You're going to call protestors "agitators" while the broligarchs keep coming up with the most outrageous, evil bullshit they could think of, just for the hell of it.
Look into the history of libertarians trying to set up paradises of like minded people to find out why this will fail. They start into the 19th century and just keep failing.
When everyone is out for themselves, the very basics of civilization collapse.
Empathy and pro social behavior are key to our survival and evolution as a species. Oligarchs and unbridled greed are a violation and exploitation of the social contract and bottleneck progress and healthy societal functioning.
The Bioshock games weren’t just spun up out of nowhere.
Both empathy and the lack of it are required. Humans are pack hunters. We work best as teams. Someone has to lead those teams. Guess what traits tend to make for people better at securing and conserving power within groups, and keeping loyalty within their ranks? Yep, you guessed it! Psychopaths! :D
There are benevolent leaders, yes, that exists, but in a competition where anything goes, a psychopath which is difficult ton detect will have the advantage over someone with more empathy and robust moral limits.
There's a reason why they're roughly estimated to be around 10% of the population. Hierarchies need few leaders. The higher the ladder, the more vicious the psycho it gets, because they'll have to be competent enough to defend themselves from the other psychos that want all their tasty tasty power.
The reason why all our leaders are psychopaths is this is the same reason why basketball players are all tall. If you don't have that trait, you just don't get the fucking job (edit: unless you're like REALLY good at it despite your disadvantage).
This used to depress me, but I chose to stop thinking about it. I don't think there's any fixing it.
Guess what traits tend to make for people better at securing and conserving power within groups, and keeping loyalty within their ranks?
In a time of crisis. The biggest downside of these leaders is that they keep creating new crises to stay in power. There are cases of killing such a leader because of that.
And in a lot of leaders, their status was defined for how much they could give away and how generous they were, not how tough they were.
Then there is religion, that manages to encoded certain rules and pass them on to the next generations.
But umm.. you realize that just by changing religion's name it doesn't stop being religion? Like, just because now instead of striving to go to heaven or achieve enlightenment or some other afterlife or any other form of supernatural transcendence, we now strive for a better society of tomorrow and understanding the universe... as long as people are willing to kill and die for their version of how to achieve their notion of paradise/transcendence/whatever is meaningful to them, and leaders are capable of using this conviction to build empires, there isn't any meaningful difference?
You might argue we got rid of "magic", but again.. changing names... Statistical anomalies, higher curled up dimensions, superimposed states.... Just because we have observed bizarre phenomena that has blown our minds and have the ability to predict some of it's behavior does not mean the eradication of all the unknown is possible. And that's all "magic" is and was. The unknown over which we have little control.
Yes, the world is a lot more than psychopaths, and yes, religion was and is fucked up, and there is enormous value to kindness and compassion which we should all strive for, but I'm sure we can agree psychos play a big role in leadership and people have a hard time seeing the stories of their time for what they are.
And, as a reminder, if someone has an advantage over others in the game of achieving power does not mean it's wise to do as they do or that they are any more (or less) valuable than anyone else. They're just good at a game. My comment was in no way a message of admiration, rather a declaration of resignation.
There are people who, disturbed by "big government" today and its tendency to curb the advantages they might gain if their competitiveness were allowed free flow, demand "less govern- ment." Alas, there is no such thing as less government, merely changes in government. If the libertarians had their way, the distant bureaucracy would vanish and the local bully would be in charge. Personally, I prefer the distant bureaucracy, which may not find me, over the local bully, who certainly will. And all historical precedent shows a change to localism to be for the worse.
—Isaac Asimov, Nice Guys Finish First, collected in The Sun Shines Bright, 1981
Err... I'm not trolling or taking any sides here but couldn't that also be claimed about communism? And the vast majority of monarchies if you start your analysis then... And I guess if we look at the current day, one could argue contemporary democracy tends to devolve into fascism...
But, you know, It's almost like the systems in use are irrelevant when there are generalized hostile war scenarios with huge foreign threats that might exterminate your nation state or make it implode through sabotage... And this seems to happen roughly every hundred years or so.
And after the horrors of war, the general population unifies to pick up what's left and swear they will never let anything like this happen again. But then they have kids and grandkids that are like "oh, gramps you so silly".
A basic notion of history and some critical thought shows us this has happened time and time again, the only significant contemporary difference being the existence of aerial and nuclear warfare.
Empires have life cycles, and they get old. Then they get corrupt and other empires start challenging them... And then you have a big big war, and then someone wins, and then people calm down for roughly 50 years... and on and on it goes.