There is a big hole in my life that a mindset like this could have filled. My dad passed on that frantic"just do anything to keep busy" mindset with no established leadership ideals and no plan but just a life of jumping from the next crisis to the other.
I fervently want there to be a difference in the family my wife and I create. Thank you for speaking into our lives, Pete.
The question of leadership is why I can't take most the people talking about decentralization seriously. They are almost never talking about a bunch of different smaller well organized and led groups who are operating independently; its usually some version of a mass of individuals who will emergently somehow accomplish something with no organization or direction. Not that decentralization is bad in itself (I personally believe strongly in subsidiarity and localism) so much as they are advocating for the most unworkable and useless version of it, usually this will come with some vague inspiration from blockchain as if a cryptic technology and political organization are at all interchangeable.
Leadership is a big part of any accomplishment and can make or break the endeavor. Another thing to add is the nature of planning needs to be nuanced and well thought out. Like you say it's easy to have a common end goal or motivating first step, but if the leader hasn't articulated how each relate the other you always have confusion and disillusion with the entire enterprise. They need to have considered what to do first, second, third, and what the foreseeable obstacles are.
But, a strong leader with a vision of the end state, a road map of what steps to take, in what order, which hurdles may arise, and the if/then's gamed out will always have a very solid shot!
Is this why we need The Church? Maybe the ultimate, insurmountable obstacle of political "leadership" as a solution is that it is limited to quantifiable human wants and needs. Seeking only to satisfy the subjective desires of people will ALWAYS result in skewed and imperfect results. Does shifting the focus to a higher goal and set of principles/way of life - toward which everyone can pursue their own path (with repercussions if they stray) - allow for both a unification of culture and the freedom to allow The Market to work it's magic in the lives of individuals?
Speaking as a recovering/former big L and long-time agnostic, this is something I'm thinking a lot about these days. I'm not foolish enough to think this is like flipping a switch. It's hard to imagine this fallen world having any sort of significant recovery, but, for the sake of argument, is strengthening faith the ultimate goal/solution from which Peace, Liberty, etc. flows? Would this require another top-down, Theocratic structure?
There is a big hole in my life that a mindset like this could have filled. My dad passed on that frantic"just do anything to keep busy" mindset with no established leadership ideals and no plan but just a life of jumping from the next crisis to the other.
I fervently want there to be a difference in the family my wife and I create. Thank you for speaking into our lives, Pete.
You're welcome. I experienced the same growing up.
The question of leadership is why I can't take most the people talking about decentralization seriously. They are almost never talking about a bunch of different smaller well organized and led groups who are operating independently; its usually some version of a mass of individuals who will emergently somehow accomplish something with no organization or direction. Not that decentralization is bad in itself (I personally believe strongly in subsidiarity and localism) so much as they are advocating for the most unworkable and useless version of it, usually this will come with some vague inspiration from blockchain as if a cryptic technology and political organization are at all interchangeable.
Leadership is a big part of any accomplishment and can make or break the endeavor. Another thing to add is the nature of planning needs to be nuanced and well thought out. Like you say it's easy to have a common end goal or motivating first step, but if the leader hasn't articulated how each relate the other you always have confusion and disillusion with the entire enterprise. They need to have considered what to do first, second, third, and what the foreseeable obstacles are.
But, a strong leader with a vision of the end state, a road map of what steps to take, in what order, which hurdles may arise, and the if/then's gamed out will always have a very solid shot!
Is this why we need The Church? Maybe the ultimate, insurmountable obstacle of political "leadership" as a solution is that it is limited to quantifiable human wants and needs. Seeking only to satisfy the subjective desires of people will ALWAYS result in skewed and imperfect results. Does shifting the focus to a higher goal and set of principles/way of life - toward which everyone can pursue their own path (with repercussions if they stray) - allow for both a unification of culture and the freedom to allow The Market to work it's magic in the lives of individuals?
Speaking as a recovering/former big L and long-time agnostic, this is something I'm thinking a lot about these days. I'm not foolish enough to think this is like flipping a switch. It's hard to imagine this fallen world having any sort of significant recovery, but, for the sake of argument, is strengthening faith the ultimate goal/solution from which Peace, Liberty, etc. flows? Would this require another top-down, Theocratic structure?