http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/13741
  "Leaders: of how many?", is:

· This is about the tension between two concepts: democracy and leadership.

· My view is that 99% of the time, one leader for 20-to-30 people is plenty.
 The sort of person a-family-and-all-its-friends might want to listen to.
A few times a year, more able-and-far-seeing leadership is needed, probably
in the proportion: one leader to a few thousand (e.g. town-to-small-city).

· _Very_ rarely, perhaps once a decade (in the last few decades and most of
the time prior to 1800), one leader to one-to-ten-million people, is needed
- a smaller US state, Canadian province,, or smallish nation like NZ. This
might be needed more often in the future with greater "natural catastrophes"
and more people in smaller areas - we'll have to wait and see.

· I see no reason any more, to have a leader for greater numbers of people.

· And I cannot believe, even with NZ's enviable political system (based on
MMP: Mixed Member Proportional voting), that democracy can work reliably in
the long run in groupings of more than 1,000 to 20,000 people; maybe 100,000
people in special circumstances where there's a _strong_ tradition of
personal involvement in governing and elections (not just the voting).
The events of the last several decades, and particularly the last
fifteen years in Britain and the USA, have convinced me of this.

· My opinion ("99% of the time, one leader for 20-to-30 people is plenty")
is buttressed by the Normal Distribution.
- I see a leader as someone who has unussually high abilities in several
dimensions simultaneously, perhaps: intelligence, creativity, experience,
empathy, and one or two others like willingness-to-serve-others.
- Statistics is based on the observable  fact that there are a large number
of people with middle abilities in each of these dimensions, and smaller
numbers as you look further away on the lesser and greater sides.
- So for example, half the people on earrth (and half of the people on this 
list) have less-than-average-intelligence, the average being of that
particular group, and the other half have greater-than-average-intelligence.
- So if there are 5 dimensions of abilitty required for being a leader you
want that person to be in the greater-than-average half of each, which
gives the general probability of finding such a person as:
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2, which is 1/32, one in 32 people.

· This would be 1/16 (one in a random group of 16) when only 4 dimensions 
of ability are needed.

· It's obviously not hard to find a leader _when_needed_, most of the time.

· And further, _who_ should be the leader will _change_ with the reason for
needing a leader; most of the time no leader at all is needed, people get
along just fine with no-one telling them what they should be doing (or even
giving them an example).

· To me the "cracy" (rule, influence) in democracy (the people rule) is
suspect _because_ people get along just fine with no-one telling them what
they should be doing; and on the occasions when they _want_ leadership,
most of the time they can find all they want within the 20-to-30 people
they know.

· This is why I support modified-anarchy. Leadership only _when_ it's needed
and for as long as it's needed, found from among those you meet face-to-face
so you can discuss it with them if necessary.

David.
(David MacClement) Civis Mundi davd @ ihug.co.nz
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/ ZL1ASX
****************************************