It is Better to Rule Through Fear than Through Love

Ruling Through Fear ExclusivelyWhen one rules through fear, and when one makes his subjects fearful of him, he is in greater control than he could be with love. When a leader establishes rules, and follows through with them without exception, he will become feared. If people know that their ruler will punish them without empathy, they are much more likely to stay in line. There are people out there that are extremely selfish, the kind of people who only care about themselves. These kind of people would not be controlled by a ruler who uses love only, because these self-centered people don't care about the ties of affection between them and their ruler, they care only about themselves. Therefore these people will disregard their ruler's wishes. However with a rulership based on fear, the self-centered people will be sure to stay in line, because the will of their leader is not to be trifled with, seeing as it can adversely affect them.I am not saying that ruling through fear exclusively is the best way to go, but it will lend you more control than if you ruled through love exclusively, reasons for which I will get to later.Some people may think that fear and hate are the same thing, these people are wrong. A leader who rules through fear does not have to be a jerk. That is a misconception that is often made but it is not true. When I talk about rulers who rule through fear many people may think of oppressive dictators, who bully and propagandize their people. Those people are mis-using fear as a tool for ruling. The best way to rule through fear is to make laws that are in the best interests of the state, provide reasonable punishments for non-compliance to the rules, and then follow and enforce these laws without exception. Your people will not hate you, because you don't hurt or kill them without good reason, they will merely fear you because they know what the consequences of crossing you are. Even if a ruler fails to separate fear from hatred, he will last far longer than any ruler who relies simply on love to maintain order, as I will now illustrate.Ruling With Love ExclusivelyI've got a gym teacher named Mrs. Jent. I think she's pretty cool, she's very nice to everyone. There is nobody who says she's a b*tch or anything like that. We all like her. However, she never, ever, has backed up anything she's said. She'll threaten to send someone to detention, they won't listen, and she won't follow through. We all know she won't do anything to keep control. There are some people who quiet down when she wants us to quiet down because we want to show her respect.But there's at least a quarter of my class who won't do that. They'll keep doing whatever they want, because they are the self-centered people I mentioned earlier. These people don't give a crap because they know nothing bad will happen to them if they don't comply. This is the problem with ruling exclusively through love. You can't enforce any rules. A rule that holds the promise of punishment is an embodiment of fear, and therefore cannot be utilized by a ruler who rules entirely through fear. That leaves the all love ruler hoping that enough people will feel bound by his affection to them. We all know however, that won't happen.So what does that leave you? In a classroom it just means a very unproductive and rowdy class, but in a country? It means chaos. Therefore a ruler who rules entirely through love will lose control of his state far before a ruler who rules entirely through fear does, because fear implies rules, and the all love has know rules. Thanks for reading.