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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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

I find people who rule in Fear eventually end up getting stormed by rioters or eventually killed by somebody. I would like love because what is there to fear if everyone loves you? But if I were to rule I would keep my nose out of other countries' bussiness. I also wouldn't tax my people up the butt, no I would give moderate taxes and spend moderately. I believe in not living beyond your means. Something the US should learn.