Printable View
What, out of the above options, do you think is the primary area that a leader/government of a nation has a responsibility to?
I believe that the primary responsibility of the leader is looking after the nation. We voted for him, or at least are ruled by him, and he therefore should viciously look after our best interests. If those interests are also good for the rest of the world, very well. If not, too bad - vote in your own leader that will make things better for you.
We need a "Both" option. I believe a government's responsibility is to govern it's people, but also to maintain and protect interests throughout the world.
That's why I said primary responsibility - I intentionally left out a "Both" option. Is the first duty of a government to the people it governs or to the wider world? Also, maintaining and protecting interests, in the sense I see it (feel free to correct me if you meant something else), are generally done for the country, not for the wider world. The question isn't who the government should govern, but who it should look after more.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
The primary responsibility of a democratic government is to do whatever the people elected it to do.
If that is to ruthlessly and cold-heartedly look after the national interest to the exclusion of all else, so be it, but not very many successful parties stand on such a platform. If the people have voted for a government which promises to do the right thing for the whole world rather than just the nation itself, however, and that government proceeds to expand the GDP by, say, waging aggressive war for territorial expansion or control of resources, then that government has failed in its duty.
Also, there is the small matter that because the electorate are ultimately responsible for electing the government, if the government commits despicable acts abroad, it is causing the electorate to have blood on its hands.
The choice is not as stark as the one you have presented. A firm and unequivocal "Gah!" from me.
When you are walking on the street, to what standard do you hold yourself:
- I treat other people with dignity and respect
- It's me, myself and I. Don't like me smoking in the metro? Too bad. Go sit somewhere else. Don't like the noise from my ghettoblaster? Go .... yourself.
If one thinks the first standard is appropriate public behaviour, even for a two-bit street punk, then shouldn't this certainly be the standard for a leader?
In other words, no, a fuhrer - oops: leader - who only looks viciously after my own country's interest is well below my standard of appropriate behaviour. :toff:
Not a good comparison. A better one is if you hire someone as a bodyguard - does he protect everyone on the street, or just you, like he was hired to? If his primary duty isn't to me, I fire him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
So it's more of a:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
"Help that man took my purse!"
*Bodyguard starts off*
"NOT SO FAST!"
That sounds like having to do more with military aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Where is her bodyguard? It's her own responsibility to hire one, is it not? And if not, why should I allow my bodyguard to help her when he already has his hands full protecting me?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Not everyone can afford a bodyguard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And if you're a superpower, you don't need protection.
"**** you, get your own!"
That's not the point of the bodyguard example. This is specifically about primary duty. In this case primary duty of the bodyguard is to protect the person who hired him. If there is a shooting who should bodyguard get into safety first - his employer or the other guy in the crowd. Personally, if I had a bodyguard, I wouldn't mind having him stop a purse stealer if he is in range, but that's beside the point.
To the original question, I'm not sure I like the idea or concept of a "leader". Maybe some bad experience from near past, who knows. But I guess in this sense leader means democratically elected representative of the people, correct me if I'm wrong EMFM.
I guess leaders are supposed to look first after the people who put them in power, but even that has limits, at least for me. To make a very blunt example, maybe it is in the best interest of Serbia would be to attack Montenegro and annex it, but I wouldn't support a move like that or a leader who would make it.
Its a bit of a loaded question, for example lets assume global warming is happening and is caused by carbon fuels, for a british pm leading primarily for britian would not bother to help stop global warming as all the other countries could do enough to counteract it whilst britian could pollute freely...
So to be honest even though Britian is a fairly small player on the internation scene im voting the primary responsibility as to humanity and to the world as a whole...
To the world and humanity. In the long term, I believe goodwill will profit the nation(as well as everyone else) a lot more than throwing stones at your neighbor. A win-win.
Oh, and Louis said it perfectly.
I seem to be agreeing with you a lot lately, Louis...
I am speaking in this case about a democratically elected leader, yes. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It's not about that. It's more about if you have citizens of your nation starving and a nation in Africa also has people starving - who do you help first? Let's presume, for the sake of debate, that the countries have an equal amount of equally hungry people.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The best argument in favour of a leader primarily thinking worldwide is we would all end up alot better off, instead of each protecting thier own and only bringing everyone down, argicultural subsidies is a great example of this i think...
I say "to the people it govers directly".
The poll doesn't distinguish between 51% for the citizens of the country and 99 percent for the citizens of the country though...
It doesn't matter. Is your primary responsibility as a leader to look out for the citizens of your country or for the rest of the world? You're not any less of a citizen if you're part of the 49% who didn't vote for this specific leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
That's not the question. There's a distinct difference between spending say, 51% of the gdp on your own country and spending 99%. And really, talking just about foreign aid, the argument usually comes down to 97.2043 percent versus 97.2042 percent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
There is a distinct difference, but who receives the first share of the GDP, regardless of how much it is? The people of the country, or the rest of the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
None of the above.
The primary responsibility of a government is to the LORD God.
This also serves the world and humanity as a whole, and the people of the nation, but it requires to do the exact opposite of what they want (other than the few who are legitimately born again spiritually, for whom it would be what they want). Since the sin nature of all mankind makes it inherently evil by default, thus, the majority will always naturally choose evil options given the choice. A responsible government would realize this, and thus, ignore and do the opposite of 'the will of the people' at any & every time it is contrary to the LORD God's Will.
So your exemplar would be the Pope or Ahmedinejad? (Yes, I know they have different gods, but I understand that's a mere technicality).Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Anyway, you'll be EMFM's favourite contributor now, making his case for the Divine Right of Kings. :2thumbsup:
Well, certainly not the Pope. I have got in trouble on this site before for articulating 'my thoughts' about the Pope so I guess I can't repeat them as frankly & honestly for the sake of this post. But he definitely doesn't fit into what I was talking about in my previous post at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Your post is bringing up a sticky area. Some people in authority pay lip service to God's Will, but don't actually believe it or obey it. Persons such as this are not qualified for doing, and do not even do with the limited power they have now, what my previous post entails.
I do respect Ahmadinejad. He seems to have a sincere belief in doing God's Will that he never compromises, no matter how unpopular that makes him amongst certain groups of people. That's the way to do it. I used to have an amazing quote from him in my sig on this site that I figured I'd better remove when the "no politics in sigs" rule came into place (I voted against that [very bad IMO] rule because I knew it would needlessly sabotage my amazing sig :furious3:).
It was:
"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" :2thumbsup:
Why can't it do both?
to its people.
Was that in reference to the female British sailor (and some others) they briefly captured?Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
The people it governs directly are not the primary but the only responsibility. Sometimes it involves others.
I really can't say anything about hypothetical starvation issues... I'll answer based on what I want for my own country, and there are very few people starving here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
His primary duty is to your protection...but...in the execution of his primary duty he has no right to disregard and endanger everybody else on the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
IMO it is the duty of a government to serve humanity as a whole. Especially in the developed world, where governments should respect the fact that by making a little sacrifice in terms of their own nation, they can make a huge difference to countries in the developing world.
On the whole, if all countries serve humanity then all humanity will benefit much more than if each suited itself. If some countries suit themselves, then they are only isolating themselves, unless they have for example a monopoly on important resources, then you have a problem.
I'd say that the richer a country gets, the less it should care about "their own". The Norwegian population is doing just fine, we don't really need much help. However, your average Joe African living in a mud hut and eating dirt does...Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr