big labour unions or any particular political party. The fallacy of leadership - that individuals can represent the diverse viewpoints of a community - has put a bunch of self-interested idiots in charge of all these institutions (often the same ones).

Pick up a copy of "Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs. I illustrates far better than I why big denelopments, whether public or private, tend to fail. Though the book was written half a century ago, it's still frighteningly relevant.

"Today, the notion of progress in a single line without goal or limit seems perhaps the most parochial notion of a very parochial century." — Lewis Mumford

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds