Identifying Good Leaders

Now that you have developed a healthy circle of friends and family, we can talk about organizing it. Of course, most families and groups of friends are a bit amorphous—different people take the initiative depending on what is going on: X organizes Y's birthday party, Z organizes X's baby shower, etc.. This is perfectly natural, and probably the best way to foster a healthy, organic environment for your social circle to grow and thrive. It is important, then, to keep that aspect of things going.

Organization, then, is a bit inimical to a healthy social circle. A group of friends, for example, doesn't typically elect a president, treasurer, secretary, and so on, and it would be an odd thing if it did, for everyone would suddenly be strait-jacketed into fixed roles and the spontaneity of the group would be stifled. It is important, then, when organizing, not to over-organize. Organizing should be done for specific purposes, and the organizational framework should be set aside when other purposes become the focus.

What we are aiming at, then, is an ad hoc organization; something that can be called into action as needed and which otherwise does not interfere with the more important things in life. We can see the need for an organization by looking at our current situation, which has developed because various people, corporations, organizations, and political parties organized to push their agendas on the rest of us (who were not organized). The immediate result was a series of easy wins for them; the long-term result is the tangled mess we are living in, which, on the one hand, keeps enriching the rich at everyone else's expense, and, on the other hand, is driving us into man-made disasters like war and climate change. It's an odd combination, because wealth often makes you a target during wartime, and you can't eat or breathe nickles and dimes, no matter how hard you pinch them, so it's not clear what goal the powers-that-be are driving at, but it does look self-destructive.

We'll have to let them go on their way, however, because they are expending large amounts of money, time, and effort to get there, and we don't have the resources or energy that would be required to stop them. What we can do, however, is let them go—that is, we don't have to follow along, and we shouldn't: it's their pet project, them them reap the fruit it bears.

In ancient Rome, when the everyday citizens got fed up with the abuses of the ruling class, they staged a walkout. Soon enough, the fat cats realized that these everyday people who they abused, laughed at, and despised were actually essential to the functioning of the state, for, without them, there was no food, there were no services, you couldn't get anything done.

Now, a general strike is a rather drastic measure, and, thankfully, we have officials who are a bit wiser and less cruel than those that the ancient Romans had (which isn't saying much), so it is not likely that we will have to resort to measures that are that extreme. Another advantage that we have over the Romans is that we can vote our officials out of office—Roman Senators served for life unless they were expelled by a censor or some sort of civil uprising, so those guys could go on abusing the public for years without anybody getting in their way. In our system, if somebody comes along with more attractive promises and policies, it's out with the old, and in with the new.

In every election, then, we have an opportunity to drain a bit of the swamp, and, if we keep at it, we can have a government that always serves us well (in contrast to the current situation, in which our government serves us however it likes—well or medium or rare—to whomever it likes). The trick, of course, is to have somebody to elect. As is well known, the political parties do an excellent job of coercing us into choosing between two evils, so that, no matter who we vote for, either a bad guy or a worse one is sure to get into office. This is, however, partially our own fault: we have been too lazy to put forward our own candidates, and too trusting in the idea that parties will provide someone who makes the common good their top priority. As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Well, we've been fooled a couple of hundred times a year for the past two hundred fifty years (almost), so it's high time we stopped playing the fool and started looking out for ourselves. The way to do this, of course, is to ignore their candidates and field our own.

