LibriumArcana.Games

So while not doing my job at work today, I was dreaming up a dialog between the imaginary emperor Lord Adam (who is way awesomer than me) and a couple random college students.

Well, the students simply walked up to him and started speaking, as if the Lord was nothing more than a regular person. One of them asked him why he didn't have any Royal Guardsmen around. The noble Lord responds saying that he wouldn't want people sacrificing their lives just for him.

But then one of the students objected, saying "Isn't that a little selfish? I mean there are billions of people who depend on you to lead them every day, especially in these times of War. Asking these brave soldiers to protect you and having you stay out of harms way is for the overall good of the Empire. You have no right to risk the stability of the Nation simply because you don't want to see someone hurt."

[As an aside: I really enjoy the imaginary dialog as a tool to investigate ethical questions. Having two intellectuals talking, even if it is just in my head, is a lot of fun and often reveals sides to the arguement I wouldn't have thought of if I didn't have an 'opponent'.]

Anyhow, how do you feel about this situation? Is it selfish for a leader to risk himself to protect his subordinates? Is a general fighting alongside his men on the lines ethically wrong?

This is just my personal opinion, so don't get all huffy if you don't like it.

I think once a person has atainded that kind of rank, they shouldn't be fighting on the front. They can save lives and win battles by directing the forces from on high. However, I don't think anyone should BE in that kind of rank without having first worked their way up the ladder from the very bottom.

It very honestly depends. Certain socal sturctures are depenent upon leaders fighting from the front lines. Others are not.

For example Fuedalism demands in most cases that the elites of their soceity fight the battles, that's what they are there for. In a Representive Democracy, there would be no gain for having our government leaders in the trenches. In fact it would reduce our chances of actually winning the conflict in question.

Has for Lord Adam and the college students, has a monarch he serves has a living symbol for his government, people and society. There is no society that does not develop enemies. By leaving himself open he gives whatever enemies his nation may have a open target that can cause demoralizing damage and instablity if they suceed. It is a gambit that I personnally would undertake if locked in struggle with the nation in question. Even the fuedal lords went to battle surrounded by well equipped and capable men to reduce the risk they faced. To do otherwise is foolish and plays dice with his nation and his rule and he should consider that his sucessor may not has good or capable has him.

Lead from the front. Nobody's irreplaceable.

Petrosjko wrote:Lead from the front. Nobody's irreplaceable.

I'd say that's a flawed statement, since it assumes all people are equal or lack individual uniqueness.

I think in this modern age, it's unrealistic to expect leaders to fight on the frontline. Mass distribution of certain and unavoidable death is too cheap and plentiful now.

I do, however, think that no leader has the right to order others into fighting without having first been there themselves.

--The Elder Dan

Destructionator XV wrote:Anyhow, how do you feel about this situation? Is it selfish for a leader to risk himself to protect his subordinates? Is a general fighting alongside his men on the lines ethically wrong?

My take:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; the good of the nation is more important than the ruler himself. When making decisions, what is best for the nation as a whole needs to be considered.

But if the nation is dependent on this leader and would be crippled without him, then it is in the nation's best interest to make sure the leader survives. I wouldn't say it's selfish of him to value the lives of his subordinates more than he values his own; he just needs to consider that if they value him so much, he should allow those who are willing to protect him. If he's truly a good leader, his followers would gladly give their own lives for him. Risking his life foolishly wouldn't accomplish much.

If Lord Adam didn't have any Royal Guardsmen around, he probably means to demonstrate that he's a "leader of the people" sort of thing, that he belongs to them and trusts them enough to not need guards. While the gesture may serve to boost morale, it also provides an opportunity for his enemies to assassinate him. Is the risk worth the boost in morale? He would need to consider the consequences if he were killed and weigh them against the benefits of boosted morale. I don't think this action would be "selfish" in this situation, but perhaps simply not wise.

But I'm sure Lord Adam is enlightened enough and has considered everything anyway. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a ruler respected and needed enough to have this situation arise in the first place.

Robert Walper wrote:

Petrosjko wrote:Lead from the front. Nobody's irreplaceable.

I'd say that's a flawed statement, since it assumes all people are equal or lack individual uniqueness.

Never said that all people were created equal, but there's not a soul on this planet that can't be replaced. That's why we have vice presidents, for example.

Petrosjko wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:

Petrosjko wrote:Lead from the front. Nobody's irreplaceable.

I'd say that's a flawed statement, since it assumes all people are equal or lack individual uniqueness.

Never said that all people were created equal, but there's not a soul on this planet that can't be replaced. That's why we have vice presidents, for example.

Yes, but we don't have VP's for the fact that "oh well, if he dies we're covered." We have VP's for the "oh shit, we are totally fucked. wait, no, we're only partially fucked, we have a VP." If the VP was as competant as the leader, he would BE the leader, not second fiddle.

>If the VP was as competant as the leader, he would BE the leader, not
> second fiddle.

In the US, at least, who gets to be president and who gets to be VP has very little to do with competence as a leader, and everything to do with who has the connections and is owed the favors by enough powerful people to build a powerbase that will win votes.

The federal government is *not* a meritocracy.

--The Elder Dan

I have to point out that it's not about replaceablity. Indeed the current system of the United States with a two term limit for the office of Presidentcy strongly supports the view that any leader can and will be replaced. But that's not the issue, the issue is what is best for the soceity. In this case I would have to point out that having our President on the front lines does not offer us any real benfits but does offer us alot of risk. After all how is he suppose to run the government from a battlefield?

The troops would not benifit from having to haul and protect around a pack of old men in such an enviroment and would not thank us for dropping such a responbility on them, contary to the fantasies of certain overweight film makers. They simplily would not be of any aide in winning the war on the battlefield and they certainly would not be able to carry out their duties while fighting. God knows many of them are barely able or willing to carry out their duties has things are now.

This is not to say that the leaders of a nation are not valid targets in time of war (although let's be nice and keep that for a seperate thread). It is just to state that placing themselves in direct danger is not the the best thing they can do for their soceitie, unless they're incompentent idiots in which case it would be best if they all just jumped from a cliff rather than pulling their nation down with them, but again a seperate thread.

Lead from the front? Hell, no. If I'm general, there's a reason I'm general, and that's because I'm the best at what I do. I'm not irreplaceable, but pretty damn close.

I don't think it's selfish - it's well-meaning, and it can be made more general as a statement about the nation - Lord Adam doesn't wish to see his people harmed while he benefits. But however well-meaning and capable as a ruler Lord Adam is, it's just foolishness to not have security, as there will always be someone who is willing to try and kill the guy.

Even still, the ability of two college students to walk up to him and talk with him shows something good about him and the country in general.

I'm not arguing for hauling geezers around the battlefield, don't get me wrong.

But take a prime example of why no leadership should be considered indispensable: when Daschle got an anthrax letter, those congressional pussies couldn't wait to run the fuck out of DC.

At the same time they were setting up for military action in Afghanistan.

Fuck that shit. If you take the job, you assume the risks.

That you, Keev?

Petro I think that's a bit to the side. No one has yet claimed that our current Congress is a paragon of virtue.

frigidmagi wrote:Petro I think that's a bit to the side. No one has yet claimed that our current Congress is a paragon of virtue.

Never have been.

But my point is that assumption of positions of leadership carries with it risk. While security measures are prudent, the core concept should be held that the overall institution is greater than those who lead it, and that leaders ultimately are interchangeable parts.