Amazon.com Widgets

Should the strongest and smartest rule over the weak?

Asked by: TrayPound
  • We will rule them with an iron mouse

    I am in an accelerated class and in the middle of it. People in normal classes are only just learning what we learned a month ago. If we rule them they will be just the same but we could be the kings and queens of our parents. Believe me if they aren't smart enough we will rule.

  • The strong and smart should rule the weak and dumb.

    Why would you want the dumb and the weak to rule you? You are worthless and weak! You should be ruled! Let the strong and the smart rule the world and reap the rewards! When the aliens come down and invade our planet, then let the strongest survive! If the aliens win then you will survive too, just don't let your brains get sucked out of your skull!

  • Of course they should.

    The powerful, smartest and strongest already do rule over the weak in a sense. Natural Selection applies to this also, out with the trash and the strong stay in the race. It promotes dedication to be a hard working individual. With our system we have today, we support fat and lazy individuals who are nothing but leeches hanging off of societies ass. Who demand to have their butts wiped and sue at the flick of a wrist. These people also like to hide behind rights. Rights should be earned through intelligence or strength.

  • I say yes

    Even though I am christian, this has nothing to do with religion! It more has an effect on what you think and where you are in life. But, if you let smart people take the chances that weaker people don't have a risk to take they always make sure that people know what they want before the people that are smart say it. The weaker people still have a choice to make for there to be a better world.

  • Elitism is more logical

    People who have been taught politics and economics should rule because they have a better understanding of how to do so well. True democracy allows voters to do what is in their personal interests but not necessarily in the interests of the state. One wouldn't expect to be allowed to operate on a person without medical training; why should one expect to be allowed to govern without political and economic training?

  • A Strong Hand Is Always Needed

    The fittest will always survive and thrive - there will always be the leaders, the inventors and the thinkers which naturally rise to the top, just as there will always be the slackers, degenerates and listless fools who sink to the bottom.

    The weak - drug addicts, perpetual losers, uneducated fools who rule by personal opinion and emotion rather than clearly stated facts and logic.

    The strong - smart, educated, knowledgeable in economics, politics and adaptation.

    The strong will always rule over the weak, as they should! The strongest members of society will naturally rise to the top, the weak-minded will always sink.

    Ideally we would create a Meritocracy - The smarter and more qualified you are, the more responsibility in society you hold. In war the soldier who proves themselves valuable are subject to a field promotion based on demonstration of their talents - the same should apply to society.

  • Yes but all work together

    The people who are smart should not nessecerialy rule over the 'Weak,' meaning less capable of perfomring physically demanding tasks. The strong should obviuosly be in charge as those who are not capable would not do a good job in running things. Karl Marxs evaluation of society in the 1800's spoke about the Bourgeiouse, who are those at the top of the chain, and the fact that they cant live without the proleteriats, in this case those at the bottom. Therefore the strongest and smartest should rule things, such as jobs, countries and societies but should work in unison with those lower down.

  • If the leaders are kept in line.

    Winston Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" and he was right. We love the idea of "we the people" but really, most people don't have a clue what's right for the country because most people, including myself, rely on our emotions instead of fact, or we get ideas that aren't based in reality.

    Most people don't think a big change is good until after it happens and then they see the benefits.

  • No, not as long as we are still a Christian people.

    Our culture broadly known as Christendom is where we get this idea that the weak should be treated and respected as equals. We derive it from the Bible. Societies that have eschewed their Christian heritage such as Nazi Germany also eschewed their compassion for weaker people. Hitler said it was one of the reasons he hated Christianity.

  • The individual knows his problem best

    One person ruling over another violates individual rights, so the priority must be with the individual making his own decisions. There is a practical reason as well. "Smart people" can only deal with generalities. The best a rule can be is for it to work for some of the population. For example, in general it's good to go to college. But for a particular individual the rule can be completely wrong. A pro athlete has a money-making career only when he is young. Sometimes that meshes with going to college, sometimes not. Only the individual can make a correct decision in his particular circumstance, not a distant "smart" bureaucrat applying the smart rules. A person may not know much, but he is riveted on his own circumstances and knows far more than the smart ruler. The decisions he makes for himself are better. Individuals certainly make wrong decisions, but their odds are better.

  • You don't need to be very strong to pull a trigger

    Time and time again the strong rule the weak and within the strong there's greed and the strong begin to out-strong the strong until there is chaos and the weak in their larger numbers come back to rule. And the cycle continues. It is not so much a matter of weak versus strong but merely a different strategy of survival...

  • No! Not really

    I think some people who think they are the strong do it to satisfy there mental state. This makes the life of weak people so miserable as i have seen in some cases. Just to satisfy their ego they need someone whom they can state as weak and overpower them.

  • Yes but all work together

    The people who are smart should not nessecerialy rule over the 'Weak,' meaning less capable of perfomring physically demanding tasks. The strong should obviuosly be in charge as those who are not capable would not do a good job in running things. Karl Marxs evaluation of society in the 1800's spoke about the Bourgeiouse, who are those at the top of the chain, and the fact that they cant live without the proleteriats, in this case those at the bottom. Therefore the strongest and smartest should rule things, such as jobs, countries and societies but should work in unison with those lower down.

  • The strong and weak is subjective

    The education we give to future smart people can end up as nothing but to put them on a path of political gain to be groomed to follow the agenda of those in current power rather than give a chance to others that specialize in other areas. Also the strong are usually people that built connections towards current powerful leaders but are not necessarily smarter than others.

  • Not rule over

    The wording of the question is what gets me. I don't think anybody should rule over anybody. That being said, should the smartest be in charge? Of course! We do not want idiots in charge. The smart should lead and rule in the name of the dumb, not rule over them.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
jaksunmadness says2014-08-07T07:33:02.440
Who people think is smarter or stronger is subjective