Raising the bar on what to accept as humans

[PyramidHead]

^ ^ ^

That seems to be a rather dismal view of humanity - that we need guidance and control through our entire life from our 'betters'. It sounds like the same idea used by royalty and/or the church to keep humanity subservient to them for so long.

My view is that, when children, we need guidance and protection from our parents. When we reach adulthood we become the ones who are to give guidance and protection to our children and assistance to our aging parents. We no longer need guidance from our 'betters' because 'our betters' are only a meme used by other adults no more intelligent than us or more capable of deciding what is 'good for us' than we are.

I guess some people never feel like they reach adulthood so always seek someone to lead them, control them, and care for them.

I agree with all of this. Well said!

 

[PyramidHead]

Which is why we need the smartest people in office. They need to know better than anyone else what needs to be done for everyone's own good. That notion--that principle--and all that it entails likely sickens others, however, and it no doubt just triggered them reading it, but of course it should not absent associated trauma. It's exactly how every benevolent tribal community has operated peacefully and in harmony for thousands of years (where they have existed, such as among most tribes of native Americans).

Do you have any sources about this, namely that tribal relations were anything like electing the smartest people to office and having them do nothing else aside from governing? My understanding is that most tribes were pretty egalitarian and everybody contributed to making and doing what needed to be made and done, with some specialization based on talent but not much centralized authority. There was certainly no political class of elected representatives who decided what was good for everyone else in every benevolent tribal community that has ever existed.

 

[Elixir]

There was certainly no political class of elected representatives who decided what was good for everyone else in every benevolent tribal community that has ever existed.

What is the largest "benevolent tribal community" that ever existed? And how large was it? I suspect a few hundred individuals is the limit, before tribes fracture and some form of central authority emerges.

 

[PyramidHead]

There was certainly no political class of elected representatives who decided what was good for everyone else in every benevolent tribal community that has ever existed.

What is the largest "benevolent tribal community" that ever existed? And how large was it? I suspect a few hundred individuals is the limit, before tribes fracture and some form of central authority emerges.

Today I learned about Cherán, a town with a population of ~16,000 people who have existed without any central authority or government since 2011 (though still in the same squalid poverty conditions that existed before that time). Compared to the rest of Mexico they have maybe the lowest rate of homicide. It's not a utopia, it's not even a nice place to live, but it's not nothing, and they are certainly more democratic than any population of similar size in the United States or elsewhere.

 

[Emily Lake]

Simple... the answer is the same as the need for traffic signals. Individuals can manage things quite easily. Groups of people are incapable of managing things.

I agree with this sentiment more strongly than I would have expected. You and I almost never agree on things.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

Yet, gains in productivity are almost always accompanied by rising poverty.

Umm... no. For consideration, I present:
- The introduction of agriculture
- Urbanization
- The rise of the merchant class
- The industrial revolution
- And many others.

Your view on this is so cherry picked that it’s a bit odd. Just compare the developed world to the undeveloped. Those productivity gains are largely at the heart of lifting entire countries out of near subsistence level poverty and allowing most people to enjoy a degree of leisure.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

Certainly misogyny was prompted in Hollywood movies from the start. When Clark Gable pushed a woman around in one of his first movies he became a man's man.

Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure misogyny predates Gone with the Wind by a far cry.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which is why we need the smartest people in office. They need to know better than anyone else what needs to be done for everyone's own good. That notion--that principle--and all that it entails likely sickens others, however, and it no doubt just triggered them reading it, but of course it should not absent associated trauma. It's exactly how every benevolent tribal community has operated peacefully and in harmony for thousands of years (where they have existed, such as among most tribes of native Americans).

Do you have any sources about this, namely that tribal relations were anything like electing the smartest people to office and having them do nothing else aside from governing?

I said:

They need to know better than anyone else what needs to be done for everyone's own good. That notion--that principle--and all that it entails...

Not necessarily that tribes elected anyone.

The chiefs and the elders were the wise ones and they knew what was best for the tribe and made the big decisions for the tribe as a whole.

 

[PyramidHead]

Simple... the answer is the same as the need for traffic signals. Individuals can manage things quite easily. Groups of people are incapable of managing things.

