Remember, when it comes to government — at least a democratic one — the people complaining are also the leadership. Think about it from their perspective:
- If they do a good job with leadership, only one team will be necessary. Anything else is truly a waste.
- If they do a poor job with leadership, every team will fail. Any more than one is also truly a waste[1].
The latter is the most likely outcome, of course. Now, when you absolve yourself from the process then those points still apply, but now you have several leaders duking it out to see which one doesn't fail. But, for the same reasons, those leaders each only benefit from having one team.
[1] You could argue that all teams are truly a waste, but one team is necessary to show that leadership failed. That brings abstract value, even if it fails to deliver the intended value. You don't know until you try.
> Not necessarily. Unless you think a global democratic government formed overnight?
This is a distraction. Whether it's 300 million voters or 300 million iPhone users, both groups act as the ultimate arbiter of value. If a customer stops paying, the "leadership" of a company fails. If a voter stops voting for one party, or the other, the "leadership" of a state fails. The mechanical result on the "seven teams" is identical: the unsuccessful ones are defunded.
Further, this proves the detachment from reality you are bringing to the conversation - everybody in the private sector knows the golden rule - your customers ARE your employers
THEY dictate what they will pay for, and therefore what can be sold (unless you are a fan of monopolies forcing people to buy things they do not want to)
> Whatever it is you are reading in other threads has no relevance to this one.
Your dishonesty only highlights your bad faith, and as such we are done here.
> If a voter stops voting for one party, or the other, the "leadership" of a state fails.
Political parties in democracy are quite literally labor unions. The people in them do not independently lead the state, they are merely employees, hired by the leadership. You know, that's what you host elections for — to choose which employee you want to hire from the set of candidates who want the job. They may act as sub-leaders within the capacity of their job, but they are not the top leaders we are talking about. "Leadership" here was never intended to be about "middle managers".
That seems pretty obvious, but perhaps this confusion is the source of your misunderstandings?
> and as such we are done here.
Done with what? Thinking other threads are related this one? That is a good idea.