This sounds so simple; why haven't we done it before? Well, some things are easier said than done, and this is one of them. Finding a good candidate—one that will stay good, and not let the power go to their head, or allow themselves to be corrupted—and one who is actually good, not just pretending to be so in order to be elected, is tricky business. Here are some important red flags:

• Campaigning: Anyone who campaigns for office is clearly a self-promoter, and so is likely to have their own glorification as their top priority. Those who seek glory should seek stardom on the stage or in sports, not in government. Governing should be about policies, not personalities.
• Bossiness: Bossy people are those that have—or imagine they have—power, and make (or attempt to make) a showy and selfish use of it. Thus, for example, they order people around not because the task concerned is of any importance or benefit, but so that they can enjoy the feeling of being in charge and impress upon others (both those they give orders to and any onlookers) the magnitude of their powers. Spoiled, five-year-old children sometimes engage in this behavior, and adult leaders who do it (Agamemnon springs to mind) have failed to grow through this developmental stage. Their childish behavior, then, should not be rewarded with obedience and promotions to positions of power, but recognized as a social (and perhaps mental) disorder that requires professional treatment. The world, unfortunately, currently has too many such persons in positions of power, and, since the actions (or inactions) of a leader can bring about great harm or great benefits to many—Agamemnon, for example, failed to convene a meeting and consult a seer when the plague broke out, and so people died until Achilles took matters into his own hands—we can and should regard such leaders as mentally unbalanced and a threat to themselves and others, which is to say that they should be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital until the medical authorities there determine that their condition has sufficiently improved.
  