I agree with this sentiment more strongly than I would have expected. You and I almost never agree on things.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

About as strongly as I expected. I'm still curious as to why traffic signals, which are agreed-upon mechanisms that only work because everybody knows what they mean and expects everyone else to know what they mean, are somehow an example of individuals managing themselves rather than a perfect illustration of what groups of people can accomplish through mutual trust and participation in public life. Jimmy's assertion that people only obey traffic lights because they're afraid of the cops is just laughable. They're not afraid of the cops, they're afraid of getting smashed by an oncoming car, and the best way to avoid that is to follow the traffic signals. It's better for each individual to adhere to a set of rules that applies to them all collectively, and makes individual behavior more predictable as a result.

 

[Emily Lake]

Here, I think, is the crux of the issue. Not just the power, but the desire to use authority to subjugate others. This is, I would argue, about one part nature and ten parts nurture and that's the fundamental problem with anything that follows. Monsters are, for the most part, created and usually in ways so subtle and ingrained that to "correct" the problem would require deeply invasive "democratic" parenting, if you will, not just later in life group consensus/participation.

Iow, if we don't stop cycles of domestic abuse--no matter the caste--then there is no way any of these governmental bandaids will do any long term good. It's why all that we do later in life--as "adults"--can't ever truly solve the problems being bandied about itt. We're addressing the hundreds of ripples in the pond, not the initial rock that caused them.

Unless we can find a way to eradicate--in an entire generation and across the board--any and all parental abuse (no matter the form; emotional, sexual, physical, etc) then we will always have a repetitive cycle of sociopathic spectrum failure, where the abused spread their abuse, either willfully or inadvertently, as a form of exonerative behavior. It's almost autonomic, so unless and until government--which used to be tribal leaders/grandparents, btw, who were thereby part of the family; part of the parental caste, so to speak--can become surrogate parents, no amount of later-stage bandaids are going to ever change the power/abuse structure that is really at the heart of humanity's systemic problem.

This is precisely why right-wingers so often denigrate socialism/democrats, using family-centric phrases like "nanny-state" and "sucking the teat of welfare" and the like. They want to destroy any notion of government being a parent because they hate their own parents and project the abuse inflicted upon them to the whole notion of government as parent.

It's not greed; it's not power; it's not selfishness, even. It's a deeply entwined combination of exoneration and revenge that drives humanity at its darkest core and why the cycle always repeats. Or, rather, corkscrews in a seemingly never-ending horizontal spiral.

It's also why wealth redistribution always fails and "revolutions" always fail--let them eat cake begets the reign of terror--and really ANY initially altruistic movement starts eating its own tail until inevitable cataclysmic failure.

Term limits seem to be the only solution and they are stop-gap at best as we are currently seeing a tremendous amount of damage being inflicted in a comparatively short amount of time by one such abused individual, in spite of the fact that the entire world thinks he's an incompetent laughing stock.

But, of course, this kind of approach requires a dedication/intelligence/empathy that just doesn't seem to exist anymore. The tribe is too large for there ever to be a more fundamental, direct connection between the leaders and the lead. So it just makes it all the easier for the wolves to not even bother putting on sheep clothing anymore and we reach yet another critical stage in the corkscrew; the tipping point that always presages another bloodletting.

It's funny that even though I grew up under the constant threat of nuclear war, I never really feared it would happen. I guess because as a tool of war--which is all about acquisition, not annihilation--I always knew no narcissistic leader (because that's what it takes to become a leader) would ever risk their own lives when it wasn't necessary. Conventional war does all of the same work without the risk of global destruction and thereby self-destruction of the leader who orders it.

But now I'm beginning to see another use for nukes and the rhetoric for the argument not so subtly hidden within right-wing bot regurgitation. Social "cleansing." Iow, the goal now is to use them for population control so that we don't have to change any of our ways. People use resources; people cause global warming. So, since some want those resources and don't want the people, fuck em. Launch and kill billions and you've "solved" both lack of resources and global warming (so long as it's tactical). At least, that's the warped thinking behind it. The problem is too many people!

No, the problem is you weren't hugged as an infant. That's the rock that gets thrown into the pond. But of course that kind of fundamental understanding is too easily dismissed or marginalized, so, lather, rinse, repeat.

1) What nature are you looking at for your comparison here? I suspect your nature is well... not actually found in nature.

2) While I agree with the general position against abuse, I think you’re attributing waaaaay more to it than is reasonable, and assuming a muuuuch more frequent incidence rate than actually exists.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

1) What nature are you looking at for your comparison here? I suspect your nature is well... not actually found in nature.

What do you mean? In regard to nature (genetics) vs nurture (shit that is inflicted upon you after birth).

