Leadership Styles

I'm wondering whether fear or love is the best way to be a leader.

If rule by love, the populous is committed and usually do anything you want because of it... however there is also that unsafe possibility of backstabbing.

If you rule by fear, the populous is less likely to backstab you... yet there will always be those who want to conspire against you and take your throne for themselves.

Where is the both option? Reward those who are good, strictly punish those who aren't. Get the best of both worlds.

There ya go, vote for both. -.-

Let those that love you love you, but never fear the effect of making a select group of people fear you. Don't neccesarily strive for fear, only use it when needed.

I don't see how your logic pulls through...

If you're a loving leader, why would anyone backstab you if you're so great, it would be assumed people love you?

If you're a fearful leader, then you have a lot more enemies, and are more likely to get attacked no?

Perhaps define the terms "Loving" and "Fearful" in terms of a leader better.

love


like jay.j said, why would people backstab you if you loved everyone?

though, people WOULD conspire against you if you sparked fear (which would lead to hatred) in their hearts.



good>bad.

I won't vote on this subject, because i don't think there is a perfect formula for it(about this 2 subjects, love and fear, i think, tough, that there is one for a political party, pretty clear if you see my avatar).
First of all, love: Are we assuming EVERYONE loves the leader? since that's impossible no matter what, and yes, i mean NO MATTER WHAT, not only because of statistics and diferences between every1 human, but also because there is always gonna be someone different, that includes psychopaths, sociopaths and megalomaniacs, people with different syndroms, and the usual person with different beliefs, only way to change this would be in a future with a DNA control and a severe secret force for this matters, now, if that would be done, people would probabl hate that leader, since no one likes to be opressed, and then, you would need to somehow control all their toughts, and this, because of it's nature, would be more likely archieved through criminal ways, or in small regions of the world, on already opressed people, since it's highly unethical content, not by a leader of nations like U.S.A. but more like terrorism(I'm against the idea of mind control, just saying so before anyone tells me about this).
And not assuming everyone loves you, then there is always someone who will think that leader is weak, even naive, and would try to destroy him, or take the power on that own person's hands, either by moralist reasons, or greed and other qualities like that.

Now let's talk about fear, Fear: 1. feeling of anxiety: an unpleasant feeling of anxiety or apprehension caused by the presence or anticipation of danger.
-showed no signs of fear

2. frightening thought: an idea, thought, or other entity that causes feelings of fear.
-irrational fears

3. reverence: respect or awe for somebody or something.
-the fear of God

4. worry: a concern about something that threatens to bring bad news or results (often used in the plural) .
-fears for their safe return

Microsoft Encarta 2007. 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation.

Now, the third definition got me thinking, most catholics fear God's Wrath or God Himself.
In the case of reigns, like the european monarchies who said their power came from God, or the egipcians pharaohs who said they were God incarnated, do the people fear the person, or the God?
If the answer was the God, then there is mostly a feeling of obedience towards that God's wishes, more particulary in Christianity, wich is IMO a weak mind's conception, as they must do that above all just because they were told to, not even questioning this divine mandate, nor, from who it comes.
If we talk about this kind of fear, it most certainly seems to be a good way to rule when you first see it, they wont ever question your authority, as it is divine and infinite, but it also kills any chance of fast progress, as their worship of that God will be greater than anything, and since that God asks for obedience in such a way, there won't be reason for progress, since they only need this "Holy Kingdom" wich trascends life.
Of course, i'm expecting to receive much critiscism for this, but remember, it's only a point of view, in my oppinion, the correct one, the communist one, all divine being just a mere distraction that keeps us behind, not letting us progress as we should, on the dark age we lost so much time because of religion, so many great minds died because of it, it's the refugee of the weak, unhappy and unfulfilled, that exist in a society. Now, in the communist paradise, the human will find happiness, and he won't have to look for these ilussions of greatness (eternal life after death).


About the other kinds of fear, they wouldn't be of any good, same reasons stated on the "Love" Topic, there are always gonna be different persons, with different ideas, some of wich, would do anything to free themselves and their society.

