Spoilers DC's Legends of Tomorrow - Season 2
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
At mach 2 nothing is fluffy.Because it's fluffy?
And gooey!But after it hits, everything becomes fluffy.
If there's one thing TV shows have failed to do, it's address the fact that ships don't actually NEED a captain. If the team is truly a team, the ship goes where the team agrees, not one person.
The closest to getting this right was Farscape, but even then they set Crichton up to be in charge too often.
The closest to getting this right was Farscape, but even then they set Crichton up to be in charge too often.
This reminds me of that early TNG idea that a Galaxy-class ship was so advanced that it didn't need a chief engineer. That went out the window very quickly.
Do all ships need captains? Maybe not. Though, a set hierarchy is probably important if you expect to face a lot of battles using said ship, and (for humans, at least) it's pretty much a requirement once your crew gets larger than 5-7 people.
Yeah, democracy is great but doesn't work when it comes to decissions that have to be made on the spot.
If the different voices in my head would get the time to debate their point of view I wouldn't get out of bed.
Well, good leaders do listen to everyone's point of view and allow the debate. But eventually there has to be someone who'll say "Okay, we agree on the course of action, now go do it." Or, at worst, to break a tie.
In either case, you still have a captain. It's just the appointment process that is different.
What kind of society do you wanna live in people?!?
Organizational needs are very much fluid based upon size, authority, and responsibilities. The individuals and circumstances involved can also make a difference (as some are more inclined toward consensus-based decision-making and some are more inclined toward hierarchical decision-making).
The difference between one person declaring himself the leader and a group of people choosing a leader is pretty damn huge.
...not necessarily. It mostly just matters that the captain is capable, ethical, and accepted in his/her position by subordinates. The manner of choosing a captain is no guarantee of any of those traits, though it can help depending upon the specific circumstances.
Not necessarily?! It's the difference between dictatorship and democracy. In these times, it is absolutely essential that we recognize the profoundly important distinction between the two.
But that's just it -- there is no guarantee. So a good system is one that has safeguards against abuse or incompetence -- one that isn't dependent on the qualities of a single leader, but instead maximizes the odds of getting multiple good leaders over time. A system where leaders seize power for themselves, like a monarchy or dictatorship, only works if the leader happens to be wise and benevolent and selfless -- which are not qualities you'd usually find in people eager to seize power for themselves. Even if you get one leader who has all those qualities, the next one or the one after that may well be corrupt and abusive, and there'd be nothing the people being led could do about it. A system where leaders have to earn their status with the consent of the led, on the other hand, gives people the ability to remove a leader who turns out badly, so it gives a leader an incentive to do better and ameliorates the damage a bad leader can do (at least, we all sincerely hope so right now). A process with selection pressure is likely to produce a higher percentage of beneficial outcomes over the long run. So, yes, the quality of the process matters more than the quality of any one leader.
As per my earlier post: Organizational needs are very much fluid based upon size, authority, and responsibilities.
There are valid reasons for supporting representative democracy on a government-wide level, but it is folly to assume those reasons all translate to the need for representative democracy in all organizations and project teams regardless of size, authority, or responsibilities.
Do you believe militaries should be reorganized in such a way that soldiers vote on their chain-of-command? Different organizations may have different needs, and those needs will influence the process by which leaders are chosen.
Last edited:
Does this make Ray Gilligan?
Oh, the heck with it. I was trying to make an analogy to current political concerns, and you completely missed it. Never mind.
I understood the analogy as well as your concerns about current political affairs. We don't actually disagree when it comes to government. I'm just not convinced that those same concerns necessarily apply to all smaller groups.
Last edited:
Not my quote.
Similar threads
