8 handshakes objections

more on 8 handshakes

practical

it wouldn't necessarily get the best leaders
We think that this system would get the best leaders, because of the face-to-face contact. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. If it didn't, it would have to mean that the majority of our species is corrupt and selfish, and if that's the case, then there's no hope really. Hopefully it isn't the case though.

it wouldn't get down to grassroots
Maybe in some areas, the system wouldn't get down to the neighbours level. That's fine - if it only gets to the street level or even the village level in the more apathetic areas, then that's OK. Lots of people don't vote in the current system, and you shouldn't force them (although in some countries they do). In some areas it would get down to neighbours level, and in others it wouldn't. If people want to participate they can, but you can't force them. If it really takes off, maybe then it would spread down into the more difficult areas.

it's naive, and can't possibly work
That's what they said to the people who wanted to end slavery, or get women the vote. Things change very quickly once a critical mass is reached, after which they are virtually unstoppable. We won't know unless we try.

human nature is selfish
So why the huge response to disaster appeals?

people are too comfortable in the West
They've got plasma screen TVs, holidays abroad, cars, designer clothes, shopping malls, entertainment, plenty of food – why would they risk that?
But there seems to be an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in the West. More people are beginning to ask 'what's the point?', and they realise that it's not more consumerism. If you ask most people what their ideal life would be, it still tends to be closer to nature, with a close-knit community and healthy lifestyle – not more possessions. Also, only a small percentage of the world have the things mentioned above, and ultimately, if something is right (votes for women, ending Apartheid and slavery), it usually happens in the end.

people will be too scared
The argument is that although a lot of people can see that the current system is not ideal, at least it ensures that they won't starve. Most people wouldn't be brave enough. But come on, people have done much scarier things than this, and a lot of the world's population are already in a desperate situation.
Plus we're talking about an advisory system first to see how it works.

ideological

I don't want a 'world government'
This assumes that we don't already have a world government – but in effect, we do, and it's corporate - via professional lobby organisations, ownership of the media, corporations threatening to take their business elsewhere, personal friendships, ex-ministers getting jobs with corporations, corporate board members in government, political donations, and sometimes political and corporate leaders are the same people - eg Silvio Berlusconi, and most of the US cabinet. Where are the elections for this power structure? We either have a world government controlled by us, or we have a de facto world government controlled by corporations. The world is too small nowadays to avoid having a small group of people run it. We have to decide whether we want to choose those people or not. Plus we're not talking about a government unless we can see that it's a better system. We're talking about an advisory system first.

it's too much of a risk
This argument is that our governments in the West are not dictatorships. They may have a lot of faults, but they're better than anything that's gone before. It's too much of a risk to think about changing the style of government – we may slip back into dictatorship of one sort or another. We should change very slowly and incrementally. Well yes, we have to be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's see how the system works first, and what kind of leaders it throws up, before even thinking about whether powers should be transferred to it.

Plato was a fascist
He wasn't. You have to imagine the ancient Greek world. Athens could have been stormed at any time, and it's inhabitants butchered. That sort of thing wasn't too uncommon then. Athens had to be strong, with a large military caste. The system that Plato proposed was more liberal than anything that followed in the next 2000 years. If our system is international, we won't need the military caste. But Plato's main point was that pure democracy won't necessarily produce the best decisions, because most people think of what's best for themselves, not the whole. In that respect, he has been seen as a forerunner of totalitarianism. He couldn't control who used his philosophy after his death, but we can take what's useful from it, without promoting any kind of totalitarianism – or any 'ism' at all in fact.

we don't need leaders at all
Most objections are that it is too idealistic, but there are objections that it isn't idealistic enough. Some people don't want any leaders or laws, and say that if this system works, it may be much more difficult to get rid of it. They'd rather chip away until there's real anarchism. The current system is so bad that it will be easier to get rid of it, when consciousness has risen enough for us to be really free. But if a leaderless system really is the ultimate one, it would be easier to remove all laws and leaders under this new system, because if they are truly the best people, they would be more likely to weigh the evidence, and come to a decision that they think will benefit all of us, not just themselves. Trying to take power from current leaders would involve a lot of bloodshed, and it could end with fascism. If a leaderless world is better, this way would make it more likely that we eventually get there. For example, there is no vehicle to get to no leaders directly from where we are now - we'd need an intermediate position, and this could be it. Some think that society will organically and naturally get better, from small-scale grassroots initiatives, until the need for leaders and laws just fades away, and we can live in real freedom. That would be great if we were actually moving in the right direction, but it seems to be getting worse.

more on 8 handshakes