|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 9, 2011 14:58:37 GMT -5
About Machiavelli's book...I always saw his point of view as "keep your power even if you have to be a tyrant to do it." Not my favorite viewpoint. I think that any reasonable human, leader or not, should put his/her family and friends before their position. I know I would. I would give up any power if it meant I would save someone's life by doing so. That's not Machiavelli's point of view, Sae! ^-^ He didn't write deeply about a prince's personal life or choices between family and power, that's a little mistake that happens a thanks to the term 'machiavelic'!  But Nicolau did write about a term called 'virtu and fortune (luck)', he believes that 50% of life depends on your luck, but if the odds are against you there is virtu to save your kingdom- a prince's personal experience, qualities and leadership skills! On your case Sae, I guess the fact that you put family before power would be your virtu! :3 |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jul 10, 2011 12:32:02 GMT -5
About Machiavelli's book...I always saw his point of view as "keep your power even if you have to be a tyrant to do it." Not my favorite viewpoint. I think that any reasonable human, leader or not, should put his/her family and friends before their position. I know I would. I would give up any power if it meant I would save someone's life by doing so. Welp, considering so many people die every day, that would probably make your reign the shortest one ever. XDDD Here's a hypothetical for ya: would you give up your position to save someone's life if you knew that position would be taken over by a cruel leader? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 12:41:46 GMT -5
About Machiavelli's book...I always saw his point of view as "keep your power even if you have to be a tyrant to do it." Not my favorite viewpoint. I think that any reasonable human, leader or not, should put his/her family and friends before their position. I know I would. I would give up any power if it meant I would save someone's life by doing so. Welp, considering so many people die every day, that would probably make your reign the shortest one ever. XDDD Here's a hypothetical for ya: would you give up your position to save someone's life if you knew that position would be taken over by a cruel leader? Yes. The people I care about matter to me that much. Then, I would find a way to overthrow the cruel leader. |
|
|
|
Post by Terra on Jul 10, 2011 13:20:50 GMT -5
Welp, considering so many people die every day, that would probably make your reign the shortest one ever. XDDD Here's a hypothetical for ya: would you give up your position to save someone's life if you knew that position would be taken over by a cruel leader? Yes. The people I care about matter to me that much. Then, I would find a way to overthrow the cruel leader. But what if the cruel leader would kill a lot more people? Would you rather save one person's life and allow someone to take over who will kill tons more people? Also, I would think that a leader who wants to stay in power would imprison the previous leader or otherwise prevent the previous leader from trying to overthrow him/her. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 13:42:53 GMT -5
Yes. The people I care about matter to me that much. Then, I would find a way to overthrow the cruel leader. But what if the cruel leader would kill a lot more people? Would you rather save one person's life and allow someone to take over who will kill tons more people? Also, I would think that a leader who wants to stay in power would imprison the previous leader or otherwise prevent the previous leader from trying to overthrow him/her. The thing is, I can't bear to lose my mom, dad, cousins, aunts, uncles, dogs, friends, cousins' dogs and cats...to me, allowing any of them to die would be an act of soulless selfishness on my part. I feel this is getting a little too personal, myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Terra on Jul 10, 2011 13:53:44 GMT -5
But what if the cruel leader would kill a lot more people? Would you rather save one person's life and allow someone to take over who will kill tons more people? Also, I would think that a leader who wants to stay in power would imprison the previous leader or otherwise prevent the previous leader from trying to overthrow him/her. The thing is, I can't bear to lose my mom, dad, cousins, aunts, uncles, dogs, friends, cousins' dogs and cats...to me, allowing any of them to die would be an act of soulless selfishness on my part. I feel this is getting a little too personal, myself. Sorry. ^_^; I didn't mean for it to be an attack on you or anything. I guess I have a slightly different sense of morality, because I'd rather save several strangers than one family member. But I guess both points of view are understandable. It's a situation where no answer is a comfortable one. And I guess this is getting a little off-topic, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 13:54:42 GMT -5
The thing is, I can't bear to lose my mom, dad, cousins, aunts, uncles, dogs, friends, cousins' dogs and cats...to me, allowing any of them to die would be an act of soulless selfishness on my part. I feel this is getting a little too personal, myself. Sorry. ^_^; I didn't mean for it to be an attack on you or anything. I guess I have a slightly different sense of morality, because I'd rather save several strangers than one family member. But I guess both points of view are understandable. It's a situation where no answer is a comfortable one. And I guess this is getting a little off-topic, anyway. I know you didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jul 10, 2011 14:33:52 GMT -5
