MichaelFarker

How does a government that is firmly in control enjoy a greater opportunity to rule fairly?

I've wondered for over a decade why many consider this to be true, ever since I discussed it in a history class. It feels reasonable but I'm having a hard time formulating support for it.

I'm thinking about it tonight because of a passage I just read:
"The soldiers were there ... to remind the huge crowd ... Axum rules by the spear, when all is said and done. ... The crowd [felt] no resentment ... That rulers will rule, was a given. That being so, best to have a strong rule, and a firm one. That makes possible—possible—a fair rule as well." (Drake, Flint Fortune's Stroke)

dksuddeth

fairness of rule lies solely on the ruler, not the firmness of said ruler.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Mr Honest

First rule of understanding politics:

There are classes in societies, these classes of people have conflicting interests so all that you read may not be true and may be words of an enemy.
Because they are the words representing a particular class interest.

I've never heard of this quote before or statement.
Let's analyse:
So the soldiers represent and remind the masses of the power of the state.
Ok, in whose interest is the state working?
The masses accept this and can't see an alternative at this time.

This being so, 'best to have a strong rule and this makes possible a fair rule as well. ' This is a nonsense summary.
The person means they want military rule and this makes possible a fair rule.
It also makes possible an unfair rule, a dicatorship, massacres. It makes possible anything against the masses.

I see the statement is basically saying a government that rules by law, backed by the power of the armed forces can implement rule better than one that doesn't have armed support of the state. The idea that this is fair is obviously stupid. Fair for whom? Fair for which class? Fair for all?

I guess they are saying the choice is military authoritarian rule or anarchy.

__________________
Human beings : who could ever claim to like them all?

powerclown

Depends upon the style of leadership, I would say.

If a government retains power through force and brutality, the masses are kept down by violence, and typically have few if any civil rights.
If a government retains power through a democratic system of laws, the masses are voluntarily consenting to be ruled through representation of their interests.

MichaelFarker

Thank you for your insight.

To clarify, by firm rule I am thinking of both stability and security. This does not usually mean using soldiers against your own people.
If everyone is afraid of attacking your country and there is no threat of civil war, your rule is more firm.
On the other hand, secret warrants and secret trials might be part of a firm rule too.

As for fairness, do the rich and poor have equal standing before the law? Are they taxed in an equitable way? Do equally capable and connected people have equal opportunity? As powerclown suggests, civil rights are a significant part of this.

And powerclown I almost agree that the style of leadership is a key factor. I would rather say the legitimacy of the leadership, which seems similar to what you are saying. I do not know if the form of government is important, whether it is a democracy or established monarchy for example.

dksuddeth, I agree that the fairness of the rule depends on the character of the ruler. I feel that some circumstances must by nature limit the options of a ruler though. In the US circumstances and public opinion may have more effect than character since decisions are made by compromise. If we could somehow find enough people of unshakable character to fill all the roles of our government they still might be swayed by the wishes of those who elected them.

florida0214

I believe the onyl way to rule fairly is to be consistant. if you are consistant 100% of the time you have your standards and you stick to them nobody can ever accuse you of being unfair. Will this ever happen? Unlikely but one can hope so. Considering we change leadership and direction at least every 8 Years sometime sooner. Yes we have a constitution but it is up for interpretation. Thus the the supreme court. I theory Communism is a whole form is the only truly far way to build a country and rule it. however as Cuba and Russia have proven that its can never be used because there is one glithc in the problem. HUMANS. We are inherintly greedy and want more. thus you end up with the 80-20 effect. 80% of the wealth ends up in 20% of the population. Not so fair is it.
As far as Firm goes same thing. We have ou standards of crime punishment and you break it you pay the penalty. Thats the problem one guy can murder somebody and serve a life sentence and one guy can murder somebody and get the death penalty. there is no consistancy. Maybe that is why so many people die every year. Who knows.