  (Incidentally, those who feel ties of allegiance to such a leader need to reassess their position: protecting the leader may produce short-term gains if he's the sort who rewards his benefactors (many aren't, while others tend to find ways to get rid of associates whose presence reminds them of their weaknesses or who seem to be gaining too much power), but their allegiance will make them complicit in the crimes of their leader, and they won't have the excuse of mental instability that the leader has, and so their punishment is likely to be harsher than his is (he only has to undergo psychological treatment, they will be tried for crimes); on the other hand, if they assist in the commitment of the unbalanced leader, they earn a spot among the heroes and founders of the community, and so gain all the rights and benefits that attend upon such status.)
• Desire to hold office: Those who desire to hold office probably do not know anything about the work involved (and so are delusional), and clearly want to have power over others while wallowing in the symbols, benefits, and privileges of office. People do not need to be corralled by the insecurities of control freaks, or bossed around by people who are legends in their own minds. Holding office should be dreaded, for, if done right, it entails wrestling with complicated issues; disappointing friends who seek unwarranted favors; promoting short-term pain as a path to long-term gain, and spending long hours on matters that mean more to others than they do to oneself. None of this is fun and glamorous, and those have made it look fun and glamorous have done so by acting theatrically while neglecting their duties.
• Loud Talking: Talking loud is not necessarily a vice, but it is too often mistaken as a leadership quality. A loud voice can be heard above the din, sounds authoritative, and, if it gives instructions, the instinct is to follow. But are the instructions worth following? If not, we are either submitting to foolishness once again, or, which is worse, being verbally bullied into doing something that is not good for us. We must learn to double-check what a loud voice says, and fight the impulse to blindly obey.
  (We should also note that forms of 'loudness' may arise through technology, so the quiet man with a megaphone is suddenly not so soft spoken. Also, having a platform on social media or on a network broadcast, or some other format (radio, billboards…) with 'reach' can amount to volume that drowns out other speakers.)
• Verbosity: We all know somebody who can talk endlessly. The solution is often to tune them out, but, in situations like policy meetings, they can come to play a dominant role because nobody can get a word in edgewise, and, though they may say many stupid things that could easily be refuted, they manage to bury these things with the quantity of words that they use, so that getting back to root out all the nonsense becomes as difficult as finding coins that were thrown out of a window in a blizzard and which are now resting quietly and comfortably beneath a blanket of a foot or more of freshly fallen snow. Since combating the nonsense takes a Herculean effort, few bother to even try, and the end result is that the talkative person's view is adopted as policy. For many, their verbosity is an innocent personal flaw, but there are others who use verbosity as a form of verbal bullying. Verbosity should be forbidden in meetings on serious matters, and those who are verbose should be trained to become more succinct, and should be kept out of positions of power until they can get to the point rapidly and clearly.
• Glibness: A related, but separate trait, is the ability to convince people to do things through smooth talk. The smooth talker does not have to ramble on and on in order to make their selfish or harmful schemes sound like a good idea. They are artful, like the sophists of old, whose words and meanings must be closely attended to in order that you not be fooled. Smooth-talking con men, of course, prefer their targets to be dumb suckers, and for this reason our educational system has been dumbed down in just the same way that land is cleared and paved so that traffic can move across it unimpeded. We need leaders who can spot the smooth talk, clarify what is being meant, and steer us clear of the pitfalls it is camouflaging. This is not an easy task; it takes wisdom, patience, and careful attention to detail. We need to find leaders who can do this job.
• All Talk and No Action: Most people can recognize this as a character flaw, yet we keep on electing people who are full of false promises, who tell us what we want to hear, who say all the right things, but then never deliver. In the past, we could afford to keep on giving these guys 'one more chance', but, now that survival is on the line, continuing to fall for the same old lines is recklessly stupid. We need leaders who are actually going to deliver on their promises, and even do more than what they said they would do.
• The Dreamer: Closely akin to the big talker who never delivers is the dreamer whose grandiose plans are patently unachievable. In this case, inaction is guaranteed and should come as no surprise because the plans and promises are completely unrealistic: they cost too much; they rely on technology that has not yet been developed; too many stars have to align to make them happen, and so forth. A time of crisis, like the present moment, is no time to sit around dreaming about some fantasy land. We need to wake up and deal with the problems at hand.
• The Know-It-All: While being wise is essential to being a good leader, and having knowledge is an important component of being wise, the know-it-all converts intelligence into a vice by having no time to listen, by grandstanding, belittling others, embracing arrogance, and, often, pretending to know what they do not know. This is not wisdom; it is selfish self-promotion and insecurity parading as wisdom. We need to be savvy enough to spot a fake when selecting our leaders.
• Having an agreeable physical presence: As with loud talking, having this attribute in one or more of its forms (beauty, tallness, heaviness, gracefulness in movement, impressive facial features, a stately bearing…) should not count against you, but it also should not count for you, yet it is an established fact that most people have a bias that amounts to judging a book by its cover. The problem here is that the preferential treatment that such people generally receive reinforces their selfishness and sense of entitlement, and so they become unfit for leadership positions. We must, then, combat the impulse to favor such persons both for our own good, and for theirs. Correspondingly, then, we must take some care to give those who strike us as failing to have an agreeable physical presence a fair shot at demonstrating their abilities.
• Youth: Youth, especially in contemporary Western culture, is often treated as a virtue, and so seen as a leadership trait, but, too often, the young are led by their passions or are quick to resort to violence. In addition, they are often distracted by matters like establishing a home and raising a family, which can create conflicts of interest as they seek to provide all the best things for themselves and their own children. Some of them also, while they have physically become adults, and have accrued a number of birthdays, still remain quite like children in their character and mindset—to be sure, there are older people who also have this problem, but there are less of them and they are easier to spot, so people don't excuse their behavior as 'normal'. As our society has no shortage of older persons, there is no need to draft younger persons into positions of higher responsibility before they are ready, and, as for those few who may be ready to rule today, they will only be that much wiser and more experienced when the time comes. Let us, then, allow the fruit to ripen on the vine so that we get it when it is best, and not ruin it by rushing the harvest.
• Mere Charisma: Charisma often arises from combining a number of desirable traits such as having an agreeable appearance, being glib, having personal charm, and, most importantly, knowing how to 'read' a crowd and manipulate their emotions. In the right hands, charisma can lead to many good results; in the wrong hands, it produces disasters and atrocities. A person who is merely charismatic, then, is as dangerous as a loose cannon, for there is no predicting what goals they will apply their skills to next. Alcibiades provides an example of a man whose charisma made almost every selfish and destructive desire easily achievable. We must take care not to get swept up by emotional appeals, and realize that charisma is no substitute for wisdom and actual empathy.
• Impatience: A lack of patience is generally recognized as a vice, but it can be mistaken for a leadership quality because the impatient person may be perceived as confident and decisive. Impatience, however, can be a particularly pernicious trait for a leader since, as the saying goes, fools rush in where angels dread to tread, and, if rushing foolishly is bad for an individual, how much worse would it be for a society or a state? Doing something just to do something, or because someone is bored or antsy can be a recipe for disaster. And impatient people can have a hard time listening or focusing on the details of an intricate problem, so their decisions and actions are often ill-informed, unjust, and lack compassion.
• Fool-hardiness: Fool-hardiness is akin to impatience (both result in a rush to action), but the motivation for action is different. The impatient person does things just to be doing things, the fool-hardy person either gravely misjudges their abilities, or gets carried away by their aspirations of being the hero (or being heralded as such). Luck or other factors may result in successes for such a person, but, to the extent that such successes embolden even more reckless behavior, they simply serve to set them up for a bigger fall. Our situation is currently dangerous enough, be don't need delusional people ratcheting up the risks that we are taking.
• Party Affiliation: As we have said elsewhere, the two major parties are the left and right legs of the same giant beast that is marching us into Hell. The major parties only give us the chance to pick the lesser evil (and figuring out which one is the lesser evil is often a matter of guess-work). The minor parties, for their part, are often single-issue parties, and so amount to self-eliminating fringe movements that promote candidates that nobody ever heard of. Party affiliation, then, is either damning (as in the case of belonging to a major party), or ineffective. We, however, are not looking for evil or ineffective leaders, so those who belong to a political party have done us the favor of identifying themselves as unworthy of our vote. If only all the trouble-makers in the world would be so considerate.
  