The thing is, I can't bear to lose my mom, dad, cousins, aunts, uncles, dogs, friends, cousins' dogs and cats...to me, allowing any of them to die would be an act of soulless selfishness on my part. I feel this is getting a little too personal, myself. Sorry. ^_^; I didn't mean for it to be an attack on you or anything. I guess I have a slightly different sense of morality, because I'd rather save several strangers than one family member. But I guess both points of view are understandable. It's a situation where no answer is a comfortable one. And I guess this is getting a little off-topic, anyway. I'm not sure if that would make a good leader, though (no offense intended, Sae). The point of a leader is to lead, serve and take care of the people under their command; which includes strangers as well as friends and family. If it comes to life and death, while it's natural to want to save your family, your responsibility as a leader means that it wouldn't be very just if you gave up the lives of many to save the life of one, because you have a responsibility to all, without favoritism or bias. If that makes any sense. As for government... I don't have a huge opinion on it. Whatever the form of government, it's a huge and relatively thankless job that takes hundreds or thousands of people, not all of them in accord. Some do well. Some don't. But most of them do their best. P.S. I didn't know Singapore was a dictatorship =O |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 14:36:58 GMT -5
Exactly why I decided to be a singer rather than a politician. So I wouldn't have to live with horrible guilt, because whatever choice I make I'll end up a complete wreck in that situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 16:40:05 GMT -5
Ooh, this is a fun question.
I think the purpose of government is to maximize the welfare of those living in a country, which can be done by creating laws that say what you can't do, but also by guaranteeing rights and freedoms that say what you can do. Too much government or not enough leads to discontent, after all. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jul 12, 2011 11:36:17 GMT -5
Edit: Sae, a dictatorship isn't inherently bad. It has been painted in a bad light by the wrongdoings of countless dictators, but there have been good ones, too. A monarch is, for all intents and purposes, an absolute ruler (or was in ages past) and it was their choice to listen to parliament or not. If they were smart, they'd listen. Think of Vetinari from Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. He's a "one man democracy" which is another way of saying a dictator, and yet he does right by the city and is generally awesome. :3 For a possible real-life example of a benevolent dictator, you could look towards Singapore. If you walk down a road there, you'll find the public transport system is amazing, people are well dressed, you can feel safe walking around at night, and the place has a world-renowned zoo and bird-park. It's a very pleasant place to live, and I stayed there about five years or so. Unfortunately, no government is without its faults, and I'm sure there are issues people have with the Singapore government being a bit heavy-handed at times. (Chewing gum is a banned substance, unless you have a doctor's proscription. But then, is chewing gum really a necessity? The streets are so clean without squished bits of gum sticking to them...) The bad thing about a dictatorship is that the people have no real way to feel that their voice has been heard, without resorting to angry demostrations. Even when people are pampered (or especially when they're pampered?), they don't want to feel like their opinion doesn't count. A working voting system gives people a chance to vent their opinions on the government in a more productive, peaceful way. I agree with what Sarn said about the governments being there to serve the people, and not the other way around. It may cost the population to be funding some silly expenditures that government workers take out (and I wish they'd do less of that), but sometimes you lose a little bit to gain something more valuable. Stability, order, a good standard of living for all, upholding those universal human rights. That's what a good government should acheive, or try to. And when problems arise, as they inevitably do, there ought to be some way for the people or anyone aware of the problem to prod the leaders into the right direction again. I should probably interject, since, well, I live here and all. XD Singapore's a democracy, not a dictatorship, complete with a Cabinet-esque (called the Parliament here). The British colonised it at first, and I doubt they'd have left it in the hands of a dictator. There are, to be honest, very few political issues (there will always be some in any governement, especially during election times), but the culture's rather... conserative. And competitive. For instance, I doubt gay marriage would be legalised here for decades. It's not because people are intolerant, but because it's really mired in tradition, and when you have such a rich conglomerate of cultures and religions in a small area, what would be minorities in the States becomes a very focal percentage of the people's voices. It means everyone's opinion will probably be heard, which would both be a good and a bad thing. As for the chewing gum thing... that was in response to people sticking it in train doors, not spitting them onto floors.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on Jul 12, 2011 14:42:20 GMT -5
