I think my statement on self-managers has been misinterpreted. The idea being that central authority (either government, institutions, experts, or singular individuals) should not have pervasive controlling authority over the lives of individuals.
Now the two examples you provide:
Hitler running an oppressive, murderous, authoritarian regime is the exact opposite of allowing self-management to flourish. I think strong centralized power, in any facet is antithetical to what I was pointing out above.
For the Unabomber, if you actually read Kaczynski's text, he spells out exactly how his actions were in reaction to lack of ability for individuals to self-manage in the world. It is in his vernacular a disruption of the power process. Now whether he was justified or not in this regard I do not care to argue. I think the more important point being that his reaction was a violent reaction to external controls, and, more generally, I think it is very evident that the tighter the external controls exerted on an individual or population the more exacerbated (and violent) of a counter reaction we can expect to see in people under the boot. It may not always manifest in mail bombs, but we have seen a proliferation in school and mass-shootings, and aside from external harm being done there is self-mutilation, look at the rampant spread of mental illness.
The point being that both the examples you give show negative outcomes from people being outside of the locus of control of their lives, it seems an unnatural thing to happen on the individual and societal level and some pretty sick outcomes can come about.
Unfortunately, the common reaction to these horrors is often tighter controls. To rail against "future Hitlers" we push for strongman international interventionist policies and proclaim the US has to be a world police force. To combat domestic terrorists and mass shooters we build a surveillance state and look to remove individual's abilities to defend themselves. To halt mental illness we push "experts" and government bureaucrats (read psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers) into people's lives to control their minds.
regarding your comments about Gato…
I’ve never read him but it appears he thinks geniuses should be “self-managers.
I need to note that intelligence has nothing to do with morality. Hitler being 1example and the Unabomber another.
I don’t think either were good examples of “Self managers” nor should either have been put in charge of a large group of “non-elite” people.
Genius isn’t everything.
I think my statement on self-managers has been misinterpreted. The idea being that central authority (either government, institutions, experts, or singular individuals) should not have pervasive controlling authority over the lives of individuals.
Now the two examples you provide:
Hitler running an oppressive, murderous, authoritarian regime is the exact opposite of allowing self-management to flourish. I think strong centralized power, in any facet is antithetical to what I was pointing out above.
For the Unabomber, if you actually read Kaczynski's text, he spells out exactly how his actions were in reaction to lack of ability for individuals to self-manage in the world. It is in his vernacular a disruption of the power process. Now whether he was justified or not in this regard I do not care to argue. I think the more important point being that his reaction was a violent reaction to external controls, and, more generally, I think it is very evident that the tighter the external controls exerted on an individual or population the more exacerbated (and violent) of a counter reaction we can expect to see in people under the boot. It may not always manifest in mail bombs, but we have seen a proliferation in school and mass-shootings, and aside from external harm being done there is self-mutilation, look at the rampant spread of mental illness.
The point being that both the examples you give show negative outcomes from people being outside of the locus of control of their lives, it seems an unnatural thing to happen on the individual and societal level and some pretty sick outcomes can come about.
Unfortunately, the common reaction to these horrors is often tighter controls. To rail against "future Hitlers" we push for strongman international interventionist policies and proclaim the US has to be a world police force. To combat domestic terrorists and mass shooters we build a surveillance state and look to remove individual's abilities to defend themselves. To halt mental illness we push "experts" and government bureaucrats (read psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers) into people's lives to control their minds.
I don't see a good ending here...