Let's face it Humans are terrible leaders of countries, they promise , yet lie. They initialy get into politics to do good, but special interest groups, friends, and lobbyist get the better of them. They honestly think they can fix the worlds problems, but only manage to make them worse.
So, what country should experiment , by having a non-human ruler ? And what should it be ?
2007-05-07 20:24:56 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Don't we already have them,or do they just behave that way (robots,chimps,)
2007-05-07 21:24:45 · answer #1 · answered by ROBERT P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps not an non-human ruler but a ruler check and balance counterpart, like the kings of Sparta, (a city state of Greece).
There were two kings of Sparta, and each provided a check on each other, moreover they were not allowed to much familiarity with each other to prevent them from getting together and scheming amongst themselves.
Perhaps this option could be combined with the practice of automatically arresting the king after his term (1 year) and putting him on trial. If his rule made things better in the good times or helped the country through the hard times with not much loss then he was free to be elected again, if not he was either imprisoned or executed.
I believe this may be a better option considering the fact that a computer is in truth just an input output machine, it can be programmed to learn and adapt true but at the end of the day someone has to program it, who do we trust to program it if we do not trust the leaders we have now?
Hope this helps.
2007-05-08 04:07:11 · answer #2 · answered by Arthur N 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The root of the problem is the loss of morals in society.... the rulers, no matter whoever, merely reflect the fault in the society more powerfully.
2007-05-08 04:32:33 · answer #3 · answered by small 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe the problem is with having ONE and basically uncontroled leader, whether he is human or not.
2007-05-08 13:38:05 · answer #4 · answered by dimitris k 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