Historically has the Earth been ruled by madmen? If you think about it it seems that the most ambitious and ruthless come to power.
they become "madmen" when the ruler's are faced with subordinates that do not wish to be under the rule of their master. All rulers are fair when they do their job good for the purpose they were appointed for. No I do not think Earth was ruled by "madmen" because I do not believe in such to begin with, a real madman would not be a ruler in the first place.
To me it would make more sense to choose people who are less eager to lead or become the dominant figure in a given organization. This of course is direct opposite of what a dictator would have to be.
It cant work that way because we are not on the same page. The other day i was thinking that perhaps the best thing to do is find a suitable homeless person and just ask them- 'would you like to be President'. But then every nation would have to do the same. We can try this out for one term of four years and see what comes of it.
Ever read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy series? The people that rule are usually not mad, rather they are power hunger and selfish.
Why not just run the whole thing from our PC's? Just post a poll on whatever needs to be voted about and go with it. :shrug:
Because people are usually stupid and not well informed, but I do like the idea, Switzerland is the closes to running like that.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, yeah your right. But still i thought about it and i think it would be good for our civilization.
It could be, who knows.. lol P.S. the closest you can come to find out is to visit a country where there are no (or next to no) homeless people.
If one guy's goal is to rise to the top and the other guy's goal is to get people to believe the ideas he believes, then which guy is more likely to rise to the top? Government should probably have a jury of our peers as one branch of government. We need a branch of government that would veto corruption.
Genghis Khan was, by all accounts, remarkably sane. And he was the most powerful ruler the world has yet seen. Charlemagne was known for sanity - and he divided his empire among his sons, leading to continual violence and eventually two world wars. Stalin was not sane. Or Hitler. But Mao apparently was - not that it did the Chinese much obvious good. Ho Chi Minh was apparently sane, along with Lincoln and Castro - also Buchanan and Hirohito, utter screwups but personally not madmen at all. Johnson and Carter and Clinton were sane - two out of three competent. Nixon and Reagan and Bush and W - let's say the two crazier were Nixon and W, one generally competent and the other not, and the two saner were also divided, Reagan incompetent and delusionary and Bush more or less stable and sane. The madness of the world does not derive from the madness of its rulers, apparently. But the ruled do better under sane management.
It's a self selecting process. It is the most ambitious who seek power and the most ruthless who tend to acquire it. Add to that, the fact that all change is initiated by "unreasonable" men. The reasonable man adapts to his environment. It's the simplest most reasonable approach. It's the unreasonable man who tries to remake the world in his own image. Thus we are ruled by the most ambitious and ruthless among us. And they get all their new ideas from the most unreasonable people they can find.
I think the people who seek power tend to be a bit insane to start with. As the achieve power the become surrounded by "yes men" who tell them that whatever they do is right. If they allow themselves to be surrounded by yes men their latent insanity will come out and be expressed because there is nobody around them willing to tell them when they are wrong.
So true, yet such a good idea. Having not just one person in charge but utilizing everyones input would be for the best. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