2) While I agree with the general position against abuse, I think you’re attributing waaaaay more to it than is reasonable, and assuming a muuuuch more frequent incidence rate than actually exists.

In what regard? The trauma that is inflicted upon us during childhood is monumental in scale and effects us in numerous ways--often autonomically--later in life. Iow, we don't even recognize how deeply ingrained are those first cognitive imprints.

You--your personality; your beliefs; your identity; literally everything that makes "you" you--are entirely made of the experiences of your childhood and not just in a Freudian sense; in a neurocognitive sense. Note, that is not necessarily nature; that is nurture (i.e., grooves dug in the vinyl of your plastic brain, you dig).

 

[PyramidHead]

I said:

They need to know better than anyone else what needs to be done for everyone's own good. That notion--that principle--and all that it entails...

Not necessarily that tribes elected anyone.

The chiefs and the elders were the wise ones and they knew what was best for the tribe and made the big decisions for the tribe as a whole.

I doubt it was that simple. In practice, while they were certainly consulted, they didn't have absolute authority and in cases where they were wrong about the common good their will could be overturned--and that's just in the tribes that actually had elders.

Either way, it's certainly not the only way that tribal societies were organized, and far from being demonstrably the best way. In fact, one of the things I would say we need to raise the bar about accepting is the idea that certain people know what's best for everybody, and that the process of political action should be about finding those individuals. What that accomplishes is a gradual entrenchment of power that is difficult to unseat, because each individual who gets entrusted with that power has the ability to sway how future such individuals are chosen, and so forth. It hinges upon the entirely cultural idea that humans are somehow incapable of managing their basic needs in groups, which is biologically impossible to support and contradicted by any close examination of humans in groups throughout history. We are all helpless without one another, and without the people who went before us.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What that accomplishes is a gradual entrenchment of power that is difficult to unseat

Hence my previous affirmation of term limitation.

It hinges upon the entirely cultural idea that humans are somehow incapable of managing their basic needs in groups, which is biologically impossible to support and contradicted by any close examination of humans in groups throughout history. We are all helpless without one another, and without the people who went before us.

That sounds more like true anarchism--i.e., enlightened self-rule--of which I am all for. Indeed, it is the only way out of the problem I presented, but it carries with it its own similar problem. In order for enlightened self-rule to exist, every single person must be born into a state of enlightenment; i.e., they must be properly taught by their parents who somehow--catch 22 style--have managed to create an environment conducive to what would be required of achieving enligthened self-rule equally among all participants.

And there can be no abuse of any kind during that childhood teaching experience. Not for any one individual or else you create a sociopathic splinter in the spectrum. If just one person within such a community feels they were slighted in some manner during their formative years, then you have created an individual motivated more out of jealousy/greed, which in turn has the potential for spiralling out of control.

The only way to address it within the group is either bannishment or group pressure, which typically only exacerbates the schism and you're back to creating narcissistic/sociopathic individuals that turn against the group.

So unless we're talking about bioengineering true anarchism, I certainly don't ever see it happening organically.

 

[PyramidHead]

What that accomplishes is a gradual entrenchment of power that is difficult to unseat

Hence my previous affirmation of term limitation.

It hinges upon the entirely cultural idea that humans are somehow incapable of managing their basic needs in groups, which is biologically impossible to support and contradicted by any close examination of humans in groups throughout history. We are all helpless without one another, and without the people who went before us.

That sounds more like true anarchism--i.e., enlightened self-rule--of which I am all for. Indeed, it is the only way out of the problem I presented, but it carries with it its own similar problem. In order for enlightened self-rule to exist, every single person must be born into a state of enlightenment; i.e., they must be properly taught by their parents who somehow--catch 22 style--have managed to create an environment conducive to what would be required of achieving enligthened self-rule equally among all participants.

And there can be no abuse of any kind during that childhood teaching experience. Not for any one individual or else you create a sociopathic splinter in the spectrum. If just one person within such a community feels they were slighted in some manner during their formative years, then you have created an individual motivated more out of jealousy/greed, which in turn has the potential for spiralling out of control.

The only way to address it within the group is either bannishment or group pressure, which typically only exacerbates the schism and you're back to creating narcissistic/sociopathic individuals that turn against the group.

So unless we're talking about bioengineering true anarchism, I certainly don't ever see it happening organically.

