The Role of a Leader

[KarlXII]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[PBI]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

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.

[KarlXII]

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.

So it's more of a:

"Help that man took my purse!"

*Bodyguard starts off*

"NOT SO FAST!"

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So it's more of a:

"Help that man took my purse!"

*Bodyguard starts off*

"NOT SO FAST!"

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?

[KarlXII]

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?

Not everyone can afford a bodyguard.

And if you're a superpower, you don't need protection.

"**** you, get your own!"

[Sarmatian]

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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 am speaking in this case about a democratically elected leader, yes.

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.

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.

[CrossLOPER]

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.

That sounds like having to do more with military aid.

[Ronin]

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.

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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...