The Worst of Leadership

[Pacifist Ninja]

As a member of the Libertarian Socialist Federation who had the unfortunate experience of previously serving under an authoritarian alliance, I can tell you there is no such thing as a good leader. When I went from the authoritarian alliance (IRON) to the LSF it was a completely different experience. No longer was I forced to do things I objected to, I had a say in matters that affected me, I was treated as an equal instead of something to be used, and the alliance was in the hands of the people instead of a tiny group of power obsessed authoritarians. There is absolutely no question to anyone who has experienced the difference, the organizational structure of libertarian socialism (and especially anarchist organizational structure) is far better than authoritarian structure in meeting the wants and supporting the freedom of the people.

(BTW, to avoid confusion, I'm a reroll)

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Pacifist Ninja' date='10 June 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1276202223' post='2332002']
As a member of the Libertarian Socialist Federation who had the unfortunate experience of previously serving under an authoritarian alliance, I can tell you there is no such thing as a good leader. When I went from the authoritarian alliance (IRON) to the LSF it was a completely different experience. No longer was I forced to do things I objected to, I had a say in matters that affected me, I was treated as an equal instead of something to be used, and the alliance was in the hands of the people instead of a tiny group of power obsessed authoritarians. There is absolutely no question to anyone who has experienced the difference, the organizational structure of libertarian socialism (and especially anarchist organizational structure) is far better than authoritarian structure in meeting the wants and supporting the freedom of the people.

(BTW, to avoid confusion, I'm a reroll)
[/quote]
Mmmh. Depends on the people. Sometimes folks do need a little prodding to do what's right--someone earlier mentioned issues when members of an alliance would conduct ... ill-advised attacks. Even Vox Populi had to resort to a government, if only to make sure all their spies were coordinated in their sabotage. (Or at least knew who was posting which enemy's outtakes.)

I think the main thing a leader would have to do is to show people that something they do NOT want to do is the 'better' way. Some folks are harder to reach than others, and some folks just hate the idea of authority (if you're one of those, you may want to reconsider joining an alliance like, say, the New Pacific Order!). However, there's also the responsibility; you know someone is ultimately going to answer for whatever he or she is supposed to.

[Pacifist Ninja]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='10 June 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1276234267' post='2332927']
Mmmh. Depends on the people. Sometimes folks do need a little prodding to do what's right--someone earlier mentioned issues when members of an alliance would conduct ... ill-advised attacks. Even Vox Populi had to resort to a government, if only to make sure all their spies were coordinated in their sabotage. (Or at least knew who was posting which enemy's outtakes.)

I think the main thing a leader would have to do is to show people that something they do NOT want to do is the 'better' way. Some folks are harder to reach than others, and some folks just hate the idea of authority (if you're one of those, you may want to reconsider joining an alliance like, say, the New Pacific Order!). However, there's also the responsibility; you know someone is ultimately going to answer for whatever he or she is supposed to.
[/quote]
First of all, no state does not mean no organization. You seem to suggest that anti-authoritarian alliances allow people free reign to do anything and have no means of coordination. This is not true because if people can do anything, than they can commit coercive acts, which would defeat the whole point of being anti-authoritarian. As an example, absolutely no one in the LSF is allowed to raid innocent nations because that is a coercive act. In addition, coordination and organization does not need coercive elites commanding people to do as told. We in the LSF coordinate ourselves just fine by voluntary cooperation and using democratic means to come to the least coercive situations.
Secondly, it is good that you put the word "better" in quotes. It brings up the important point that what is better is completely subjective and dependent on what you consider to be good and bad. In authoritarian alliances this is determined by a few elites. In the Libertarian Socialist Federation, we the people do what we the people think is better (which essentially means what is least coercive). When authorities are given the power to decide what is good and bad it ultimately means that power hungry people tell us what they think is best. That is terrible compared to the people having a say and having control over their lives and decisions.

[nitropenta]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='09 June 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1276039644' post='2329284']
What about those who are both stoned and drunk?
[/quote]

That's an elitist minority.

