The problem with all ideas of collective governance is the idea that groups of people of any size can ever act as a single agency in some way. A group mind. In reality they form status hierarchies, the empirical work on this suggests about 5% of any group steer what the group ‘thinks’. Which is why everything always seems to end up back with a monarchical or feudalist model. Dave Graeber and Marshall Sahlins’ ‘On Kings’ makes this same point, and criticises the entire idea of ‘popular sovereignty’ as being nonsensical.
What is TrailBikeGPT exactly
It's ChatGPT
Note to self: Cistercian reforms to Benedictine governance embrace a similar subjection to collective opinion as ChatGPT explains here.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6839302b-a508-8003-a0ad-b83dff6092ed
Which makes it quite a relief that dictatorships work out so spiffingly
The problem with all ideas of collective governance is the idea that groups of people of any size can ever act as a single agency in some way. A group mind. In reality they form status hierarchies, the empirical work on this suggests about 5% of any group steer what the group ‘thinks’. Which is why everything always seems to end up back with a monarchical or feudalist model. Dave Graeber and Marshall Sahlins’ ‘On Kings’ makes this same point, and criticises the entire idea of ‘popular sovereignty’ as being nonsensical.