RedEyeJedi Posted February 20, 2006 #1 Share Posted February 20, 2006 This is something that has played on my mind for a while. To understand what I mean you have to think about this from a personal perspective. I could be wrong, but at least from my point of view, as an ordinary person, I would never, ever, dream of having the responsibility that comes with running a country or being in a position of power, because so many people rely on you, for their livelihoods and some more vulnerable people, for their very survival. I personally could not sleep at night with it on my conscience that x amount people would die because I signed off, on Medicare cutbacks, or knowing a number of elderly people would die in Winter, because of pension cuts I made, or more people would become homeless because of some housing schemes I was scrapping, etc, etc. I would expect most people are like me in this sense, as you need to have very little empathy with the suffering of individuals and think of people as numbers or ants or sheep and not as people. Therefore, if you think about it that way, for the vast majority of world leaders to have sought and gained the ultimate power, whether they seem well-intentioned or not, must be heartless, megalomaniacal, psychopaths. I personally think only people that have come from poverty, with a true understanding of what it is like to be poor can possibly seek power for the ‘good of the people’. I believe only people like Evo Morales, the new Bolivian President, the first indigenous leader, who came from a ghetto, can have the intention of making a difference to his countrymen in his heart. As the fourth President of the United States said: 'The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.' James Madison What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Kratos__ Posted February 20, 2006 #2 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Why is this in here and not the conspiracy section? And to answer your question... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal (Who will guard the guards?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyeJedi Posted February 21, 2006 Author #3 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I didn't put it in the conspiracy section, because it's not a conspiracy. It is more of a philosophical question about human behaviour. This was the closest section I could find. Seeing as no-one is responding - maybe it should be in another section. Does nobody else have any thoughts on this? Agree/disagree/not give a ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarman Posted February 21, 2006 #4 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I could be wrong Glad you've not discounted that possibilty. Agreed Kratos, Conspiracy Theories would have been a better place but since it's here... What if when you became a leader instead of thinking about how if you made cuts here people died there and whatever, you thought about how when you made a cut in once area, you put more money into another. So perhaps say I signed of on medical cutbacks, as you put it, but put that money into education, or police. What if in my mind I made that decision knowing x amount of people may die, but y amount of people would survive? I could live with that. Just because a politician may make cuts in one place, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means in their opinion it can be better spent elsewhere. I'm not saying all politicians are noble, but I'm not saying they are all corrupt either, the world is a lot less black and white than you might think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am me Posted February 21, 2006 #5 Share Posted February 21, 2006 You cannot trust them. Lord Acton stated "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted February 21, 2006 #6 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think it boils down to the kill the innocent for the sake of many, or kill the many to save the innocent argument. I might not have stated it right, but that debate that deals with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginary Friend Posted February 21, 2006 #7 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Perhaps this is what you were alluding to Celumnaz: Survival of the Fittest Or perhaps this: Might is Right Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyeJedi Posted February 21, 2006 Author #8 Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) I think it boils down to the kill the innocent for the sake of many, or kill the many to save the innocent argument. I might not have stated it right, but that debate that deals with that. But this is my point. The only reason I only mentioned negative cutbacks, etc, is because surely that would play on the conscience of a normal person. No matter what good you do you still have to dehumanise those you govern to ignore any suffering that may be caused. Mr Barman: you say you could live with a few people dying if it means others benefit in some other way. Maybe I'm a wimp, but I don't think I could. Oh, and this is definitely not a conspiracy-related topic. Don't know what it is, but it is not that. Edited February 21, 2006 by RedEyeJedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyeJedi Posted February 21, 2006 Author #9 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Just because a politician may make cuts in one place, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means in their opinion it can be better spent elsewhere. I'm not saying all politicians are noble, but I'm not saying they are all corrupt either, the world is a lot less black and white than you might think. I just think you have to come from a different mindset - I am not saying they are all manifestations of pure evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted February 21, 2006 #10 Share Posted February 21, 2006 No matter what good you do you still have to dehumanise