You might enjoy reading this book Return to Order by John Horvat. There is a place where leadership is discussed. Basically in a well ordered society everyone would get to be leader of one or two things and followers in a bunch of other things. For example, in my life I direct a program in my church. I make most of the decisions. The people I lead give me their input but in the end abide by my decisions. I also have children in The Nutcracker production. Other people run the show there. I bring my kids to rehearsals, put in my required volunteer hours and otherwise do what I'm told. I'm happy to have other people in charge there because then I'm free to lead where I'm supposed to be in charge.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
In a well ordered society nobody is a leader or a follower. Everyone can stand by themselves.
I'm guessing you mean something different by "leadership" than I do, then. Based on the way I described it, I don't see how there could be no leaders, ever. When it comes to organizing productions like The Nutcracker ballet, or overseeing the education of a large number of children, well, somebody has to be in charge. Sure, theoretically, decisions by consensus could work, but honestly, that is a huge burden for people who just want to participate. I'm happy to have my children in the production. I'm glad someone else made the decision about what costumes to use, when to schedule rehearsals, and the thousands of other little details that go into it. If I had to give my input on every single one of those decisions I'd probably just not be able to be involved, and that would be sad.
@wiser
In 1800 you wouldn't imagine slavery would cease to exist and that women would have rights.
Arguments from nature are always wrong because nature changes all the time.
Maybe, but how would you envision a production like The Nutcracker or an educational program or anything else that involves lots of people working together happening without leadership? I'm not seeing it, but maybe you have an idea?