Philosophical question

A few days ago I read a funny statement which got me thinging about a few things. It goes as follows:
"Those wanting to rule others should never be allowed to."
I'd like your opinions about this one, folks.

Thanks in advance.

[Kane]

>Those wanting to rule others should never be allowed to

Very true. Someone who see to be in power, seeks more power. They will also tend to spend more time plotting the demise of those above them and trying to prevent such attacks from below.
Much like the Unseen University hierarchy upi till the days of Mustram Ridcully (who is know to sleep with two loaded crossbows)

[Quatro]

> "Those wanting to rule others should never be allowed to."

the more they rule, the more abusive they become... this should be applied to politicians

[Ryos]

> "Those wanting to rule others should never be allowed to."

Depends on the situation. Some people want to rule others to benefit their land. Others seek only power. Those who wish good often desire the authority to govern until they rule and then either regret their decision or continue on regardless. Those who want power alone seek only what they want at any cost to others around them. They are dangerous and more often than not give rise to anarchic governments.

[Player-X]

Maybe those that rule shoud not want to

Originally posted by Player-X
Maybe those that rule shoud not want to

and the moment they start liking it, they should be replaced.

[Kid A]

IMO there should be election much more often, and people should have much more voice in the parliament, or court, or whatever it is called in yer country :P. For example: now, J.M. Aznar, Spain's president, has decided to support Bush in his war games... well there are constant demonstrations in which more than a 90 % of the total population show their dislike for this decision, BUT the govment isn't listening to our calling... to me it sounds like illustrated despotism... Well the thing is: doesn't the Constitution say that the power BELONGS to the people? Well then, let us decide the actions of our country, you facker!! :P

[Rhombus]

Originally posted by Kid A
Well the thing is: doesn't the Constitution say that the power BELONGS to the people? Well then, let us decide the actions of our country, you facker!! :P

I know it wasn't really the topic, but that makes me think about the Electoral College when voting for the president in the US. It's completely unconstitutional and goes against the fact that each person is supposedly equal. Sure every one is just one vote, but with the electoral college, your one vote means more in a big state with more electoral points than in a smaller state with few votes. Bush actually lost the overall popular vote in 2000 but won cause of the electoral college. It's all BS and retarded.

[Mr. Killjoy]

>>the more they rule, the more abusive they become... this should be applied to politicians

That's what I wanted to say, next time, i'll be faster

[Dark Watcher]

If reworded one would think a bit differently

In some minds (sometimes demented) one would beleive that ruling another would be for the other's own good

You would never question your parents rule over you...well some of you young wiper snappers would..but eventually you would see their good intentions.....
but the word "Wanting" is far stronger the "Needing".....to want is to want for one's self..not like the "need" which looks out for the eventual need for another..

so yes .."Those wanting to rule others should never be allowed to." is indeed a true statement

we could have just agreed, but figured we would make the topic more interesting

Already my thanks for the reactions. There's another quote that's been bugging me lately, so if you'd care to comment on that as well.
"Freedom is a concept most people have a hard time dealing with."

[Kane]

>"Freedom is a concept most people have a hard time dealing with."

What _is_ freedom?

[Napro]

Originally posted by Kane
>"Freedom is a concept most people have a hard time dealing with."

What _is_ freedom?

in my mind freedom is somethng that cannot be easly attchieved (sp) in our current society

[Gamer1]

there is no such thing as freedom.

if you think about it, no one is really "free". they are still bound by rules. thing is, we give up certain freedoms in order to attain others. the benefits outweigh the loss.

*its rather useless as the patriots control us all anyway ... just a little joke for mgs2 fans...

[Napro]

Originally posted by Gamer1
there is no such thing as freedom.

if you think about it, no one is really "free". they are still bound by rules. thing is, we give up certain freedoms in order to attain others. the benefits outweigh the loss.

very true

[sniff_381]

It depends on the one who's ruling... some of those rulers.. abuse their authorities, the power given to them. But what if his/her power or will to change something really does have advantages and disadvantages??? that's why this rulers had their personal advisers for what and how the people would react if he had done such task or project... we became rulers not to rule them all... we become rulers when we have the moral ability to rule the people to the best we can do...

Originally posted by Kane
[BWhat _is_ freedom? [/b]

Good point.

[Kid A]

People claim for their freedom, yet avoid all the responsibility it brings along. I mean, the freedom thing sounds really poetical and great to us all, but people tend to follow the mainstream just to not having to make use of our freedom of thought; many people are not prepared to make use of their freedom. You give them freedom, they start doing stupidities just to show how free they are and eventually destroy their lives, along with many others, maybe. Or there are the ones that, when listening the word 'freedom' will immediately say 'Haha! but there is not such thing as freedom!', guffawing... what they are doing is to avoid freedom; it is a very big burden to decide all the aspects of your life for yourself. Well, that's what the good ol' consume society is for!!

[Kamina]

Personally I think the original statement means something more along the lines that if anyone should be crazy enough to actually want to be a leader they should be locked up in a nice padded room and never allowed to see the light of day.

And remember kiddies, a democracy ensures that we will always be governed no better than we deserve.

[Kraelis]

First of all, what is the difference of "to lead" and "to rule"?

Does ruling imply force? Coercion? In reflection, it can be readily seen that in order to lead, one must have power. For it to last, one must also be prepared to maintain that power. Also, any form of leadership must have some power and is capable of enforcing that power.

Does this not hint of the coercion, the force implied in the concept of ruling itself?

Therefore to say that those who seek to rule must not be allowed to do so is wrong. If we disallow others who seek to rule, are we not enforcing some power over them as well? Are we not "ruling" over them? Also, if there should ideally be no rulers to speak of, there can be no organization at all.

But perhaps we can qualify the spirit which the original statement intended. It can be said that it is implying a purely selfish desire in wanting to rule. An oppressive means to leading, a despotic manner of making things happen. In that context, only then will I agree to it. Otherwise, I disagree.