ForumsWEPRBetter to rule with love or fear?

52 7139
Cambyses
offline
Cambyses
134 posts
1,750

Machiavellian question.

On human nature: "Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you."

I personally believe it's better to rule with love, since it gives a reason for the people to be a part of a nation or community. Love, while not an absolute thing, can inspire much more fierce loyalty and confidence in the ruler.

Thoughts?

  • 52 Replies
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

how many times was liu bei beaten and needed to start over again?
atleast 3 times from what i recall


This was not due to him being a loved/weak ruler...but because during those times he didn't have much resources. He started with almost literally nothing.
Also, each time he was defeated he was able to find a new place of refuge...why? Because he was beloved and respected.

they were often easyer to kill or atleast be beaten.


Not necessarily true, especially for the time period of the Three Kingdom era we are all focusing on

Once Liu Bei was able to establish himself in Shu, he became nearly unbeatable for some time. The Sun family also kept their strong positioning and they were loved by their people

Then we have Dong Zhou, who was very much hated and taken down very swiftly. Lu Bu was hated and had many enemies. Yuan Shu

But some rulers that were easily defeated didn't have that result because of their kindness...but because they just weren't sufficient rulers. Liu Shan was a kind ruler, he also was an inept one. It was due to him being inept that caused Shu Han to fall, not his kindness.
At the same time, Lu Bu was a ruler who ruled with fear, but he was also a very arrogant and aggressive ruler. It was due to his arrogance and aggression that caused him to be defeated so easily
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

It's best to rule with love, but not be timid.

You're doing something wrong if the people are scared. Just because people aren't cowed into following doesn't mean there is no security.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,560

Also, each time he was defeated he was able to find a new place of refuge...why? Because he was beloved and respected.

he could just as easly be slain at one of his defeats. but instead he fleet the battle.
a mad man would also find refuge if he was spared in battle or if he fleet.

Once Liu Bei was able to establish himself in Shu, he became nearly unbeatable for some time.

but he wasn't the ruler.
a good captain doesn't make it a good leader.

Then we have Dong Zhou, who was very much hated and taken down very swiftly.

wasn't dong zhou self proclaimed king for over 20 year befor the 3 kingdoms era?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,560

but he wasn't the ruler.
a good captain doesn't make it a good leader.

my bad i mixed up the armys.

but still his shu was defeated multiple times.
Cambyses
offline
Cambyses
134 posts
1,750

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.

ellock
offline
ellock
387 posts
2,780

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.

ptcdcs
offline
ptcdcs
15 posts
470

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.

handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
40

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."

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,470 posts
24,700

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.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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
sensanaty
offline
sensanaty
1,100 posts
350

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.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,470 posts
24,700

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.
handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
40

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]

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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
404011xz
offline
404011xz
215 posts
2,170

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.

Showing 16-30 of 52