Well, I'd say politicians need to be somewhat ruthless and unprincipled when they are tasked to fight for the interests of their respective offices.
It's the interests they defend and promote that matter. The public lacks mechanisms to check on and influence them (the interests). The situation those politicians welcome, no doubt.
Contemplate The Iron Law Of Oligarchy. Lesser-evilism leading by degrees to full-blown sociopathy.
The problem is that sociopaths are unable to conceive of the common good, as their pretexts wear thin while the attractions of power remain, any idealists that they may have had around them come be replaced by by people most politely described as cynical careerists, if not outright sociopaths. Entrenched interests (see The Iron Law Of Institutions) also fulfill a similar role.
A system where everyone from the King down to the palace janitor is only out for themselves eventually deteriorates to the point where it cannot even properly serve the sociopaths in charge, much less the courtiers around them. This is why systems decline and eventually collapse under their own dead weight of sociopathic leadership and entrenched interests.
I do not necessarily think in terms of any theory. Just observing the fact that any human occupation calls for certain traits. A timid non-combative person is not suited for a political position. The feisty one is, but necessarily carries negative baggage.
It would be ideal to expect a person to be one thing at a job and completely another when at home. All the negative properties will bleed through. So it's those proverbial "checks and balances" that need to be retrievable and enforceable. As well as population willing to go through all those auditing processes. Which is not something many people would enjoy doing.
The trick is to choose the theory or rubric which accurately describes observable reality, rather than to choose the reality that best corresponds to the chosen theory.
Well, I'd say politicians need to be somewhat ruthless and unprincipled when they are tasked to fight for the interests of their respective offices.
It's the interests they defend and promote that matter. The public lacks mechanisms to check on and influence them (the interests). The situation those politicians welcome, no doubt.
Contemplate The Iron Law Of Oligarchy. Lesser-evilism leading by degrees to full-blown sociopathy.
The problem is that sociopaths are unable to conceive of the common good, as their pretexts wear thin while the attractions of power remain, any idealists that they may have had around them come be replaced by by people most politely described as cynical careerists, if not outright sociopaths. Entrenched interests (see The Iron Law Of Institutions) also fulfill a similar role.
A system where everyone from the King down to the palace janitor is only out for themselves eventually deteriorates to the point where it cannot even properly serve the sociopaths in charge, much less the courtiers around them. This is why systems decline and eventually collapse under their own dead weight of sociopathic leadership and entrenched interests.
I do not necessarily think in terms of any theory. Just observing the fact that any human occupation calls for certain traits. A timid non-combative person is not suited for a political position. The feisty one is, but necessarily carries negative baggage.
It would be ideal to expect a person to be one thing at a job and completely another when at home. All the negative properties will bleed through. So it's those proverbial "checks and balances" that need to be retrievable and enforceable. As well as population willing to go through all those auditing processes. Which is not something many people would enjoy doing.
The trick is to choose the theory or rubric which accurately describes observable reality, rather than to choose the reality that best corresponds to the chosen theory.