  There will, of course, be those who point to this or that politician as an exception to the rule, and point us to the maxim, 'politics makes for strange bedfellows' as a way of excusing their party affiliation. And it is true that party affiliation has been the surest path to office, but belonging to a party means toeing the party line, which can amount to allowing the party to do your thinking and speech-writing for you, and dictating how you vote. When we elect a leader, we select their mind, their voice, their vote; we expect them to honor their commitments to us not to some bought-and-paid-for party with an agenda that is inimical to our well being. Having a party affiliation clearly signals that their allegiances lie elsewhere, that they are not to be trusted to promote our best interests, that they have sold out to a higher bidder. Yes, they needed a party affiliation in order to be elected, but at what price? If having that affiliation precludes them from representing us, why should we vote for them? In short, we shouldn't: there's nothing in it for us.
• Wealth: Like many of these other indicators, wealth is not necessarily a bad thing, but, too often, those who have it are given preferential treatment and automatically looked to as leaders. This is one of the main reasons that the rich keep getting richer: we keep giving them power, their greed leads them to make rules that benefit them, they become richer, we are now even more impressed with them and so give them more power, and the cycle continues. Yes, they have a vice (greed), but we keep on enabling them by being so star-struck (which is just as much a vice), so there is plenty of blame on all sides of this issue. Those who are wealthy today are, most likely, the beneficiaries of the corrupt system we've had in place for several generations now, so they should be scrutinized closely for real leadership qualities before being granted a leadership position—and let's be clear here: there are both official (e.g., a political office, a managerial position in a business. a coach on a team) and unofficial (a person whose advice we take, someone whom we imitate, anyone who initiates actions that we participate in) leadership positions, so just keeping someone out of a political office does not necessarily amount to keeping them out of a position of power.
• Power: We humans tend to reward those who have already be awarded, so that nothing succeeds like success. Politicians, once in power, tend to remain there because we keep voting for incumbents. The fact, however, is that, just because someone has power does not mean that they deserve it, or that they deserve to keep it. As with our assessment of the wealthy, we tend to be star-struck by the powerful, and so overlook their flaws and short-comings while holding their rivals to much higher standards. These are our vices, and so, one might argue, they produce for us the kind of leaders that we deserve. The current crisis, however, requires us to have the best leaders we can find (i.e., better leaders than we deserve), so we'll have to break with old and comfortable habits, stop opting for 'the same old same old', and use our heads to select for ourselves leaders who are actually capable of finding good solutions and implementing them.

