How would you rule as a clan leader?

I would suggest reading Machiavelli's The Prince for starters.

Right now, we live in the midst of civilization, with all sorts of guarantees. And our societies, by and large, function fairly well at balancing wants and needs.

The problem is, you are talking about a situation where civilization's rules no longer apply.


All of our preconcieved notions about a "social contract" where people voluntarily contribute in return for having their rights guaranteed would go right out the window.

What happens when your group is threatened by a formidable adversary, or one that offers more security, better food, and more authority? I'll tell you what happens---your members will defect in ones and twos to the other group, until you no longer have enough members to remain viable.

And long term, a democracy only works where individuals are pretty much equal in power, and interchangeable, and no obligatory work is required for group survival. But when you start getting factions (parties), and when some people realize they can shirk without any consequence, you are done for.

Our ancestors were not idiots, or savages. But they lived in a world that you would see as "situation x;" no central authority, no guarantees, no security, and no money or mode of secure barter.

How did those societies respond? A few of them experimented with democracy, for their elites. A few hundred Athenian males, a few hundred Roman patricians, experimented with democracy for a century or so. But what happened to those ancient democracies? They became disfunctional in the wake of a crisis. In short, the were replaced by a "strong leader." Caesar, Kaiser, Czar, Tsar, Fuehrer, Duce.

Tyranny sucks. but it keeps making a comeback generation after generation because the lofty requirements for equality and liberty are extremely difficult to maintain. So whether it's a Clan chieftan in the scottish highlands, a somali warlord, a war chief of the lakota, a pirate prince, or an Arthur or a Napoleon, a strong centralized executive is more responsive and more efficient in a crisis than a parliament is.

In a crisis, people crave simple, black and white worldviews with clear rules to follow. Humans in crisis have an emotional need for summary judgment and strict discipline. And they flock to leaders who can offer this.

We can deny these truths, because danger is remote and we feel safe.
.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

I would suggest reading Machiavelli's The Prince for starters.

Now that is what I would call essential post-society reading!

What you describe is so chillingly true...the most effective form of rule to maintain clan cohesion in adverse times will be with an iron fist clad in the velvet glove.