Right Wing Discussion Thread XI: It's Okay To Be Right

[Questers]

If you're "not sure" if you want to be in charge or not, how can anyone trust you with nuclear weapons?

People who desire something will do anything to prove they deserve it. People who merely walk into positions by virtue of everyone else thinking they might be good for it are rarely useful.

I fundamentally have to disagree.

On what basis tho?

All the required qualities for good leadership are the same qualities that a person needs to take power: there is no quality that helps leadership that is found in people who are given power that they don't necessarily want, other than humility.

[Conserative Morality]

This is how you get stuck with a parade of egotists running the show.

If you're "not sure" if you want to be in charge or not, how can anyone trust you with nuclear weapons?

People who desire something will do anything to prove they deserve it. People who merely walk into positions by virtue of everyone else thinking they might be good for it are rarely useful.

No, people who desire something will do anything to obtain it. Not to prove to others that they deserve it.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Because the fact that you don't want power is a sign that you'd be less liable to abuse it.

Not necessarily true. If forced by God to wield Earthly power, I would would work with all my strength to maintain the principle of absolute autocracy as firmly and as strongly as the most unshakeable autocrats.

[Questers]

No it isn't. It's evidence you will be easily manipulated by people who do want power.

Only people who desire power ought to have it.

People who want to do their duty are the only people who should have power. People who are willing to serve up 'til the moment things go all pear-shaped, at which point they take power because it is their duty, as one who can do so, to do so. People who spend their lives scrabbling for power are very often the worst people to have it.

Well this is a different thing, and I'm not sure that I disagree. But usually the people you want to put in power as a matter of duty are people who were in a position in which they are immediately able to accept.

One good example would be Churchill. Of course he was called upon to serve, not chosen in an election. But he was angling for it forever.

[Benuty]

I would probably go down the path of a benevolent dictator to aid society after whatever horrid war or event brought me to power in the first place. I would find a way to ensure my successor goes down the path of King Juan Carlos, and give up the power guiding things back to normal. I don't want to be remembered as a Franco figure to the point the new republic would easily be torn apart by trying to address any negative issues that happened under my administration.

[Questers]

If you're "not sure" if you want to be in charge or not, how can anyone trust you with nuclear weapons?

People who desire something will do anything to prove they deserve it. People who merely walk into positions by virtue of everyone else thinking they might be good for it are rarely useful.

No, people who desire something will do anything to obtain it. Not to prove to others that they deserve it.

That depends on the constraints.

Ideally you want to select a person for a position that they desire. Of course that isn't ever the only qualification, but choosing the candidate that wants something is almost always better than the candidate that doesn't - typically because the candidate that doesn't won't be any good at it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No it isn't. It's evidence you will be easily manipulated by people who do want power.

Only people who desire power ought to have it.

No, people who want power are generally evil and I know when I'm being manipulated, so I'd probably just have them killed.

[Questers]

No it isn't. It's evidence you will be easily manipulated by people who do want power.

Only people who desire power ought to have it.

No, people who want power are generally evil and I know when I'm being manipulated, so I'd probably just have them killed.

You're going to kill all your competent ministers?

My point is being proven as we speak.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, people who want power are generally evil and I know when I'm being manipulated, so I'd probably just have them killed.

You're going to kill all your competent ministers?

My point is being proven as we speak.

If they were to try to seize power for themselves, it would be necessary.

[Republic of the Cristo]

No it isn't. It's evidence you will be easily manipulated by people who do want power.

Only people who desire power ought to have it.

No, people who want power are generally evil and I know when I'm being manipulated, so I'd probably just have them killed.

Well - that escalated quickly.

[Questers]

When you have no people who will challenge you, and who do not desire power, and who are not competent enough to take it and are simply granted it by decree, you will not be able to form a cabinet, and your government will not be capable of doing anything. People with ambition are not always useful, but people with no ambition are suitable for waste disposal, running across minefields, and not much else.

[Irona]

No it isn't. It's evidence you will be easily manipulated by people who do want power.

Only people who desire power ought to have it.

No, people who want power are generally evil and I know when I'm being manipulated, so I'd probably just have them killed.

All praise the People's Emperor, he who rules in our name gives death to the power hungry and power to the meek.

[Benuty]

No it isn't. It's evidence you will be easily manipulated by people who do want power.

Only people who desire power ought to have it.

No, people who want power are generally evil and I know when I'm being manipulated, so I'd probably just have them killed.