I'm not so pessimistic about it. I think an anarchist society could be more resilient than that, and I don't agree that the existence of any sleight against someone as a child would topple the whole thing eventually. Actually, the point of anarchism and similar strains of communism that eschew a state is that everything is decentralized anyway, so that problems don't have to necessarily be dealt with on the most comprehensive scale. They could be handled by whatever local council is representative of the appropriate area of concern. But that's all about specifics, and this thread is more about possibilities, so my only point in bringing it up was to get buy-in on the fact that as humans, we shouldn't forget that the structures of society only determine what is easy to do, not what is possible to do.

 

[Elixir]

Hence my previous affirmation of term limitation.



That sounds more like true anarchism--i.e., enlightened self-rule--of which I am all for. Indeed, it is the only way out of the problem I presented, but it carries with it its own similar problem. In order for enlightened self-rule to exist, every single person must be born into a state of enlightenment; i.e., they must be properly taught by their parents who somehow--catch 22 style--have managed to create an environment conducive to what would be required of achieving enligthened self-rule equally among all participants.

And there can be no abuse of any kind during that childhood teaching experience. Not for any one individual or else you create a sociopathic splinter in the spectrum. If just one person within such a community feels they were slighted in some manner during their formative years, then you have created an individual motivated more out of jealousy/greed, which in turn has the potential for spiralling out of control.

The only way to address it within the group is either bannishment or group pressure, which typically only exacerbates the schism and you're back to creating narcissistic/sociopathic individuals that turn against the group.

So unless we're talking about bioengineering true anarchism, I certainly don't ever see it happening organically.

I'm not so pessimistic about it. I think an anarchist society could be more resilient than that, and I don't agree that the existence of any sleight against someone as a child would topple the whole thing eventually. Actually, the point of anarchism and similar strains of communism that eschew a state is that everything is decentralized anyway, so that problems don't have to necessarily be dealt with on the most comprehensive scale. They could be handled by whatever local council is representative of the appropriate area of concern. But that's all about specifics, and this thread is more about possibilities, so my only point in bringing it up was to get buy-in on the fact that as humans, we shouldn't forget that the structures of society only determine what is easy to do, not what is possible to do.

Local council WUT? Anarchism?
Like Koy, I'd love it if people were, on average, honest and empathic enough for anarchism to work. But if you start out with councils, there would soon be an association of councils, a head of that association and ...
you know where this is going.

 

[PyramidHead]

Hence my previous affirmation of term limitation.



That sounds more like true anarchism--i.e., enlightened self-rule--of which I am all for. Indeed, it is the only way out of the problem I presented, but it carries with it its own similar problem. In order for enlightened self-rule to exist, every single person must be born into a state of enlightenment; i.e., they must be properly taught by their parents who somehow--catch 22 style--have managed to create an environment conducive to what would be required of achieving enligthened self-rule equally among all participants.

And there can be no abuse of any kind during that childhood teaching experience. Not for any one individual or else you create a sociopathic splinter in the spectrum. If just one person within such a community feels they were slighted in some manner during their formative years, then you have created an individual motivated more out of jealousy/greed, which in turn has the potential for spiralling out of control.

The only way to address it within the group is either bannishment or group pressure, which typically only exacerbates the schism and you're back to creating narcissistic/sociopathic individuals that turn against the group.

So unless we're talking about bioengineering true anarchism, I certainly don't ever see it happening organically.

I'm not so pessimistic about it. I think an anarchist society could be more resilient than that, and I don't agree that the existence of any sleight against someone as a child would topple the whole thing eventually. Actually, the point of anarchism and similar strains of communism that eschew a state is that everything is decentralized anyway, so that problems don't have to necessarily be dealt with on the most comprehensive scale. They could be handled by whatever local council is representative of the appropriate area of concern. But that's all about specifics, and this thread is more about possibilities, so my only point in bringing it up was to get buy-in on the fact that as humans, we shouldn't forget that the structures of society only determine what is easy to do, not what is possible to do.

Local council WUT? Anarchism?
Like Koy, I'd love it if people were, on average, honest and empathic enough for anarchism to work. But if you start out with councils, there would soon be an association of councils, a head of that association and ...
you know where this is going.