This is probably not an exhaustive list of qualities which people mistake for indicators of a good leader, but it makes for a good start. As for the qualities that actually indicate leadership potential, let us think in terms of the various things we regard as virtues: wisdom, fairness, helpfulness, reliability, decisiveness, empathy, courage, self-control, honesty, generosity, and so forth.

Once we are reasonably clear on what makes for a good leader, we have to apply that knowledge to our network of friends and family, so that we know who the leaders are in our circle. We are probably headed down the right path if the people we select are persons like teachers, those involved in running non-profit organizations, religious persons (priests, rabbis, imams...), empty-nesters who have successfully raised several children, coaches, retired persons from various walks of life, and so on. In many communities, it will turn out that several people emerge as qualified to lead. This is not a bad thing or the cause for a competition: two heads are better than one, and several heads may be that much better. Having a ruling committee or a body of advisers is a good idea, especially because there will always be someone in that role if others should get sick, or have to go somewhere, etc.

Once we know who our leaders are, we can start to organize. The leaders should be, first and foremost, the brains of the operation. Good leaders are good at organizing, good at delegating responsibilities, good at fostering along talent, and good at planning a path forward. Leaders should not be bogged down (or too bogged down) with the hands-on doing that moving forward requires. Instead, they should have sufficient time to dedicate to matters like surveying the current circumstance, assessing the progress made, making future plans, and making sure everyone has an appropriate role to play.

Of course, figuring out which roles are appropriate for the members of the group involves getting to know them and their talents. Once you know these, you can better figure out what kinds of things your group might successfully undertake. A bunch of cooks, for example, may not be suited to running a barber shop, but should do well in the food industry. Of course, initial efforts should be continuations or natural outgrowths of things you've already been doing: celebrating holidays, hosting small gatherings, helping each other out, spending time together. and so forth. When, however, opportunities present themselves (and all the practical concerns appear to be manageable), the group should attempt to do bigger things: host a fundraiser for those in distress; start a business or a non-profit; support a member as a candidate for a government position (please note: I did not call it a 'political office', since the politicians have tarnished that word beyond the point of respectability—we hope to produce elected officials, civic leaders, or public servants, not politicians); look for ways to cooperate (or even merge) with other groups, and, in general, keep on looking for ways to make things better, more lasting, and enjoyable for everyone.

Now, it must be borne in mind that your organization is a social organization which focuses on cooperation as key to producing benefits for all members, and the presumption is that all members are social creatures. It is bound to happen, however, especially given the diabolical influence of theoreticians like Hobbes, that some of your friends and relatives will want to deny that humans are essentially social creatures, and say that competition lies at the heart of human interactions. Such persons have yet to have the realization that Hesiod had when it occurred to him that there were two forms of strife: one, the all out, no-holds-barred war that Hobbes speaks of; the other, the generally peaceable competition that spurs one on to do one's best, but never engenders murderous intent in civilized persons (as, for example, in sporting events, business competition, and even war as expressed in the high ideals of institutions like the World Criminal Court or the United Nations).

Of course, for some people, it is sufficient to point out that humans are social creatures and that cooperation underlies all civilized forms of competition. Others may demand proof, for example, that solitary confinement only makes sense as a punishment if humans are social creatures—isolating an non-social creature should be something of a treat for it. For some, such arguments will be convincing, but there will always be those who wish to adhere to the Hobbesian view. What can we do with them? On the one hand, we might insist that our view is correct, that they are mistaken, and so try to compel them to play by our rules. The problem is: will we, thereby, be fooling ourselves by foisting sheep's clothing onto a wolf? And will we be making them happy by compelling them to live by rules which they insist are contrary to their nature?

