Even the most famous of speeches is popular because it's holding these ideals up high, on the highest of pedestals although most offer no roadmap to be followed. It almost seems as if I'm dismissing their validity, or their ramifications, but that is not my intent, not in the slightest. They've had repercussions but their are identifiable now, decades later.
We ideally want the best people working on their fields of expertise, key word being ideally. Is this always the case? of course not, but it's hard to argue against efficiency. Unless someone can creatively make a case for the positive impact of negative results.
This is easier to analyze if we attempt to use ourselves as the point of reference. For example: Do I want the best Doctor performing surgery on me, or would anyone do? - The answer is too obvious to even need much explaining.
Not that I've given up completely on the idea, but I've decided that it might something applicable to a second level, if I am even to call it that. I realize it's getting confusing, but here is my best attempt:
If I decided to be a cryptocurrency enthusiast, if that was my choice. Then, it would be in my best interest to posses a specific foundational knowledge to be effective on the field I've chosen. Could I surf those waters without having these concepts assimilated? Possibly, but the more important question is, Would I want to?
Does that sound mean? I fear it does, but It's not my intention to offend, not at all. Maybe that is why I think the focus on education is so important for the future of the movement, because until there is enough people with sufficient foundational knowledge, we might keep talking past each other, we just might. Is that elitism again? If so, I apologize.