[Ugainius]

Personally I don’t think leadership can ever be wrote down as good or bad outside of individual situations. It’s alright to be talking about the dangers of hubris and the potential that can be extracted from a man with big ears, but at the end of the day the only thing which can tell us if a guys a good leader or not is hindsight.

That or you know he’s a douche, but that tends to represent popular opinion rather than verifiable facts.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Pacifist Ninja' date='11 June 2010 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1276243186' post='2333059']
First of all, no state does not mean no organization. You seem to suggest that anti-authoritarian alliances allow people free reign to do anything and have no means of coordination. This is not true because if people can do anything, than they can commit coercive acts, which would defeat the whole point of being anti-authoritarian. As an example, absolutely no one in the LSF is allowed to raid innocent nations because that is a coercive act. In addition, coordination and organization does not need coercive elites commanding people to do as told. We in the LSF coordinate ourselves just fine by voluntary cooperation and using democratic means to come to the least coercive situations.
[/quote]
Problem is, I saw the 'not allowed to raid' bit as, essentially, an authoritarian position. It's not exactly Emperor of the NPO calibre dictatorship, but it's still a rule to follow, despite any benefit to be gained from raiding. Those who violate the rule will lose the benefits of being in the Federation, I'm assuming; otherwise, there would be no point. Note, authority is not the only source for wisdom, but it's also not an automatic stamp of folly either.
[quote]
Secondly, it is good that you put the word "better" in quotes. It brings up the important point that what is better is completely subjective and dependent on what you consider to be good and bad. In authoritarian alliances this is determined by a few elites. In the Libertarian Socialist Federation, we the people do what we the people think is better (which essentially means what is least coercive). When authorities are given the power to decide what is good and bad it ultimately means that power hungry people tell us what they think is best. That is terrible compared to the people having a say and having control over their lives and decisions.
[/quote]
Before taking office in the Islands, I had worked in other occupations, including those serving the public. I've found that while everyone loves to talk freedom and having a say and control, not everyone is actually going to do it. Granted, some won't respond to laws, either. I guess it's a relative thing.

On top of that, as I said, part of leading is getting people to follow. It's one thing to, say, encourage fans of the Illespont Islands Wrestling Federation to chant 'IIWF! IIWF!' at a show; it's another to get a dozen library patrons to do so.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Pacifist Ninja' date='10 June 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1276202223' post='2332002']
As a member of the Libertarian Socialist Federation who had the unfortunate experience of previously serving under an authoritarian alliance, I can tell you there is no such thing as a good leader. When I went from the authoritarian alliance (IRON) to the LSF it was a completely different experience. No longer was I forced to do things I objected to, I had a say in matters that affected me, I was treated as an equal instead of something to be used, and the alliance was in the hands of the people instead of a tiny group of power obsessed authoritarians. There is absolutely no question to anyone who has experienced the difference, the organizational structure of libertarian socialism (and especially anarchist organizational structure) is far better than authoritarian structure in meeting the wants and supporting the freedom of the people.

(BTW, to avoid confusion, I'm a reroll)
[/quote]


Structurally, yes of course there is a difference between an anarchist system of alliance and unelected leadership system. Also, in real world politics the leadership in the two forms of government also have quit different responsibilities and concerns. But in CN I dont think there is any difference regarding responsiblities and concerns.

Let me explain. It all has to do with mobility. You are a prime example of somebody who could switch between radically different forms of alliance government. It is because of this mobility that, no matter how leaders are selected, all leaders have the same pressure. If they make poor decisions or if they make decisions that become unpopular then there is a risk that they will lose alliance members who will wish to see if the grass is greener somewhere else. This sort of ease of mobility is obviously impossible in the real world and it is for that reason that I often find real world analogies to CN politics somewhat wanting.

Each form of CN government has its strengths and weaknesss. I think we all know what those are by know so I wont bore people with a lengthy analysis of those. But the take away point is that no matter what the government structure might be all leaders need to be good because if they are not they will not retain as many of their members as they might otherwise.

[magicninja]

I'm a pretty crap leader if you ask around.