Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Better to rule with love or fear?

Posted Nov 23, '12 at 2:54pm

Cambyses

Cambyses

139 posts

It's best to rule with both love and fear. And neither be a ruler of just one way. But love is a necessity to have in a kingdom.
The Three Kingdoms Era in China is a bit a weird one, partly because it was just a period of so much strife and turmoil. Whether or not a ruler went up or came down truly depended on how loyal their armies and captains were to them. But it also points out that a ruler can be benevolent and loving and still be a successful prince.
Fear mainly applies to people outside of the nation. Love is necessary to show the people what they have to gain if they remain loyal, and also makes them feel a part of something. If you wish to remain successful, you have to be loved first, and then you can give your enemies something to be feared of. But if you rule with fear, and then try to show love to the people, that just doesn't really work. No one can forget an injustice or an act of ruthlessness.

 

Posted Nov 23, '12 at 4:43pm

ellock

ellock

292 posts

I think ruling with fear is the easy way out and ruling with love is hard.
I think that with fear it will only last for so long, but is almost to easy and with love it is a lot harder to do but will last longer and will make a better nation or community.

 

Posted Dec 16, '12 at 6:44pm

ptcdcs

ptcdcs

12 posts

There needs to be a balance of the two. With love, if you give people free stuff there is no motivation to work then the economy goes to hell.

 

Posted Dec 17, '12 at 12:05am

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

People are talking about Hitler and Stalin and how they ruled. What about Abe Lincoln? I think that the Gettysburg address shows how compassionate the man was. He ruled so wisely that he was reelected in the midst of a Civil War, and he saved the Union. Then there's FDR. I think that he had a great sense of humour and had great respect for the nation.

I think that the other Roosevelt had a good answer to this question. I think that he said "Speak quietly and carry a big stick."

 

Posted Dec 17, '12 at 12:38am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,077 posts

Knight

People are talking about Hitler and Stalin and how they ruled. What about Abe Lincoln? I think that the Gettysburg address shows how compassionate the man was. He ruled so wisely that he was reelected in the midst of a Civil War, and he saved the Union. Then there's FDR. I think that he had a great sense of humour and had great respect for the nation.

He won with only 40% and then 55% of the vote. At any rate, the democratic process has more or less sullied the whole notion, it's not as if the chief executive can actively rule in any direction he chooses. Government seems more just faceless clinical functioning now.

 

Posted Dec 17, '12 at 1:21am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,623 posts

With love, if you give people free stuff there is no motivation to work then the economy goes to hell.

*goes into strategist pang mode*

You don't give them free stuff..you give them rewards. And you give them said rewards at random intervals when they have performed at a standard that would decree them worthy of the reward...making the reward random is the perfect way to go psychologically, for they now have an idea that by working well there is a possibility for a reward, and at the same time they do not have a time frame to expect the reward, so they won't get upset by not receiving one at a certain time

 

Posted Dec 17, '12 at 4:52am

sensanaty

sensanaty

862 posts

I will take Stalin as an example. Stalin ruled with fear. Pure fear. In fact, so much fear, that the masses thought they loved him. He seeded so much paranoia into his people that they started thinking they loved him, simply so they don't get dragged out and get murdered by Stalin's men.

About Hitler on the first page; He was a charismatic man. Germany needed someone to boost the country, Hitler convinced them he could do it, and so he did, in the end. Most of the world had no idea what was going on with all the concentration camps and everything. The masses loved him because he was charismatic, and promised to make everyone's life in the Reich easier.

 

Posted Dec 17, '12 at 7:41am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,077 posts

Knight

About Hitler on the first page; He was a charismatic man. Germany needed someone to boost the country, Hitler convinced them he could do it, and so he did, in the end. Most of the world had no idea what was going on with all the concentration camps and everything. The masses loved him because he was charismatic, and promised to make everyone's life in the Reich easier.

Exactly. Love and fear. Depends on your ethnicity.

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 12:52am

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

Pang, if a rat is working in expectation of a reward and that rat doesn't get the reward eventually the rat will stop doing what the psychologist wants it to do. [Skinner 101]

 

Posted Dec 18, '12 at 3:04am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,623 posts

Pang, if a rat is working in expectation of a reward and that rat doesn't get the reward eventually the rat will stop doing what the psychologist wants it to do. [Skinner 101]

1) lowercase that name please

2) You read what I said correct? Key word there...random intervals. You do not give them rewards based on fixed intervals..or you will end up with what you just said. You give them rewards based on random intervals (as in..at any random time they might receive a reward if their work is satisfactory)..that way they do not have expectations on when they receive it..instead they will have an expectation of "if our work is satisfactory then we might receive a reward at some random point."

Then..if they don't receive a reward in a certain amount of time..they do not get upset..for, psychologically, they know there is no guarantee for this reward..they just know that there is a possibility of a reward if they work sufficiently enough

 
Reply to Better to rule with love or fear?

You must be logged in to post a reply!