On the other hand, we might grant that they are the best judges of their own character, and that, while what they say about humans does not map onto our views of ourselves, we are not in a position to insist that the description does not apply to them. Consequently, we should allow them to go and be their anti-social selves, and, perhaps, to forge a Hobbesian social contract with those of their own kind. We cannot, however, allow an anti-social person to participate in our social organization—it makes no sense. So, for the benefit of all concerned, we must expel them from our circle of friends and relatives, at least, that is, until they come to realize that they are social creatures, and come to appreciate, respect, and voluntarily adhere to our way of doing things. Of course, we must be on our guard against those who will pay lip service to our views about human nature in order to take advantage of our goodwill, but, as in all things, actions speak louder than words, so their true views will become manifest soon enough if we pay attention. And paying close attention will enable us to nip things in the bud, and so avoid the worse consequences of rearing a lion in the city.

Another group we cannot allow to take up residence among us are those who insist that humans are simply self-propelled mechanical systems, much like clocks, robots, air conditioners, and other machines, because, if you view your fellow humans as mere collections of atoms, it becomes pointless, as we read in Lucretius, to get involved in the affairs of others. A toaster has no need of companionship; a phone doesn't care if you call; a game doesn't mind if you don't play with it. "Ah!" but they say, "We can program them to do that." Yes, but I don't want you to pretend to love me; I don't need artificial 'attention'; I don't want to fool myself into thinking that my refrigerator is my friend. And, more importantly, I don't want to be fooled into thinking that my friends, my human friends, are mere devices. I can take apart my blender with impunity; I can let my phone battery die; I can use my old car for spare parts. What's to stop me from doing the same with people, if they, too, are mere mechanical systems?

Indeed, having people with such beliefs as members in your society is counter-productive or even inimical to the continued existence of the society. No society should tolerate such views to be fostered within it, yet schools in the modern era are saturated with this view. Is it any wonder that prisoners in some countries are 'harvested' for organs? The Romans have taught us that, once killing prisoners starts to serve a purpose (in their case, entertainment), you have to keep changing the rules so that its easier and easier to send more and more people to prison—the supply has to keep up with the demand, so minor infractions suddenly become punishable by death or dismemberment. We don't need a society which exploits some of its members for the 'benefit' of others, yet, if the common belief is that everyone is just another robot, what's to stop those who can do it from treating others as expendable collections of spare parts?

One way to look at this problem is from the point of view of its advocates, who ask for proof that humans are not merely mechanical systems. The assertion, "I am not a robot" does not suffice for them, so, in their eyes, you are a robot until you can prove otherwise. Yet what, exactly, would suffice as proof? For any physical trait we might point to, they will set about producing a mechanical duplicate; any non-physical thing we point to, they will dismiss as empty talk. It looks as if they have got the game nefariously rigged in their favor, so let's turn the tables.

We will assume that all persons we meet (natural, flesh and blood persons) are not mere mechanical systems—indeed, we will make it illegal to argue, assert, or attempt to prove that other persons are mere mechanical systems—however, we will be happy to treat any flesh-and-blood person (provided they are sane) who would like to make a voluntary, public, and official declaration that they are a mere mechanical system, as such. Once such a declaration is officially accepted, we will take a thorough inventory of their parts, catalog and label them with the usual part, model, and serial numbers, make a note of their production date, assign them various ratings, and look for ways to make better use of them. Of course, any such robot-person is free to keep quiet about their condition, or to leave our community and seek out others of its own kind with whom to dwell. This way, only the publicly self-declared robots get exploited, and their numbers (which we can expect to be exceedingly low) can serve as an indicator of how truly convincing the argument that humans are merely mechanical systems is, and so we will have the proof that was requested of us. The general principle, then, is that you are free to call yourself a mere mechanical system, but don't project it onto others.

