Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yeul | Hacker News Reader

This mode of operation is completely the reverse of my country the Netherlands.

In Dutch society it doesn't really matter who the current ruling party is the big machine keeps rolling on. The names change frequently- governments keep tumbling down- but every day like clockwork people get up in the morning, go to work and follow their programming. Prime minister A is replaced by prime minister B.

In some ways having a personality cult is less scary. You can kill a man but how do you destroy a collective?

View on HN

> "In some ways having a personality cult is less scary. You can kill a man but how do you destroy a collective?"

In some ways it's far more terrifying, because of the operative word "cult" there. Sometimes the object of such a "personality cult" can attract the mindset of an actual cult to form around them and create a highly destructive and dangerous "collective". It's happened many times already throughout recorded history, and it never really seems to go all that well for anyone involved.

You sound like someone who's never experienced a personality cult.

That's actually comparing two collectives:

1. A collective where there is a belief (however slow or stodgy) in the consistent application of known rules.

2. A collective where the only real rule is to make the cult leader happy even if it means a forest of contradictions and rewriting history.

While (2) can easily change on a whim... it's not your whim.

Which leads us to the practical question: Which collective do you think you and your community could best fight against when it starts hurting you? I think a majority of the time I'd rather be opposed to (1).

> I think a majority of the time I'd rather be opposed to (1)

This sounds terrible. Any political system can be good or bad, but some of them are much more prone to autocratic drift than others. There should be absolutely no hesitation: rule of law is much better than personal dictatorship. It is not sufficient because the law can be oppressive, but it is absolutely necessary.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The phrase "I'd rather be opposed to" refers to choosing between two mutually-exclusive scenarios where I'm tasked to confront two different kinds of opponents.

If someone says: "Between catching Tuberculosis or AIDS, I'd rather be fighting Tuberculosis", that does not mean they have a favorable opinion towards AIDS.

This is one of the exact frustrations that has led the US to our current open fascism, so try not to take your state of affairs for granted. It's much easier to resist and avoid a bureaucracy (as it mostly operates on predictable rules), than a cult of personality autocrat who chooses new targets by the week.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com