ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Better to rule with love or fear?

Posted Dec 29, '12 at 3:12am



10,172 posts

do we all have to believe that Duncan was a fool because pang says so

No..literary devices shows that Shakespeare meant him to be foolish (the fact that he claims to hold loyalty very highly..then has 2 betrayers as his Thane)

Macbeth was a monster. He ruled with fear.

His rule was more of fear in a different sense..he had an enormous amount of fear for the rest of the witches prophecy (Banquo's heritage being kings) and was constantly feeling guilty over his actions towards Duncan.

Is pang's knowledge of psychology the only knowledge of psychology? Is he the fount of all wisdom on matters psychological.

No..nor do I claim to be so. But I fancy myself a pretty reliable source..saying as how I study war strategy..and war strategy is based heavily off of psychology..and as we just discussed, random-variable rewards work.

As for love and fear, let me quote Sun Tzu's Art of War on this (yes, I have it by my side) - Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity, but kept under control by means of iron discipline
So, treat them with humanity (love, in the instance) but remember to keep discipline (or "tough love" as some would call)

Me-I like to get paid regularly and so do the people I receive goods and services. Randomly reinforcing the refuse disposal operatives won't make them work better.

It isn't randomly paying them..paying them isn't a is compensation (Something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service). You give them a random, for example, a pizza party.

Posted Dec 29, '12 at 9:32pm



194 posts

Well. pang, I agree that it is good to give the workers a treat 'randomly', as long as they get the basic reward of a regular wage for regular work.

I'm a lover not a fighter, so we may disagree on some things. I'd like to make you redundant in your job as a war strategist. I am a peacemaker and I think that psychology can be useful in stopping wars happening in the first place. We've seen how bad the world has been in the past few years with the conflicts in the Middle East. I think that US policy in the Middle East requires more than just making the belligerents afraid of the US technological advantage. I think that it did not work in Vietnam, where the US was far better armed and stil lost, and it did not work for the British in the War of Independence. I think that the establishment of democracy over there is 'love'. I decide to stop this diatribe now to rest.


Posted Dec 30, '12 at 12:25pm



1,854 posts

I would rule with both. You don't want to be considered weak, otherwise corrupt insurgents will win, but you also don't want to be cruel and stupid. I would definitely be happy to reward my people with celebrations, treats and the like if they had been doing a good job (Communism fails with big groups of humans) but if I got heavy whiffs of trouble, I would stamp it out quick-like.

Reply to Better to rule with love or fear?

You must be logged in to post a reply!