Re: Tragedy of the commons | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sharon Villines (sharon![]() |
|
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:08:16 -0700 (PDT) |
On Sep 27, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Lyle Scheer wrote:
I think not because the person can be overruled at any point -- and some people have been. People sort of cycle through jobs until something sticks.I guess that means it's a benevolent easily overthrown dictatorship, butsomeone has to be dictator.
I suspect you meant this humorously but in case this gets confused in the minds of any readers of the list, a dictator is a ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition, one with absolute power and authority, especially one who exercises this power and authority tyrannically.
Taking responsibility and exercising leadership is not being a dictator.While there are those who like to believe that no rules are the best rules, those who have been subjected to those people generally do not want to live with them.
Sharon ---- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing,Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org
- Re: Tragedy of the commons, (continued)
- Re: Tragedy of the commons Sharon Villines, September 27 2007
-
Re: Tragedy of the commons Kay Argyle, September 27 2007
- Re: Tragedy of the commons Sharon Villines, September 27 2007
- Re: Tragedy of the commons Lyle Scheer, September 27 2007
- Re: Tragedy of the commons Sharon Villines, September 28 2007
- Re: Tragedy of the commons Lyle Scheer, September 28 2007
- Re: Tragedy of the commons Tim Mensch, September 28 2007
- Re: Tragedy of the commons John Beutler, September 28 2007
- Re: Tragedy of the commons Robert Heinich, September 29 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.