Quote :

First of all, love: Are we assuming EVERYONE loves the leader? since that's impossible no matter what, and yes, i mean NO MATTER WHAT, not only because of statistics and diferences between every1 human, but also because there is always gonna be someone different, that includes psychopaths, sociopaths and megalomaniacs, people with different syndroms, and the usual person with different beliefs, only way to change this would be in a future with a DNA control and a severe secret force for this matters, now, if that would be done, people would probabl hate that leader, since no one likes to be opressed, and then, you would need to somehow control all their toughts, and this, because of it's nature, would be more likely archieved through criminal ways, or in small regions of the world, on already opressed people, since it's highly unethical content, not by a leader of nations like U.S.A. but more like terrorism(I'm against the idea of mind control, just saying so before anyone tells me about this).

Wow, run on sentence. Tried to stop it earlier...but ya.

Alright - SO. No, you can have a leader who EVERYONE loves. And I'm just not talking about unlikely, but making it likely. How? If the group of "Everyone" we're talking about is sufficiently low. Say 2 people. The leader doesn't have to be running a country. They could be running a small company. They could be running a community service board. So that's done.

Now, I think even country wide, or world wide - I think EVERY rational person - whether Left winged or Right winged, or in the center CAN love one person. That however is statistically unlikely. Why? Because everything (according to moder-day physics) has a non-zero sum. It's POSSIBLE. It's also philosophically possible, in that you can imagine a world with a perfect leader. And in philosophy if you can imagine a possible world with something, then it's possible. However that is a disputed claim in philosophy, how do we know that's true? I won't be getting into that however.

Now towards your other statements...I'm not sure what you said. It just wasn't very clear, and it never got the message across...Something about Fear and God. If you can reword it and put some format, I'd be glad to criticize and either reubuttle or expand on your idea depending on what I think of it. As for now, the formatting a long with the wording doesn't allow me to clearly understand what you're saying.

Also, saying that the progress lost during the medieval ages is a gross oversimplification of a complex series of events that unfolded. For example, I had a teacher who said that the reason that much of the medieval age "lack of progress" or catching up to ancient greek technologies was at least partly due to the burning of the library at Alexandria. A man got jealous over a woman librarian because, clearly, she wasn't "good enough" for the position and torched the place. Immature and stupid, yes. Costly? Yes. That may have set the human species back a few steps, but there were a ton of wonderful things that came out of the medieval ages.

True, there was a great reliance on God and on scripture for guidance, but that was not the problem in my opinion. The problem was the lack of people that could read what was written in "the good book." Mostly it was only the clergy who were educated enough to read and interpret the Bible and, thus, we have their interpretation with no dissenting voices. Even kings were ignorant and relied on religious scholars to read. That's a little like having the oil companies set the laws for money that goes to oil companies... oh, right...

Anyhow, my point is that it was not just peoples' "blind faith" that caused problems. It is not nor ever has been that simple.

As for love vs. fear?

Love is a healthier and, dare I say, altruistic emotion. In order to love someone, you have to respect them. In order to get love, one has to respect him or her self. Lastly, people aren't dumb. This love has to be shown through actions or it is just a performative which would most likely lead to some very infelicitous feelings (unhappy - based off of the ideas by J.L. Austin).

People who fear you, also hate, or at the very least, dislike you. For if there is something to be feared about you, then people will fear insecure, and try to remove you, if they can, and know that even if they fail, nothing will happen to them, and sometimes, even when they DO know that something will happen to them if they fail, they still do it. You'd have to be Artemis Fowl to avoid being caught and trapped in that web of fear. However, assuming you do not provide any opportunities for your subjects to kill you, this is actually an effective way of ruling.

Love/Loyalty, on the other hand, you do not have the problem of YOUR subjects trying to remove you. However, because you are not feared, and instead you are revered among your subjects as a great person, you do not fear them. Worst mistake you can ever make, because your enemies will not fear you, and THEY will try and remove you, instead, which can be far more dangerous. However, I'd rather be respected and loved among my people, and die for them than to be a murderer whom everyone fears. I would not want people to view my death as a blessing.

Have your armies love you, have your enemies fear you.
Do whatever you can to please your armies and people, while being completly ruthless to the enemies, burn down their buildings rape their villages destroy their lives.

