The Role of a Leader

**Sarmatian** · 09-10-2008, 01:56

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** · 09-10-2008, 02:07

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...

**HoreTore** · 09-10-2008, 02:18

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...

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 09-10-2008, 02:33

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

**LittleGrizzly** · 09-10-2008, 02:56

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...

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 09-10-2008, 03:29

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...

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 09-10-2008, 03:36

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 09-10-2008, 03:47

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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.

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 09-10-2008, 03:52

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.

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?

**HoreTore** · 09-10-2008, 11:28

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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.