Well let me premise this by saying, if you aren’t doing things in the best way, the “right way”, then you are necessarily doing them the “wrong way”. The intellectual challenge is to find the best way (considering the diverse circumstancing potentially involved), not merely a potentially good way. Given any one situation, there is only one best way (SAM Co-ops based upon MIJOT pursuit).
But now:
- Did I understand the post? I think so.
- Did it make sense? Well, yes and no. The reasoning was cohesive, but a bit presumptuous.
- What is unclear or imprecise? It is a bit unclear as to why a candidate would be chosen who doesn’t want to be in that position (which will turn out to be the more sane people). What is imprecise is first, the presumption that choosing comes from an above social authority and second, is reflected in the consequences of choosing randomly when the population is more insane than sane (including “undereducated”). What happens in a society when the “lower” echelon governors are insane. Currently that lower level is the parents, “randomly” assigned by lower nature. What happens if they didn’t want to be parents? Merely look around in order to see what happens when they are undereducated and/or insane (“not knowing right from wrong”). The randomness stems from below, not from above.
Just above the families, there are the PTAs, churches, gangs, or other social clubs and organizations, also already “randomly chosen” due to the fact that the random parents are choosing them based upon their personal insanity style.
And then above those are the more strategical manipulators, seemingly randomly chosen due to the lower level random choosing going on. The manipulators present the image of being chosen by the somewhat insane population so as to reduce rebellion, “Hey, I am only here because you elected me.” Of course, such elections are almost always manipulated by one or more people strategically promoting their own favor (e.g. “He is a Zionist, so let’s speak of all of the great goodness of him and silence those who would defame him”).
And then above all of that are the even more strategical manipulators utilizing more hidden influences: “He who reigns in darkness, rules the world”.
It is through randomness that the current situation of high manipulation, anti-randomness, has occurred. And it forms structure and the power to choose, either for good or bad, simply because it is no longer random, but strategic. When a society is random, it is insane and either gets overtaken or dies.
It seems in an effort to overcome the manipulation, you are suggesting more randomness should be instilled. Yes, that would disrupt the manipulation schemes, but then the consequences are that the stable ability to intentionally elect randomly in only that specific manner, the ability to maintain that governing scheme, is itself the potential and probable victim of random events stemming from an insane population. Social structure and authority depend upon preventing randomness in favor of educated strategic planning. Once you lose that ability to ensure a specific future, you lose the ability to choose how you get to your future governing state and what happens afterward. In short, you die out as a method.
I agree that some specific things should be more random and far, far less manipulated, but trying to dictate randomness seems even more fatal than trying to dictate order. By dictating order, at least one has a chance to do it again. The trick is to promote the exact right type of order such that the result is altruistic, not egocentric. That isn’t trivial at all, but what SAM Co-ops are designed to handle.