A friend wrote an interesting question on Facebook this morning: “Should the world be governed by one, by some, by many, or by all?”

The answers to questions like this were so OBVIOUS when I was younger, I miss that clarity.  Now, it feels like there are so many points and counterpoints to each that I have more questions than answers.  I took a stab at it and this isn’t my usual wacky hijinx or whatnot so skip it if that’s why you’re here.

All

This seems like the ideal but there are some practical problems.  While our technology makes 100% democracy possible, it only takes a few minutes of browsing Facebook or Reddit to see how finely tuned manipulation of the masses is becoming.

There’s obviously a science to getting people to do what you want and right now, there’s just money to be made in driving clicks to BuzzFeed and other clickbait aggregators.  Imagine if it was direct power?  Also think of the different witch hunts in the media where tens of thousands of people fill hundreds of message boards with vitriol against people who are accused of crimes and essentially convict them on the spot?  If 100% democracy exists, what victims could there be to the tyranny of the masses?

Many

Right now, I feel I like this one the best.  Local representation with accountability to the voters seems to be a pretty good compromise, but that’s 37 year-old me talking so I wonder what I’ll think in a few years.  City Councillors, Mayors and Governors seem to wobble back-and-forth at a pretty “ok” steady-state of “not being dicks”, but they’re not perfect.  Still, the amount of damage they can do is equally limited so I feel pretty good about that setup but of course there’s room for improvement.

Some

This is what we have when we invest power in the Federal government versus local.  It’s a mixed bag; civil rights often benefit when a top-down prohibition on asshattery and dickery is enforce, but there’s a real danger to having a large power structure that’s responsive to people “over there” instead of in our home towns.  From a practical perspective, large-scale infrastructure and international relations benefit from centralized power, but again, the risks are worthy of vigilance.

One

My least favorite from an idealism perspective, it may also be damningly effective.  Humanity is a mixed bag, and anyone can be a despot or a saint so it’s a crapshoot where everything’s riding on one roll of the metaphorical dice but if they’re not a dick, a single leader could get stuff done.  That said, ‘getting stuff done’ isn’t automatically good so I’d rather not this be the structure.  Lots of folks have tried and there’s something about the process of ACQUIRING this position that seems to bring out the worst in people.  No matter how good they might govern, I’m not sure I could imagine that the roll of the dice could possibly turn out in our favor as a people because of what they would have to do to BECOME that leader.

So…

What’s the One True Answer?  Preferably one that doesn’t put me in charge, I’ve got shit to do and ain’t nobody got time to rule the world.