should a leader be feared or loved?
feared
20.1% (30)
20.1% (30)
loved
78.5% (117)
78.5% (117)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should a leader be feared or loved?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

For the last paper in my English class we have to write a paper on whether a leader should be feared or loved. The paper is based off the writings of Machiavelli. I was just wondering what you people think. I already have my paper mostly finished and i was just wondering what others thought so i'm not actually using this for my paper its just a question.

I think a leader should be elected. That simple, really, surely?

I think it depends on scale. A king, or president, or some other ruler of a large nation should be feared. Loved would be a good bonus, but you would need the fear. On a smaller scale, like mayor or Governor type scale, i think the reverse is true. If you are feared at that level, the people will hate you and work against you when possible, but if you are loved, the group is small enough that your supporters will help protect you from your opposition, if there is any.

There are many kinds of leaders of many kinds of groups, but I'd say that in a modern, democratic country admiration is certainly more desirable than fear.

Why not both, loved for bringing prosperity to the people but feared for bringing swift justice down upon those who would do harm to others.
Not so feared that people feel imprisoned within their own country, but not so loved as to trivialize the seriousness of the leader.
Just like a teacher, liked for being knowledgeable and understanding but still has it in them to bite your head off when you don't do your work.

Let this do the work

image

Serenegoose:
I think a leader should be elected. That simple, really, surely?

Wow, this for sure. Maybe a little respect added too for good measure.

Machiavelli would say both. For the most part, I would agree. Can't generalize too much here though.

Hader:
Machiavelli would say both. For the most part, I would agree. Can't generalize too much here though.

from what i read he said feared he didnt say both

They should be loved by their people and feared by everyone else.

spartan231490:
I think it depends on scale. A king, or president, or some other ruler of a large nation should be feared. Loved would be a good bonus, but you would need the fear. On a smaller scale, like mayor or Governor type scale, i think the reverse is true. If you are feared at that level, the people will hate you and work against you when possible, but if you are loved, the group is small enough that your supporters will help protect you from your opposition, if there is any.

You really should look into something called EVIDENCE.

Being feared is never under any circumstance needed, nor should it be desired, unless you wish to hurt your own populace.

The Prince was basically a huge piss-take on Macchiavelli's part. All his other writings take almost a completely opposite position of what he was saying there. Macchiavelli was the original Stephen Colbert.

"A wise man once asked, 'Is it better to be feared or respected?' - I say, is it too much to ask for both? With that in mind I humbly present you the crown jewel of Stark Industries' Freedom Line. It's the first missile system to incorporate latest proprietary Repulsor Technology. They say that the best weapon is the one that you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree! I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it... and it's worked out pretty well so far."

Yeah, I quoted Iron Man.

I think they should be respected for the job they are doing and the effort they put in to do it right. If they don't have that, then they probably aren't right for the job.

They should never be feared, the government should serve the people, not the other way around. If they aren't doing their job right you fire them and hire someone else who knows what they are doing and won't abuse the position.

Some people will probably love them, some not so much. But to whatever degree people agree with or like them, everyone should criticize them freely and openly. Even if the leader is your personal hero and you look up to them greatly, telling them that doesn't help them lead better.

Personally, I think that...

Terminate421:
Let this do the work

image

... You know what, nevermind, I like this.

Both if at all possible.

I would rather have a leader that I respected...

I love Pepsi and fear the dark, and I don't want ether of those to be in a position of power...

Is it too much to ask for both?

Jark212:
I would rather have a leader that I respected...

I love Pepsi and fear the dark, and I don't want ether of those to be in a position of power...

Hahahaha! I love this so much!

OT: How about respectfully loved? As in, you are respected for your dedication, intelligence, rationality and fairness, and loved for the ideals that you apply yourself to. So your methods are respected, but the actual subject of your efforts are so good that people can't help but love you.

OrokuSaki:
"A wise man once asked, 'Is it better to be feared or respected?' - I say, is it too much to ask for both? With that in mind I humbly present you the crown jewel of Stark Industries' Freedom Line. It's the first missile system to incorporate latest proprietary Repulsor Technology. They say that the best weapon is the one that you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree! I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it... and it's worked out pretty well so far."

Yeah, I quoted Iron Man.

