(August 31, 2014 at 11:25 am)Greatest I am Wrote:(August 30, 2014 at 8:11 pm)Natachan Wrote: No. Because I object to the word "rule." The idea is offensive. People operate in a society through mutual cooperation and earned respect. No one is ever to be inherently superior or subservient to another. Ever. It is only a matter of the respect that a person has earned, and any deference they have as a result of that respect which is earned.
I disagree. Man like s rules and laws and these need a hierarchy to protect and enforce.
Take that hierarchy away and you have chaos as all would do as they like.
Man likes rules and order and shuns chaos and anarchy.
Remember that in spite of our intelligence, most people are in religions and that means that they are followers of rules by nature just as you are.
Regards
DL
The issue I have is how that hierarchy comes about and is maintained. Take our current system. No one is inherently better than another. No one grovels. Everyone is fundamentally equal. Yet we do have laws and rules. They have come about through a mutual cooperation and understanding (ok, I know that's a gross oversimplification). If a person in authority does something wrong they are held just as accountable as anyone else. Authority in a democratic system can be gained or lost by the collective trust we put in a person based on the respect they have earned.
Setting up a system of ruling with a set person or persons at the top who cannot be moved and who are set as infallible or above reproach is revolting. It is just as revolting as the concept of a god. A civilized person does not give to Caesar, he permits no Caesar.
