Obviously this feature must also be embedded on the model that also aspires to success. This feature is individual responsibility.
If your model does not contemplate an individual responsibility, it will be doomed to failure. However, if the model implies an individual responsibility but citizens will not accomplish with, the initiative will be again doomed to failure.
The classic objection to the above is in Machiavelli, Guicciardini, as well as in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as well as in Marx and Engels. The clearest example for the common reader has been provided by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his novel ‘ The Brothers Karamazov ‘.
The question must be placed in the antinomy of Freedom – Happiness, where, while Dostoyevsky does not express preferences, the other authors mentioned are always in favor of happiness for the people, except maybe Nietzsche, where it takes a clear position in ‘ Ecce Homo ‘.
This is the dilemma, which resumed as crucial by Palo Alto School in California, which has named the problem as ‘ Double Link ‘.
The easiest way to exemplify the problem we’re talking about was submitted by Milton H. Erickson, psychiatrist, psychotherapist and hypnotherapist, which outlines a person locked in a golden cage. This person, locked up in the cage, while he is sleeping receives food, newspapers, books, so all amenities are compatible with imprisonment. After a long period, a bad morning he wakes up and, as usual, after the toilet bowls he decides to take something to eat. Just that morning, touching with the hand food, receives an electric shock exceedingly sore. After doing a leap backward, he stops to consider what happened and, after five minutes, he decided to try again. Needless to say, from that moment on every attempt he obtains no more than a new shock. He wants to escape: the golden cage is suddenly the great obstacle. The Double Link consists in the fact that he wants two things at the same time, the two contradicting each other: feed and avoid shock. Just coming out of the golden cage he could avoid the dilemma of the Double Link.
The question posed by all he mentioned authors above and therefore the Double Link is relative to the antinomy Happiness – Freedom.
The man who arrives at a crossroads and is free to decide how he wants, he must choose which route to take: If you take to the right, you will have the Right result, otherwise you will have the Left result. If the Right result will be disappointing, you will always have the anguish that, if you had opted for the Left, this solution could perhaps have been better. On the other hand, admitted that the Right outcome is acceptable, the Left could still be better. The boss therefore, as a free man, can only be unhappy. For the other members of the community, never deciding, there will be no freedom but their happiness can be possible.
The masses follow the leader, at least initially, who will give them a semblance of happiness. Then if things go wrong, they will consider the leader as a guilty man and, where appropriate, the leader will become the scapegoat.
All of human history is based on trying to replace the human scapegoat with an animal scapegoat, for example a true goat.
Therefore, it is sufficient that all humans were responsible and free (which are synonyms) but the human social structure, biologically speaking, is an aggregation to capture prey, a buffalo maybe, because the human being does not have the strength of a tiger, and already the lion prefers to hunt in groups. But in the group, someone, the strongest or the smartest, tends to operate and this not only because human beings have limited physical forces, but because nature wants the strongest or the smartest is the preferred to procreate future generation, in order to obtain better conservation of the species.
While other animals, as far as we know, don’t realize this, the man does, even if only subconsciously. It is not to define the man as the unique animal who knows the death, rather it is better to define him as the only animal who knows not to be the best suited to procreation. Say to the man: “You were born to create future generations but maybe you’re a failure, because other men are better than you.”, is perhaps the true underlying problem of sentient beings. The hypocrisy of humanity starts from these considerations.
After this digression, we note that, in order to allay these concerns, human societies have a tendency to remove responsibility for the vast majority of citizens. This inevitably gives rise to the problems of today’s society, because those who are in managerial positions WILL TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, REMOVING ANY RESPONSIBILITY AWAY FROM THEMSELVES, as irresponsibility is accepted, after all, from the crowd obediently.
The core of the question is as follows: “Waiting for all mankind taking his own responsibility, we must begin to compel at least those who decide something to be responsible for and this assertion shall be written in every court and elsewhere”.
The assertion should be as follows: “EVERY DECISION THAT AFFECTS NOT ONLY THEIR OWN PERSON BUT INVOLVING A SECOND PERSON ALSO, ENTAILS THE LIABILITY IN THE PRESENT AND IN THE FUTURE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION ITSELF”.
We conclude by deferring to the next article and stating that even after ten years, for example, in a Parliament vote, all voters a law will be responsible: if the law will be gone well (and this will be measured by objective criteria) there will be rewards for those who voted in favor and shame with negative rewards for those who voted against. Conversely, the opposite will also be true.
It’s a long way to Tipperary.