You should write this! Especially since Robert Downey Junior actually ad-libbed that bit. Awesome.

Personally I think the idea of a leader only being able to be loved or feared is a bit dumb, what is this, Fable? A leader of a nation is supposed to improve the lifestyle of the group as a whole, prefereably not to the detriment of other nations, or future generations. If doing that involves shoving guns down everyones throats and sending everyone to work in the mines then something has gone terribly wrong (Unless your Margaret Thatcher, in which case bringing everyone out of the mines was a horrible and callous act.) We shouldn't fear our government, unless we do something wrong. Their job should be to make us feel safe.

Neither, the best leader is that guy who just has a lot of good ideas and lets everyone run with it.

Serenegoose:
I think a leader should be elected. That simple, really, surely?

I like this. It really cuts to the quick and is even humorously true.

"It is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved."

It's worth pointing that a prince, especially a fourteenth-century one, is considerably different than a leader. Machiavelli also noted that hated rulers tend to have a short life expectancy because assassins are honored when they murder tyrants and thus have an interest in doing the deed.

In short, being feared is necessary, being loved is useful. But that only applies to despots.

Zantos:
They should be loved by their people and feared by everyone else.

I agree with this.

From a person who's been a hockey captain a LOT over the years, you need about and 85-15 love-fear ratio, love for uniting the team under a common banner, fear for keeping them from getting out of line.

But I think this ratio applies in a lot of places.

Edit: and also, I agree with the poster above me.

Machiavelli - the Prince - feared: love only motivates those for whom life is goof, fear motivates all.

EDIT: that ought to say good but it's funny enough that I won't edit it out...

Veylon:
"It is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved."

It's worth pointing that a prince, especially a fourteenth-century one, is considerably different than a leader. Machiavelli also noted that hated rulers tend to have a short life expectancy because assassins are honored when they murder tyrants and thus have an interest in doing the deed.

In short, being feared is necessary, being loved is useful. But that only applies to despots.

Prince applies to all rulers, including papal and elected ones in Nick boy's era, anyway.
He said that about *hated* rulers, in the same chapter he mentions that fear and hate are different, and fear is ideal.
I believe.

jbchillin:
For the last paper in my English class we have to write a paper on whether a leader should be feared or loved. The paper is based off the writings of Machiavelli. I was just wondering what you people think. I already have my paper mostly finished and i was just wondering what others thought so i'm not actually using this for my paper its just a question.

A leader should lead. People should not be lead by him because they love him, but because they love what he'll do for their country(or gang or tribe or other body of people)

Even then, having a single "leader" figure for a modern nation is a bit loaded, because it often leads to bad things.

Jamboxdotcom:
The Prince was basically a huge piss-take on Macchiavelli's part. All his other writings take almost a completely opposite position of what he was saying there. Macchiavelli was the original Stephen Colbert.

It was a grovelling exercise written right after the ruling family that he helped replace took power again - hence the boot-licking intro.
Much of what he says is repeated in later essays, with a veneer of morality added.
Also a lot of his points are very valid, e.g. Pistoja and the problem of surrendering too much ground to other factions. Consider also the lengthy and utterly un-funny discourse on the way to choose the best soldiers.

How about we say both, but change "fear" out for "respect?"

Should include either respect or other in this poll. A leader should NEVER be loved, nor hated. A leader should be respected (our prime minister is as far away from that as possible).

"I say... is too much to ask for both? that's how dad did it, that's how America does it... and it's worked out pretty well so far..."

feared is a short term solution, but loved is a long term solution. being feared might last you five or ten years before people revolt and kill you, but being loved is damn near impossible to achieve, and often times people don't love you until you've already done something, so in the beggining people still hate you.

Lilani:
change "fear" out for "respect?"

This. A leader who is feared will only be followed out of a fear of punishment. A leader who is respected will be followed because his people know he'll do what's best for them, even if they don't see it at the time. No leader should be feared, except maybe by the enemies of the people he's leading, all good leaders should be respected, especially by those who follow them, and while it's highly recommended that they be loved, it's not necessary.

loved

when you have their love, you have their respect, when you hold respect, you hold unity, and unity dominates as a nation.

america. fuck yeah.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked