Trust or Fear?

[lunamoth]

Which is best, and which can practically 'work' when it comes to governing a healthy:

a. Community
b. Corporation (Business)
c. Country

Can trust and relationship be the basis for all three?

Do some of the above require power, authority, and fear to be effective?

[Tao_Equus]

I think the most important word in your question was "healthy". Anything imposed by fear is not healthy. Fear produces chemicals in the body that prematurely age and kill.

A good leader is not feared but loved and trusted.

tao

[Penguin]

I Agree with Tao.

Also for me you could say:- flexibility, wisdom, creativity & compromise for all 3 of those

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't know how to answer. Are we talking about the real world or an ideal world? The big fish eat the little fish, little fish got to be fast. That's the law of the fish. Is that healthy?

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I don't know how to answer. Are we talking about the real world or an ideal world? The big fish eat the little fish, little fish got to be fast. That's the law of the fish. Is that healthy?

Chris

Healthy? Nature knows best. Humans go beyond nature in some sense...so the question is altered. Dependent on which alter you kneel before.


tao

[wil]

Both have to be constantly instilled.

Consistently repeated, so those that are new or those that waiver understand it is there.

If you are running an entity by fear you end up living in it, as someone is always bigger, better, faster and is trying to take it out.

If you are running it on trust...and you get taken over, it will either be by someone the people support and is more trustworthy or someone that won't last as the people won't stand for it.

But I guess those are my ideas in an ideal world.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I don't know how to answer. Are we talking about the real world or an ideal world? The big fish eat the little fish, little fish got to be fast. That's the law of the fish. Is that healthy?

Chris

We're talking about the real world.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Healthy? Nature knows best.

How so?

Humans go beyond nature in some sense...so the question is altered.

Humans can short-circuit instinct by reason, and so are the only animals that make 'moral' choices (choices for which we feel accountable).

Dependent on which alter you kneel before.


tao

Not sure I understand this last bit.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I dunno. I think that in pragmatic terms power structures function in Machiavellian ways. It might be nice to be all pert and pollyanna-ish, and maybe an extraordinary person could pull that off, instill trust through the effect of their own personal goodness, and establish power that way. The cynic in me says naaa. Those who hold the reins of power within the institutions of power play by an essentially amoral set of rules, and the peasants are taught, through religion and public education, to make a virtue of their powerlessness. You'd have to change that dynamic first, I think, before benevolence and trust become currency within the power structures. Maybe that's not impossible (I do believe in speaking truth to power), but it's a pretty tall order.

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I dunno. I think that in pragmatic terms power structures function in Machiavellian ways. It might be nice to be all pert and pollyanna-ish, and maybe an extraordinary person could pull that off, instill trust through the effect of their own personal goodness, and establish power that way. The cynic in me says naaa. Those who hold the reins of power within the institutions of power play by an essentially amoral set of rules, and the peasants are taught, through religion and public education, to make a virtue of their powerlessness. You'd have to change that dynamic first, I think, before benevolence and trust become currency within the power structures. Maybe that's not impossible (I do believe in speaking truth to power), but it's a pretty tall order.

Chris

That's a pretty good analysis Chris, although I don't think it takes an extraordinary person to be a good leader based upon trust...I see it in ways large and small (although granted mostly small) fairly often. That's why I specified the three different 'ogranizations' in my OP. What makes a community so different from a corportation or nation that makes it less likely to be based upon trust? Probably the size and need for hierarchy to stay organized.

A corporation is in the middle and I've seen companies run both ways, although unfortunately they also more often are based upon fear/power/authority and not trust. In marked contrast, my experience in university jobs was very different, and much more enjoyable. Even though there was competition, there was still mostly trust and relationship greasing the wheels of research (not 100% to be sure, but a lot better than my industry experience).

My husband is a good guy and has gotten pretty far because he is honest and cares about the people he works with (plus he's dang smart). But he is now in a position where the company culture is much more Machiavellian, as you say. He sticks to his principles, but it is taking a HUGE toll on him, and there is beau coup pressure to pass the fear and power of authority down onto the people who work for him. Essentially he is absorbing all the heat trying to buffer his employees from what's coming from above. At times I am afraid he is going to crack! Yet, at the same time, I would not want him to compromise his integrity and become an a******. Personally, I would not last ten minutes in the place he's in.

Anyway, it occurs to me that his situation comes down to choosing your style of leading by trust and respect for others, or ruling by fear and authority.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

...and the peasants are taught, through religion and public education, to make a virtue of their powerlessness.

I've beening thinking about this comment and as you might expect I have a different perspective on how religion interacts with this dynamic. Not that you are wrong...certainly religion, education, etc. have all been used to suppress the masses. But that's not the whole picture either.

