* What if prop1 (things the rulers believe is right) is the same as prop2 (the will of the people)? -- i.e. false dichotomy
* What if prop2 is manifestly wrong (viz. "the people" are fuckwits)? -- i.e. omitted possibility
* What if "the rulers of my country" are "the people" (viz. it's a direct, rather than representative, democracy)? -- i.e. bias introduced by axiomatic assumptions (that "countries" have "rulers" who are not "the people")
* What if prop1 or prop2 entail actions taken outside your country, in someone else's country (where the "someone elses" disagree -- e.g. an invasion)? -- i.e. how do you treat externalities
The interesting flavour of this sort of question is how far a party-affiliated MP should vote by the direction of whips vs. the views of their local constituency. While the MP claims to following the will of the people by listening to vocal locals, there is also the argument that people vote for the party manifesto 'package' rather than the individual person standing.
I couldn't answer this. I think leaders in general should do what they believe is right, but it just won't work if there isn't a sufficient level of support.
Therefore a leader will need to do both, depending on the circumstances.
The intelligent leader will try to change the will of the people to align itself with what they believe is right. A good leader will try to do this by honest debate. A bad leader will try to do this by deception and playing on fears.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I'm the first to get in the obligatory complaint that it's a 'black and white' question to a 'shades of grey' issue.
:p
(no subject)
no subject
* What if prop1 (things the rulers believe is right) is the same as prop2 (the will of the people)? -- i.e. false dichotomy
* What if prop2 is manifestly wrong (viz. "the people" are fuckwits)? -- i.e. omitted possibility
* What if "the rulers of my country" are "the people" (viz. it's a direct, rather than representative, democracy)? -- i.e. bias introduced by axiomatic assumptions (that "countries" have "rulers" who are not "the people")
* What if prop1 or prop2 entail actions taken outside your country, in someone else's country (where the "someone elses" disagree -- e.g. an invasion)? -- i.e. how do you treat externalities
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Therefore a leader will need to do both, depending on the circumstances.
The intelligent leader will try to change the will of the people to align itself with what they believe is right. A good leader will try to do this by honest debate. A bad leader will try to do this by deception and playing on fears.