Or you could be like Switzerland and just not do shit.

Rofl for what you said of Switzerland, and btw, i'm not gonna keep posting here, seems pointless.

I can understand that. You might check in every week or so though just in case something happens. Hopefully we can revive the forums with the Shadow Squad project if we get it going.

I don't know if he was talking about the forums overall... maybe just this topic. There is no good, clear cut answer. Love and respect tend to be more valuable for the general populace of rational individuals, but fear can almost certainly be a valuable tool for irrational people. Read psychopaths.

NO NO NO NO NO, I MEANT THIS PARTICULAR THREAD, NOT THE FORUMS, ROFL.

(Sorry for caps)

Switzerland does nothing because no one screws with them, their strategic position is incredible up in the mountains, so much so that many conquerors just left them alone.

Fear will win a war (or lose) a war alot faster that one on love
love doesnt have 500 conspiracy theorys going around to take it out
fear is probably more militaristic and no one would have the bawls to attack them
love people listen happily
fear people listen scared
its really Fear=Love theres ups and downs to both
get a good balance of it you may take over the world :OO

If we are gonna start talking about world domination we might as well make a thread about political parties.... (I would love that)

TanK_OwneR wrote:

Fear will win a war (or lose) a war alot faster that one on love
love doesnt have 500 conspiracy theorys going around to take it out
fear is probably more militaristic and no one would have the bawls to attack them
love people listen happily
fear people listen scared
its really Fear=Love theres ups and downs to both
get a good balance of it you may take over the world :OO

people would attack because they HATE you.
your citizens would rebel because they HATE you.
fear people listen, but they start hating you because you're so mean.

:OO so no, fear<love

if you loved everyone, nobody would attack you. (think JESUS; compassion for all creatures, etc.)

Wth do you mean with Jesus and compassion?

And i don't agree with your statement, Kuro, they population, particulary the weaker parts of it, wouldn't rebel, you are mixing anger with fear.

if they fear you they will get pissed at you and start hating on you and then they'll rebel!


love leads to happiness and prosperity.

fear leads to anger and sorrow. people will obey you out of fear, but nobody will really be happy except you, as your officials, best friends, and family will also fear you. the only way to stop a rebellion would be to section off groups of people... and with enough of THAT even your guards and everyone would rebel anyway. and when everybody under your rule is going through this, it is VERY likely that you would be attacked by a neighboring country.

Kuro, answer to my question of what did you mean with Jesus and all of that.

Now, not everyone will fear you, the close persons (relatives, friends, etc.) wouldn't "fear" you, yes, they would act in a more "careful" way, but fear isn't precise, and guard, soldiers, etc, respond to a commander/leader, that leader would be a "close person" to you, and as long as that leader "diferenced" himself from you in some ways the soldiers would trust him, and besides, most of the time, this has some similarities with a plutocracy, since money or power are ussually key in order to get those influential persons, like commanders, to "stay with you".

Besides, as i wrote before, sometimes religion, ideals or promises of greatness are ussually manipulated to control the masses, even Bush used fear, when he proised that USA would be prepared for a terrorist attack.

hahahaha that's hilarious. Herod attacked Jesus. The Jewish people attacked Jesus. The Romans attacked Jesus. You may want to read your Bible and your history. Jesus didn't go off into seclusion and die with a loving family. He died up on the cross because he was betrayed by one of his own that "loved" him and then he was severely punished by his own people. Yep. But I think that's because, according to the texts, one was portrayed as greedy, and everyone else feared him because he was presenting a new idea of an old, and quite honestly, somewhat of a very harsh G-d.

So, yeah, Kuro, your analogy has some fatal flaws to it. Not everyone loved Jesus and not everyone loves him today.

Quote :

If they fear you they will get pissed at you and start hating on you and then they'll rebel!

Fear most likey means militaristic and constrictive of there people possible communism
any rebels would probably get killed or jailed quickly
Communism while horrible to the people is great money for the government
so that country would also prosper not happiness of course

Man... don't think STALIN = COMMUNISM
He had very different ideas than those of Lenin, Marx, Engels and Trotsky.
And the communist countries of today claim to be Trotskyists, not Stalinists.