RE: The meaning of "Service" and the effects of division of Powers
Hi, Erika ! Love to see your work again :)) Hopefully I'm not too late to join the discussion on this topic.
I'm so glad that you managed to discuss the issue from several perspectives, including a historical one! Wow!
What I would like to add from psychological perspective is that some people actually are becoming or should I say more properly expressing themselves as servants in order to be noticed and appreciated by people who they admire or consider as an authority. Sometimes this urge or need to serve and be appreciated could cloud their judgement about events, problems and even the value of their own life.
We are all familiar with the statement that leadership is in our nature as species but we can't speak about leaders without servants so I think that it is safe to also state that "to serve" is a part of our natural behaviour.
That being said I personally find statements and desires which are related to "No government" or "No leaders" etc. to be really silly ones because such "practice" would never be healthy and stable on the long term.
The sad thing is that people mistake the term "leader" with "ruler" or even "dictator" and do not understand that all these terms have nothing to do with each other except that they are all related to "superior position". This misconception probably is in the root of such silly statements which imply that we need nobody to be "in charge of us". We actually do.
You are never too late to join the discussion. Thank you for taking your time.
Yes, good point you made. It's always an act of balance to stay pure about whom I want to serve and not mistake a role model as someone who is in charge to give myself meaning and otherwise I cannot establish this inner feeling. Within the systems it's a back and forth movement, a mutual feeding. Leaders cannot lead without being served by others and servants cannot continue their work without seeing the value of their services being acknowledged. This should not determine though their ability to stay critical.
Here on the blockchain there is much talk of "decentralization" and even "slavery" which I find immature. Also, this discredits those people who are and were slaves indeed. I often go against this view in my comment behavior when I face articles who show a certain victim mentality. I even get upset about it - which is not very good for me - because my family members were themselves imprisoned and forced by dictatorship results into labor camp. So I have not very much understanding hearing modern people in consumption societies naming themselves "slaves". Language should be used accurately.
As always, we do understand each other. I wonder if we ever will have a disagreement? LOL! :-)))
Bringing the "slavery topic" is another thing. We have to discuss the topic of freedom and free will, which I presume are out of the scope of your current paper but a possibility for a second chapter? ;)
Oh, I can recall a few times we had some small disagreements on several topics but they were all resolved in a constructive discussion, which I find as a main purpose of this comment section.
Yes, it would overstretch this one:) - a second chapter of "service and division of powers"? Hm... not a bad idea but I am already struggling with making a translation back from English to German on my history-article which is related to my family story and not yet decided whether I will do that...
Yes, you are right, we had slightly disagreements but I forgot about them. Comment section can be really great, yes.
Ah, it was just a suggestion in case you would like to expand the topic. I am always looking forward for your content!