Fear and anxiety cloud thinking and judgement, so if you are living in a regime of intimidation and totalitarian rule that fear will hold the masses down. But most religions I'm familiar with, and certainly in Christianity and the Baha'i Faith, two I'm most familiar with, rather than teaching accepatnce of this, instead teach freedom from fear of "principalities and powers of the world." The spiritual transformation serves to remove the anxiety and the result is not complacency, but courage. The source of the fear is still there, but it is now faced with courage (and yes, I was just re-reading my Paul Tillech ).

The result is people like Ghandi and Rev. MLK Jr., and countless others who stand up to the authorities and 'speak truth to power.' In the Writings, as you well know, it was the mystics and prophets who could stand up to the kings and pharohs and be the conscience of the nation.

So, you're not wrong, but I can't agree that religion is the opiate of the masses, serving only as a tool of oppression. I think there is plenty of evidence that religion has also been the inspiration of much social justice and courage in the face of corruption and oppression.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I've beening thinking about this comment and as you might expect I have a different perspective on how religion interacts with this dynamic. Not that you are wrong...certainly religion, education, etc. have all been used to suppress the masses. But that's not the whole picture either.

Fear and anxiety cloud thinking and judgement, so if you are living in a regime of intimidation and totalitarian rule that fear will hold the masses down. But most religions I'm familiar with, and certainly in Christianity and the Baha'i Faith, two I'm most familiar with, rather than teaching accepatnce of this, instead teach freedom from fear of "principalities and powers of the world." The spiritual transformation serves to remove the anxiety and the result is not complacency, but courage. The source of the fear is still there, but it is now faced with courage (and yes, I was just re-reading my Paul Tillech ).

The result is people like Ghandi and Rev. MLK Jr., and countless others who stand up to the authorities and 'speak truth to power.' In the Writings, as you well know, it was the mystics and prophets who could stand up to the kings and pharohs and be the conscience of the nation.

So, you're not wrong, but I can't agree that religion is the opiate of the masses, serving only as a tool of oppression. I think there is plenty of evidence that religion has also been the inspiration of much social justice and courage in the face of corruption and oppression.

I agree with that as an ideal. But as a reality? There is maybe one Ghandi or Jesus for every billion people that live their lives under the opiate effect. So even if it can be fairly argued as having truth, it means little.


tao

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I agree with that as an ideal. But as a reality? There is maybe one Ghandi or Jesus for every billion people that live their lives under the opiate effect. So even if it can be fairly argued as having truth, it means little.


tao

Not every person will be a MLK Jr. or a Ghandi, just as not every one is a Pol Pot or Hitler.

Tao, millions of people find courage from their religion to make hard choices and do inconvenient things and make small sacrifices and speak truth to power. These just don't make headlines.

It's better to light a single candle than sit in darkness, no?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Not every person will be a MLK Jr. or a Ghandi, just as not every one is a Pol Pot or Hitler.

Tao, millions of people find courage from their religion to make hard choices and do inconvenient things and make small sacrifices and speak truth to power. These just don't make headlines.

It's better to light a single candle than sit in darkness, no?

Absolutely!

But not really what I was trying to say.

All these people holding their candles are they shedding light, or are they making a coca cola advert? The great visionary leaders are in some sense allowed to rise, just so they can be shot down. Just to remind us what will happen to us if we pay more than lip service, if we dare really raise our heads above the parapet and threaten the reigns of power. Power is never held by those we should trust to weild it. And the truth is more than ever we are impotent to try and change it. So we hold our candles when really we should be forming a wall of bodies round the parliaments and senates and holding seige till we acheive our aims. But putting ones neck on the line is something few have the courage for, I do not know that I have it despite my many arrests for acts of civil dissobediance. Holding a candle, doing a selfless act is going to make a tiny, though often significant to those being helped, difference to the big picture. But you cannot trust power. And you cannot trust all the people with their candles to actually make a stand, most of them will use the light to make a fast gettaway to the comfort of their own disstopia.

tao

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Which is best, and which can practically 'work' when it comes to governing a healthy:

a. Community
b. Corporation (Business)
c. Country

Can trust and relationship be the basis for all three?

Do some of the above require power, authority, and fear to be effective?

A leader who has respect for his men, understanding, love and trust... and does his fair share of WORK Has this mirrored back to him... They, will go to the end of the earths for their leader........

A leader who bullies intimidates.... and refuses to help carry the load and get his hands dirty.... His men have no loyalty... They shall break and fall very easily, they will not go to the ends of the earth for their leader, they will also be able to be bought/paid off by enemies...

Leonidas VS Xerxes comes to mind......

One die, refusing to bend and become a slave, his men gave him nothing but their loyalty knowing the ending before the curtain came down....

Another died, a "god" stabbed in the back by a dagger by his very own son..... And he never did take the land the other stood for.