I think it's less about "25-year-old" and more about unvetted stranger with no clearance given unfettered read-write access to the money of a country apparently not run by a dictator, but elected officials(none of which were involved).
It is not, what happened is someone said “I have authority from the President which trumps your ‘frameworks’ and ‘processes’, and if you fight me on this you will be fired and then we’ll bring in your replacement with the same deal and repeat as necessary until there is compliance with our demands”.
The "base layer" has always been "men with guns".
If you fail to cooperate, an armed security guard will take your badge and escort you to the build exit.
If that security guard does not cooperate, another man with a gun can always be found.
> Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” The event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, unstoppable virus, or malicious computer hack that takes everything down.
source: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...
Without a US government the US greenback is worthless, and so is any power.
Do people believe in these?
I've had tons of access over the years to all sort of projects right to my laptop, despite compliance and audits.
Aristotle did say in Politics IV that appointing public office by lottery, drawing from the real public, is more democratic (power to the people) than elections, which is an oligarchic exercise.
I've always held the opinion that elected officials should have to use public health care, send their kids to public schools, and use public transport.
This would ensure that they would have to maintain these institutions and be able to face their constituents on the daily.
-- Gustavo Petro
More like consolidating and cementing. It had already been built out
Obviously OP is not saying it was unilaterally better and the idea being commented on is just public lottery vs election. You can lift out that idea and apply our current understanding of “public” and the point of OP still stands.
By excluding over 3/4 of the population, we would hardly get what we think of as democracy.
With those exclusions, the power of being a citizen would increase dramatically and the lottery would make it unlikely bands of eligible citizens would unite to expand the electorate but instead would seek to make membership more stringent, like DPRK's haeksim.
Choice by lottery would also fail to exclude men who have no desire or capacity to do whatever job it is they pulled. I do not know what they did in ancient Greece but in modern times that would lead to a bureaucratic class with the leader being only a figurehead at their mercy--and at times that would be very good. But the bureaucrats class would not be the voice of the people, would not be democratic.
I felt this was obvious from the exclusions and so didn't see the need to elaborate.