“havoc was done by leaders in the name and spirit of benevolence.” This is another very good piece and succinct read, however I feel that you are being very generous in attributing good motives to “good” leaders when in fact their behaviour and willingness - not to say - eagerness to tow the line of authoritarian policy marked them out as the inverse of that. Good leaders are not afraid to take a stand, even if their opinion runs counter to popular narrative; good leaders actions are rooted in principle, good leaders are not hysterical and good leaders seek counsel across all disciplines and perspectives. So whilst I wholeheartedly support your premise, I am past giving most of those layers of the power structure any benefit of the doubt.
I wholeheartedly agree, however I believe that the vast majority of these leaders are truly convinced they acted in benevolence. Why they feel that way is a topic I wish to explore.
“havoc was done by leaders in the name and spirit of benevolence.” This is another very good piece and succinct read, however I feel that you are being very generous in attributing good motives to “good” leaders when in fact their behaviour and willingness - not to say - eagerness to tow the line of authoritarian policy marked them out as the inverse of that. Good leaders are not afraid to take a stand, even if their opinion runs counter to popular narrative; good leaders actions are rooted in principle, good leaders are not hysterical and good leaders seek counsel across all disciplines and perspectives. So whilst I wholeheartedly support your premise, I am past giving most of those layers of the power structure any benefit of the doubt.
I wholeheartedly agree, however I believe that the vast majority of these leaders are truly convinced they acted in benevolence. Why they feel that way is a topic I wish to explore.