A third group which we must expel—at least in extreme cases (more corrigible cases can remain and be fostered along, provided they are kept out of positions of power)—are those who are not capable of getting along well with others. Living in a society requires a certain degree of closeness (physical or otherwise) with one's fellow humans (sometimes this is extreme, like on a crowded subway car or elevator). This, in turn, requires a certain degree of tolerance of the faults of others (if you feel you must retaliate every time someone bumps into you, your days will be filled with fights, and you will hardly qualify as a civilized person). Pardoning the transgressions of others—at least their minor transgressions—then, is part and parcel of civilized life. Apologizing and asking pardon for one's transgressions is a matter of politeness which elevates one from being a rascal who abuses the tolerance of others to being a respectable exemplar of proper behavior, provided that the apology is sincere, contrite, and involves a commitment to try to avoid such conduct in the future—the person who understands 'I'm sorry' as granting a license to immediately do the same thing with impunity stands in need of serious correction and may need their head examined.

There are also those who do not apologize because they do not recognize that they have transgressed. This can happen accidentally, as when someone creates a hazardous situation in the course of doing something (e.g., they are painting a bench) and is distracted by other matters, and so fails to warn others of the hazard (e.g., does not put out a 'wet paint' sign), and so someone suffers an avoidable accident (e.g., sitting on wet paint). If, however, one causes such situations with some regularity, they cease to be accidents and become indicators of a serious character flaw. In some cases, the flaw is a matter of their own nature: they are, like the animals, not only oblivious to their faults, but incapable of correcting them. The animals, however, may often have valid excuses ("Do you really expect me," asks the cow or the deer with reference to their physique, "To construct a toilet and plumbing system?"), as do infants and invalids, but physically healthy adults who cannot or will not conform to a society's norms of propriety (I'm talking to you, Diogenes) must be expelled from that society (a society that fails to expel such a person tacitly admits that their norms allow such behaviors, and so there is no transgression—I'm talking to you, ancient Athens).

Others, however, are oblivious to their transgressions because they are too self-centered to consider how their actions impact others. It should be obvious that such persons are not suited to live in a society, for what sort of society would you have if everyone behaved in this way? What would you have, other than a crowd of parasitic, self-appointed kings and queens, each vying to take advantage of the others while fending off the others' efforts to take advantage of them? The whole arrangement would collapse into chaos in no time flat. What such people need, of course, is a retinue of altruistic persons to serve their whims, but what is in it for the members of the retinue? The 'king' is all take and no give. So, since they get no benefit from him, and have no need of him, let them rid themselves of him, and those like him who'd love to take his place.

Closely related to this group are those who are compelled to transgress by circumstances beyond their control (hunger, drug addiction, subjugation to a higher power [e.g., a mafia boss], disease…). In some cases (e.g., hunger caused by famine resulting from natural causes), there is nothing to be done and so blame cannot be assigned. In other cases, the fault lies, first, with the causing agent, and then secondly with the community for not expelling or removing that agent. Since the community is to blame in such instances, punishing the involuntary transgressor is hypocritical; instead, the community's efforts should be focused on freeing the involuntary transgressor and eliminating the causal agent. If it is incapable of doing this, it must either live with the results or seek external assistance.

Vices, which are often merely the symptoms of an underlying selfishness, also drive people to transgress unapologetically (that is, they may 'apologize' but not sincerely or with any intention of changing their ways). In some cases, the vice is something that can be managed and corrected by the community, and so the community should address it. In others, however, the vice is so entrenched that it is beyond the ability of the community to correct it. In such cases, it is better to expel those with the vice than to provide it with fertile ground in which to flourish and spread. Indeed, sometimes expulsion effects a change of heart much faster than other means, and few things bring as much joy as welcoming back a prodigal son, provided that he is thoroughly and genuinely reformed.

There remains, of course, much to talk about, such as what makes for good policies, and what do we do with our current leaders, but these can wait for another day. As usual, pick the option that best suits your convictions.

Me? I'm a Lone Wolf

I'm a Robot

I'm Too Good For This Nonsense

We're Ready To Do Bigger Things