those you govern to ignore any suffering that may be caused. Well I don't know that you *have* to dehumanize them. I think it's more along the lines of accepting that bad things happen to good people. Doing nothing is often even worse than doing something that will hurt fewer than it helps. It depends on the arguments. For this equation I think it might help to start with "given the fact that some are going to die..." Circumstance has alot to do with it too. Natural disasters? Or that story about the bandits that hung a father above a well by his arms and gave the other end of the rope to the mans younger daughter. And then blaming her for not being strong enough to hold the rope and letting go of her father and killing him. She shouldn't blame herself, and sometimes people do it to themselves too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurtingSpirit Posted February 21, 2006 #11 Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) OOoooooOOO I like this topic, and I think it shouldnt be in the conspiracy section, but maybe mysteries of the mind. However, back on topic =).. Looking back on our fathers, fathers. The fathers of our country. I see an ABSOLUTE change in what is currently instated in our government. Our founding fathers speak of how WE MUST NOT GIVE POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT!! WE MUST CONTROL THEM, NOT THEM CONTROL THE PEOPLE!! This was coming from the government at the time. That takes a real leader to be in control, and say, Do not listen to me, but listen to yourselves, and your hearts! Back then, our leaders cared so much about ruling justly. Now it seems all they care about it just ruling. I read a cartoon that had a great comparison of then and now.. One side has Patrick Henry yelling, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH from his 1775 speech!!! The opposite side has George Bush yelling, GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY, OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE"!!! I think that a pretty accurate representation of how our government should be, and how our government actually is.. But back on target.. Yes... Give man power, and man will corrupt. Edited February 21, 2006 by HurtingSpirit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted February 21, 2006 #12 Share Posted February 21, 2006 *TOTALLY* agree with that HurtingSpirit! It's what they're trying to do to us with that US/Mexico fence. We don't need no stinking fence! Given the fact that some people are going to die, and freedom is the best means for a man to stave off that death from whatever quarter, we need More power in the hands of the people, and Less in the hands of Centralized Govt. And yeah, that's not to say that the upper eschelons of the powers that be aren't considering some groups sub-human. Some do. But I don't think it's a necessity, but more a product of power and/or ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurtingSpirit Posted February 21, 2006 #13 Share Posted February 21, 2006 *TOTALLY* agree with that HurtingSpirit! It's what they're trying to do to us with that US/Mexico fence. We don't need no stinking fence! Given the fact that some people are going to die, and freedom is the best means for a man to stave off that death from whatever quarter, we need More power in the hands of the people, and Less in the hands of Centralized Govt. And yeah, that's not to say that the upper eschelons of the powers that be aren't considering some groups sub-human. Some do. But I don't think it's a necessity, but more a product of power and/or ideology. Ya, I need to trademark my just ruling phrase too!! Couldnt believe I thought that one up.. Must have some smarts in reserve somewhere, cause thats not part of my normal spew of babble that comes outta my piehole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted February 21, 2006 #14 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Well Stalin came from the poor and FDR came from the rich. I suspect it may not be as much the individual that makes a difference in modern times as much as the system that is in place. If the system is sound there can be no Stalin and if the system is sound there can be an FDR. If all you get are lemons after lemons the system is botched and needs fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyeJedi Posted February 21, 2006 Author #15 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I agree with all your last statements, and I liked that just ruling phrase. Nice one I think that people were probably better off way back in the olden days, before any centralisation of power. I know this totally unworkable in society today, but they probably had the right idea and things were probably a bit fairer. Oh well, maybe I'll end up living in a spiritual commune one day and post on UM from my wireless laptop in the middle of a rain-forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rusty_bluedog Posted February 22, 2006 #16 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Well i dont know about the trusting of most politicians, but i do know one country that is definately admirable...and thats Switzerland. Think about it. They are a neutral country and always have been. Refusing to take part in all the wars over the last couple of century's. I read somewhere that Switzerland has the most upgraded and specialized defence then every other country but they've never had to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Skeptic Eric Raven Posted February 22, 2006 #17 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I came from true poverty in Mississippi. I left and overcame it. I am actually conservative on financial issues, but not on social ones. I don't think we should take care of people from cradle to grave. Help people help themselves but not with hand outs and not by taxing me at a rate of 40%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now