One of the big differences between a political order based on reason and a political order based on coercion: in a reasonable order disagreements are resolved in ways that make people regard one another more highly, and in a coercive order the disagreements are resolved with increased mutual antipathy, contempt on one side and resentment on the other.

*

What is strange is that unreason can come from below as well as above. Some people cannot be appealed to, and can only be influenced by means that also make them hate you.

The choice is: a) allow them to do whatever they were going to do (however harmful it is to you), or b) get your way and become hated.

I’m guessing this truth is the daily reality of many/most managers. Of course there are power-loving managers who embrace this truth eagerly, because it justifies their natural inclinations. (“Nobody wants to do what they should. That’s why we call it ‘work’.”) But no doubt there are other managers who become resigned to this view, and become reluctant creators of a world of masters and unwilling slaves. I’ve had clients who see the world this way, and they radiate misery.

*

Yesterday I had to coerce someone into doing something they were unwilling to do. I tried to feel triumphant, but I could only feel filthy. Regardless of the outcome, unreason is degrading.

*

By the way, in conditions where conversation is impossible, reason is impossible, and coercion is inevitable. Tyrannical souls always create hectic, isolating, fragmentary conditions around them, so the only options is someone taking charge and making “executive” decisions.

Tyrants love manic activity, opaque, complicated bureaucracies, emergencies of all kinds — whatever forces perpetual premature action. “ready, fire, aim”, or problem, answer, question…

*

Yesterday (in a separate event) someone mentioned a name I hadn’t heard in a decade, and I realized, even a decade later, I still intensely dislike that person for something she said: “We do not have time to philosophize: just do it.”