I don't think that's actually demonstrable, even though everybody treats it like some kind of inevitable tendency. A council is just a group of people who are rotated in and out from the general population like jurors, to discuss matters that are important to the community they are drawn from. They would make decisions on behalf of the community with whatever level of public input the community decides works for them, and then everybody would go back to their jobs and enact the policy collectively. There are so many ways this could work horizontally that don't involve vertical hierarchies as you suggest. Someone who is dishonest or subversive would just be one person who could be voted off the council like anybody else. With no corporate or political ladder to climb other than councils, there's no mechanism to cement dishonest behavior, no way to get it to affect lots of people without their consent. I don't think it's very complicated unless you assume that everybody is an asshole, which I don't, even as I agree that we are often made into assholes by a system that explicitly wants to avoid our coming together as a group in the way I'm suggesting.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Actually, the point of anarchism and similar strains of communism that eschew a state is that everything is decentralized anyway

And look at the historical record for how certain such states have been attempted (at least on scales that we are talking about today); by brutal and bloody revolution ending--almost always--in thinly veiled dictatorships.

On small scales--in the hundreds, perhaps low thousands--it may be possible for such communities to thrive for some period of time, but on larger scales like the ones we're talking about (ie., global villages of billions of people)?

Again, it would require a feat of social engineering on par with the most fevered dreams of a Hitler or Stalin to come anywhere close to such an ideal. Iow, it would take brutal and bloody revolution and then on top of that some form of genocide/eugenics/genetic engineering and you STILL have the problem of the Catch-22.

so that problems don't have to necessarily be dealt with on the most comprehensive scale. They could be handled by whatever local council is representative of the appropriate area of concern.

Aka, "fiefdoms." Which, in turn, create axiomatic power structures that are vulnerable to abuse and the same cataclysmic failure results almost inevitably.

Unless and until we can essentially pull an Abrahamic God-type "do over" and start with bioengineered prototypes, there is no way to remove the kinds of subtle deaths by a million papercuts as well as blunt-force traumas that are so often the root causes of jealousies and greed that in turn result in powerschisms.

But that's all about specifics, and this thread is more about possibilities, so my only point in bringing it up was to get buy-in on the fact that as humans, we shouldn't forget that the structures of society only determine what is easy to do, not what is possible to do.

Well, then, I would say, respectfully, that it's just as worthless as what Sanders proposed. It's just magical ponies, unless and until you can provide a viable way to manifest them.

Talking about possibilities qua possibilities is just masturbation imo. Fun and great at passing the time, but ultimately useless in regard to getting anything done. And, no, it doesn't "start a conversation" or lead anywhere to a solution, precisely because it is merely possibilities qua possibilities.

To be useful/worthwhile and have anything lead anywhere it must be possibilities qua results. Saying something like, in order to get this implemented we will need 70-80% of the entire population behind us after the election is to simply say, this can't be done and no amount of "conversation" (started or in progress) can ever change that.

Governing isn't about possibilities; it's about concretes and how to regulate them. Full stop. And no, that does not in any way mean anyone's minds are closed; it means that "possibilities" is a hopelessly open concept that constitutes an infinite set, so it is the wrong model in regard to practical matters, which is what Government is for.

Philosophy; religion; other forms of mental masturbation are good for contemplating infinite sets, but not politics. That's why the presidency is an administrative job first and foremost. The other component is top diplomat; then commander in chief; then leader/dreamer, but only in a system that is literally designed to move as slow as a glacier precisely because anything faster has the potential to cause cataclysmic damage.

 

[Elixir]

Local council WUT? Anarchism?
Like Koy, I'd love it if people were, on average, honest and empathic enough for anarchism to work. But if you start out with councils, there would soon be an association of councils, a head of that association and ...
you know where this is going.

I don't think that's actually demonstrable, even though everybody treats it like some kind of inevitable tendency. A council is just a group of people who are rotated in and out from the general population like jurors, to discuss matters that are important to the community they are drawn from.

By what mechanism are they "drawn"? (Achilles heel #1)

They would make decisions on behalf of the community with whatever level of public input the community decides works for them

By what mechanism does "the community" decide? (Achilles heel #2)

and then everybody would go back to their jobs and enact the policy collectively

Even if it's an authoritarian edict? (Achilles heel #3)
Who ensures that it is enacted uniformly? (Achilles heel #4)

There are so many ways this could work horizontally that don't involve vertical hierarchies as you suggest.

I dunno about that. It's not like I wasn't up all night in 1967 recovering from tear gas exposure, thinking about ways this could work... and haven't been thinking about it for the 50 years since. I'm still open to ideas, but in all cases so far, the required principles have only been shown to operate reliably on a very small tribal level. Which would be fine, if global human population was holding at around one billion (est). But that horse has long since left the barn.

Someone who is dishonest or subversive would just be one person who could be voted off the council like anybody else.

