> Don't blame your leader for how your society looks, blame your society for your leader looks.

Hard disagree. There's a reason collective punishment (a.k.a blaming society) is a war crime and a violation of human rights. Kings (Ghenghis Khan is the most [in]famous example) used to hand out collective punishments to relatives and villages, and that's why human societies had to eventually get rid of them as a collective, leading to the modern era.

Leaders, as autonomous adults, are responsible for their own actions and how they look, not anyone else. They don't even have the disallowed excuse of 'following orders'.

Additionally, Leaders have an outsize impact on human organizations because of hierarchy and power differentials. Society reflects their adult leaders because of this power differential, not the other way around. More specifically, individuals susceptible to influence perpetuate that power differential ('following orders') and diffuse the leadership behaviors into wider society, making that society a reflection of its leadership. And I'm willing to wager that the proportion of folks susceptible to influence far outstrips the proportion of independent thinkers in any society.

Even in democracies (which are mostly representative-based republics), there is a hierarchy with power differentials, and a strong individual can work those hierarchies to remake society.

Even in direct democracies, would you say a 50.1% result in one direction reflects that society as a whole? Mathematically, that's a ridiculous conclusion. And yet, that tiny advantage can result in wholesale changes to society (Brexit cough cough). So where does one draw the line? 51%? 60%? 75%? 95%? What about the 5% that disagrees? Do they deserve any collective punishment for the actions of the 95%? Or are you going to lean on 'collateral damage' as a defense?

> Don't blame your leader for how your society looks

One can blame the leader for their actions, and therefore by extension how the society looks post-action, because those actions are on the society.

To be fair, pre-action one can blame the supporters of the leader for making bad choices, but post-action responsibility is on the leaders.

The real problem is the hierarchical nature of societies and organizations. A leader at the "top" is a winner-take-all situation. Even direct democracies that apply majority rules is a winner-take-all situation, defective from the start. A different construct is needed - effective cooperation without leadership.

Bitcoin is a start towards that effective-cooperation-without-leadership, but it also suffers from the 50.1% problem.