It relies upon the romantic notion that if the docile masses were to arise that they would be morally superior to those that do already choose to lead men.
Interesting. I read no such implication in this quote. I see it as a lament that “rebels, insubordinate, untamable men” are basically bred out of the population that becomes more and more sheeple. And the “docile masses” will not revolt opening the way for highly repressive societies.
of the modern man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree.
These common decrees are coming from men, not the docile masses but the small minority of leaderly men. Where is the existential threat in the common decrees of leaderly men as opposed to the hypothetical actions the masses of docile men would take if they were not docile? I understand neither why one expects an existential threat from the decrees of leaderly men nor why one expects that threat to be countered by the hypothetical actions of docile men made counterfactually non-docile.
Or rather I don’t understand these as things for which there is evidence. An apparently relatively docile Chinese population seems to have done OK under a repressive communist government, certainly not seeming to come close to anything that was an existential threat.
So how is a repressive society an existential threat?
I understand neither why one expects an existential threat from the decrees of leaderly men nor why one expects that threat to be countered by the hypothetical actions of docile men made counterfactually non-docile.
Hm. Let me try to offer a hypothesis. I am not sure I believe it myself, but I’ll throw it out for evaluation.
I think that the existential threat of repressive societies has to do with expected variation.
Societies where general population provides strong inputs into the political process tend to be less adventurous and more mundane. It’s decision-making by committee and committees rarely make unexpected, radical decisions. Regression to the mean is the rule and keeps things contained.
Autocratic societies, on the other hand, don’t have these built-in brakes. Small ruling elites are subject to less constraints and can take off into strange directions some of which are dangerous. In particular, small elites see much less problems with killing large numbers of people (compared to more-or-less democratic societies) in pursuit of goals they find worthy.
Now, this is not saying that autocratic societies are “bad” and democratic ones are “good”. What this hypothesis asserts is that the the range of behavior of autocratic societies will be wider than that of democratic societies.
P.S. And that, of course, is speaking just of existential threat and not about which society it’s better to live in.
Interesting. I read no such implication in this quote. I see it as a lament that “rebels, insubordinate, untamable men” are basically bred out of the population that becomes more and more sheeple. And the “docile masses” will not revolt opening the way for highly repressive societies.
From the original quote:
These common decrees are coming from men, not the docile masses but the small minority of leaderly men. Where is the existential threat in the common decrees of leaderly men as opposed to the hypothetical actions the masses of docile men would take if they were not docile? I understand neither why one expects an existential threat from the decrees of leaderly men nor why one expects that threat to be countered by the hypothetical actions of docile men made counterfactually non-docile.
Or rather I don’t understand these as things for which there is evidence. An apparently relatively docile Chinese population seems to have done OK under a repressive communist government, certainly not seeming to come close to anything that was an existential threat.
So how is a repressive society an existential threat?
Hm. Let me try to offer a hypothesis. I am not sure I believe it myself, but I’ll throw it out for evaluation.
I think that the existential threat of repressive societies has to do with expected variation.
Societies where general population provides strong inputs into the political process tend to be less adventurous and more mundane. It’s decision-making by committee and committees rarely make unexpected, radical decisions. Regression to the mean is the rule and keeps things contained.
Autocratic societies, on the other hand, don’t have these built-in brakes. Small ruling elites are subject to less constraints and can take off into strange directions some of which are dangerous. In particular, small elites see much less problems with killing large numbers of people (compared to more-or-less democratic societies) in pursuit of goals they find worthy.
Now, this is not saying that autocratic societies are “bad” and democratic ones are “good”. What this hypothesis asserts is that the the range of behavior of autocratic societies will be wider than that of democratic societies.
P.S. And that, of course, is speaking just of existential threat and not about which society it’s better to live in.