How often are votes scheduled, and how much harm can be done between those cycles? Can any member of council convene the entire council for a vote at any time - as an emergency to get rid of a member that another member considers undesirable? Can someone elected to council decline the position? Are there by-laws to which the council must adhere, or can they go ahead and declare war on another community if they don't like what the enemy council is doing? (Achilles heel #5&6)

With no corporate or political ladder to climb other than councils, there's no mechanism to cement dishonest behavior, no way to get it to affect lots of people without their consent. I don't think it's very complicated unless you assume that everybody is an asshole, which I don't, even as I agree that we are often made into assholes by a system that explicitly wants to avoid our coming together as a group in the way I'm suggesting.

I think it only requires one "real" asshole, plus a dupe or two. Depending, of course, on the quality of the citizenry. That has to be high right from the get-go. I've noticed that it is NOT that high among the general populace in the US. YMMV, but don't forget - Donald Trump was elected by ... uh, someone.
I could list more points of vulnerability, but suffice it to say that only a centipede could accommodate all those Achilles heels.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't share your view about dictatorships being the inevitable result of giving more democratic control to people, with its strange implication that keeping things closer to how they are is therefore less likely to lead to a dictatorship. The societies that have attempted democratic self-rule did not devolve into chaos because of some internal flaw that sparked a wave of resentment, but because outside forces would not tolerate their existence. The Spanish revolution of 1936, the Paris Commune, and the early months of the Russian revolution are all examples of budding functional societies run on libertarian socialist principles, and to say that they met their end because of some flaw inherent in the ideology ignores the role of reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces. This may simply suggest that it's too late for us as a species, as the only way to make society fair in one place is to have it be fair across the globe, but that's a very different kind of problem than the suggestion that immovable forces of human nature or an in-built Catch-22 behind autonomous self-rule makes any suggestion of a true democracy a fairy tale. People are not as predictable as politicians calculate they are, and nobody has yet discovered the pattern to our shifting tendencies. The entire discussion about how to govern ourselves has taken unexpected turns in the era of the internet, which makes possible a level of participation that was unimaginable mere decades ago. We need to engage these ideas as real options instead of remaining satisfied with what has been presented to us.

 

[PyramidHead]

By what mechanism are they "drawn"? (Achilles heel #1)

They would make decisions on behalf of the community with whatever level of public input the community decides works for them

By what mechanism does "the community" decide? (Achilles heel #2)

and then everybody would go back to their jobs and enact the policy collectively

Even if it's an authoritarian edict? (Achilles heel #3)
Who ensures that it is enacted uniformly? (Achilles heel #4)

There are so many ways this could work horizontally that don't involve vertical hierarchies as you suggest.

I dunno about that. It's not like I wasn't up all night in 1967 recovering from tear gas exposure, thinking about ways this could work... and haven't been thinking about it for the 50 years since. I'm still open to ideas, but in all cases so far, the required principles have only been shown to operate reliably on a very small tribal level. Which would be fine, if global human population was holding at around one billion (est). But that horse has long since left the barn.

Someone who is dishonest or subversive would just be one person who could be voted off the council like anybody else.

How often are votes scheduled, and how much harm can be done between those cycles? Can any member of council convene the entire council for a vote at any time - as an emergency to get rid of a member that another member considers undesirable? Can someone elected to council decline the position? Are there by-laws to which the council must adhere, or can they go ahead and declare war on another community if they don't like what the enemy council is doing? (Achilles heel #5&6)

With no corporate or political ladder to climb other than councils, there's no mechanism to cement dishonest behavior, no way to get it to affect lots of people without their consent. I don't think it's very complicated unless you assume that everybody is an asshole, which I don't, even as I agree that we are often made into assholes by a system that explicitly wants to avoid our coming together as a group in the way I'm suggesting.

I think it only requires one "real" asshole, plus a dupe or two. Depending, of course, on the quality of the citizenry. That has to be high right from the get-go. I've noticed that it is NOT that high among the general populace in the US. YMMV, but don't forget - Donald Trump was elected by ... uh, someone.
I could list more points of vulnerability, but suffice it to say that only a centipede could accommodate all those Achilles heels.

Look, it's not that it would be perfect all the time but it has to be better than this. All the Heels you're invoking are bigger problems in the system we currently have. At least in a democratic, decentralized system the answer to each one would be: let the people vote on what works for them and start from there. In the current system there is no inlet for public participation on any of these matters, which I'm sure you realize.