I believe that the purpose of the government is to provide a legal structure and framework for the people who live in the area of that government's boundaries to interact and work, and provide the enforcement of those laws created. Police enforce the laws. Lawyers argue the nuances of the laws. Judges keep the laws. Members of the Senate/House/Parliament create the laws, ect. Obviously, they're human and prone to error, but unless the entire world is replaced by robots, human error and folly are going to be present. For the framework, roads allow the people to move and trade about the nation, to the government must have a department of transportation. The government needs money to keep the roads in working order, so the government needs a department of revenue... It all just builds up. Sometime I don't agree with what people think a government needs to do/should do, but usually there are arguable reasons for a government to do that function as well. Then it's getting back in to that matter of human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Jul 12, 2011 19:18:32 GMT -5
It's an abstract topic, but I suppose I'm with Locke and the American Founders on this one: government is in place to protect the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from being murdered in the street, etc. Liberty should be curtailed as little as possible, just enough to give people the basic rights; the only things citizens shouldn't be able to do is take those rights away from others. I suppose I would sum it up by saying that, in my view, the government should be as small as possible to fulfill its basic purposes, and should pretty much stay out of people's lives. Granted, I'm pretty anti-welfare-state. xD I don't like the idea of a government that "takes care of" or "leads" its people. I'm more into "serves".
|
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on Jul 13, 2011 0:51:32 GMT -5
It's an abstract topic, but I suppose I'm with Locke and the American Founders on this one: government is in place to protect the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from being murdered in the street, etc. Liberty should be curtailed as little as possible, just enough to give people the basic rights; the only things citizens shouldn't be able to do is take those rights away from others. I suppose I would sum it up by saying that, in my view, the government should be as small as possible to fulfill its basic purposes, and should pretty much stay out of people's lives. Granted, I'm pretty anti-welfare-state. xD I don't like the idea of a government that "takes care of" or "leads" its people. I'm more into "serves". The founding fathers of the United States weren't in agreement about everything, and some of the things they supported individually weren't incompatible with a welfare state (see Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man). I do think that a government should be trim and efficient and that, when a person wants to exercise power over others, the burden of proof is on that person to show why their authority is necessary. I think that a government should be there to serve it's people instead of the other way around. But that's not the same as saying that the government should never be involved with the economy or that it shouldn't do things that make people's lives better. When unemployment was at 25% and school teachers were literally fainting from hunger at their desks during the Great Depression, I don't think it would have been right for FDR to sit back and not do anything about it, whether or not the New Deal was the best decision he could have made. |
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Jul 13, 2011 10:51:20 GMT -5
It's an abstract topic, but I suppose I'm with Locke and the American Founders on this one: government is in place to protect the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from being murdered in the street, etc. Liberty should be curtailed as little as possible, just enough to give people the basic rights; the only things citizens shouldn't be able to do is take those rights away from others. I suppose I would sum it up by saying that, in my view, the government should be as small as possible to fulfill its basic purposes, and should pretty much stay out of people's lives. Granted, I'm pretty anti-welfare-state. xD I don't like the idea of a government that "takes care of" or "leads" its people. I'm more into "serves". The founding fathers of the United States weren't in agreement about everything, and some of the things they supported individually weren't incompatible with a welfare state (see Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man). I do think that a government should be trim and efficient and that, when a person wants to exercise power over others, the burden of proof is on that person to show why their authority is necessary. I think that a government should be there to serve it's people instead of the other way around. But that's not the same as saying that the government should never be involved with the economy or that it shouldn't do things that make people's lives better. When unemployment was at 25% and school teachers were literally fainting from hunger at their desks during the Great Depression, I don't think it would have been right for FDR to sit back and not do anything about it, whether or not the New Deal was the best decision he could have made. I suppose by that I just mean their consensus in the Constitution - or to be completely correct, my interpretation. (Ironically, I don't think Thomas Paine was a fan, though I could be wrong.) It's probably possible to argue about how far "promote the general welfare" extends all day long, but I happen to be a fan of the 10th Amendment. I also would disagree that FDR's reforms helped the Depression at all, but obviously nobody can ever prove it one way or the other! Of course, the nicest thing about government is that there are so many of them. I am by no means a proponent of the idea that every government should be the same; I only have strong opinions about the one I happen to live in. xD Variety is nice. |
|
Furgo 
Michael. 