Mercy might be the better option here especially if history vindicates you in the end.

[United Muscovite Nations]

When you have no people who will challenge you, and who do not desire power, and who are not competent enough to take it and are simply granted it by decree, you will not be able to form a cabinet, and your government will not be capable of doing anything. People with ambition are not always useful, but people with no ambition are suitable for waste disposal, running across minefields, and not much else.

Perhaps now you know why I don't want to be dictator, because I really would fight for the principle of absolute autocracy.

[Conserative Morality]

Well this is a different thing, and I'm not sure that I disagree. But usually the people you want to put in power as a matter of duty are people who were in a position in which they are immediately able to accept.

One good example would be Churchill. Of course he was called upon to serve, not chosen in an election. But he was angling for it forever.

Churchill isn't exactly who I'd want running my country outside of any circumstances other than WW2, though. I'd point to Truman and Ike - men who spent most of their lives serving because that's where they thought they best belonged, and took power only when it seemed that they were best suited to take it. Rather than searching for power, they realize, after a point, that no one else is going to do the job right, so they have to saddle up and do it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, people who want power are generally evil and I know when I'm being manipulated, so I'd probably just have them killed.

Mercy might be the better option here especially if history vindicates you in the end.

I believe mercy is the highest virtue, and the sword should be used sparingly, but the rulers of the Earth are not given the sword lightly.

[Conserative Morality]

When you have no people who will challenge you, and who do not desire power, and who are not competent enough to take it and are simply granted it by decree, you will not be able to form a cabinet, and your government will not be capable of doing anything. People with ambition are not always useful, but people with no ambition are suitable for waste disposal, running across minefields, and not much else.

The best ambition is the ambition to serve; the second best ambition is the ambition to do what you do best as best as you can.

[Questers]

Well this is a different thing, and I'm not sure that I disagree. But usually the people you want to put in power as a matter of duty are people who were in a position in which they are immediately able to accept.

One good example would be Churchill. Of course he was called upon to serve, not chosen in an election. But he was angling for it forever.

Churchill isn't exactly who I'd want running my country outside of any circumstances other than WW2, though. I'd point to Truman and Ike - men who spent most of their lives serving because that's where they thought they best belonged, and took power only when it seemed that they were best suited to take it. Rather than searching for power, they realize, after a point, that no one else is going to do the job right, so they have to saddle up and do it.

Sure, but you only really "call people to duty" during times of crisis. If you keep doing it all the time it would lose its meaning.

I don't disagree with your analysis, but even if he had to be persuaded, Ike had to run for President. He had to have the requisite ambition, competency, and desire for power.

[Conserative Morality]

Sure, but you only really "call people to duty" during times of crisis. If you keep doing it all the time it would lose its meaning.

I don't disagree with your analysis, but even if he had to be persuaded, Ike had to run for President. He had to have the requisite ambition, competency, and desire for power.

I think we're running off of different definitions of desire.

[Northern Davincia]

Why would you make me commit evils in the name of the populace?

Reluctance to commit evil with the understanding that it must be done is the best vaccine against misuse of the necessary coercive mechanisms of state.

You have been conscripted as dictator. You must serve the state as any other.

>necessary
>coercive
>state

Ew to all three.

[Mujahidah]

Not necessarily true. If forced by God to wield Earthly power, I would would work with all my strength to maintain the principle of absolute autocracy as firmly and as strongly as the most unshakeable autocrats.

Putin is a disgusting imp of a human. My eyes hurt from being forced to see such profanity.

[Conserative Morality]

>necessary
>coercive
>state

Ew to all three.

UMN PROSCRIBE THIS DOG

[Benuty]

Reluctance to commit evil with the understanding that it must be done is the best vaccine against misuse of the necessary coercive mechanisms of state.

You have been conscripted as dictator. You must serve the state as any other.

>necessary
>coercive
>state

Ew to all three.

I mean a dictator unless they are really laid back kind of requires some of these things do they not?

[Northern Davincia]

>necessary
>coercive
>state

Ew to all three.

I mean a dictator unless they are really laid back kind of requires some of these things do they not?

A libertarian dictator would, by nature, be laid back.

[Mujahidah]

>necessary
>coercive
>state

Ew to all three.

I mean a dictator unless they are really laid back kind of requires some of these things do they not?

I think ND's solution is "just don't have a dictator." Which I support.

Unless that dictator is me.