Talk:Rule of man

so where is the added reasearch
an editor at the AFD researched the term, but no references have been added. what up with that?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * added some links from the afd. it appears mostly alongside rule of law, so i think this content should be merged there.76.245.45.179 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Governing Ethics: Rule of Law vs. Rule of Man
An alternate view of the underlying philosophy of the (more progressive in current times) political and legal concept called the 'Rule of Man' is briefly outlined here.

Earlier in the 'Rule of Law' wiki; it was described primarily as being a type of tyrannical governing and legal role wherein the absolute ruler is the 'Sovereign'; whose role is only to live out his or her arbitrary rules, regardless of the opinions of any other residents in the Sovereign's territory. Reason holds that this would open the portal to a dictatorship or tyranny wherein the population living within the Sovereign's territory is made miserable (or worse) by their governor's subjective-perhaps even erratic or unreasonable leadership...which could all too easily-if the Sovereign in question lacked a moral compass or normal human compassion-become an oppressive despotism. This may be one of the ways to describe the 'Rule of Man' but in its more archaic use.

"Currently; the 'Rule of Man' is more thought of as being similar to the substantive form of the 'Rule of Law'; in that it is a governing construction meant to even the playing field so that both the populace and the leaders in a society are held to the same moral and ethical standard of behavior. But in the modern ideas the 'Natural Law' or 'Rule of Man', is constructed much more specifically to protect any and all individuals' rights legally by saying (basically) that each member of the population in this type of society is their own Sovereign. It agrees with the 'Rule of Law' in that it protects an individual's rights so that each person is treated with all the special consideration of his or her personal story and circumstances, attitude, aptitude; etc. rather than pre-treated in a legal 'cookie-cutter' fashion...wherein every defendant brought up on legal charges to governing authorities is held to the same exact type of accountability as every other person who was or will be convicted of said charges; regardless of any underlying and/or non-criminal-related mind-set, lengthy time of reformation; closeted behavioral problems causing the offensive behavior to be enacted by the defendant against their conscious will, et. al."

In a perfect world, each member of any community would not only be their own Sovereign (meaning they themselves decide what laws or rules they shall submit to in their everyday lives, and what the consequences will be to them and/or others if they do not obey their own rules) but is also never able to be the Sovereign of another person. In this scenario; tyranny or oppression through a Sovereign governance would not be possible, because each person in the society is their own Sovereign and therefore would not need/want/seek/or accept another person to have and/or exert such an invasive level of control over them. For instance; giving another person total control over your life is potentially very dangerous to your person, since the other person you've made your Sovereign may or may not have your best interests at heart; which is still undesirable being that only you know what those interests really are. Worse, this other Sovereign could even have a more nefarious agenda for your total compliance to them.

Almost any person in their right mind, if given the choice about who they really want and need to be the Sovereign authority over them, their person, and their daily lives; would (as an adult, anyway) probably choose themselves for such a totalitarian governing role. The newer thoughts about personal Sovereignty vs. the Rule of Law is that in this enlightened day and age; most people who are not born sociopaths already have a fairly decent built-in moral compass. Everybody these days pretty much knows right from wrong. If more serious ideation and even testing were to be done regarding this subject from an anthropological and social point of view; it is more reasonable to predict positive results from self-governing.

There is no logical and/or good reason to assume we can't govern ourselves decently. It's kind of like saying that people are just such Neanderthals they can't be trusted not to go on hourly killing and raping rampages; unless intimidating men are standing around in an authoritarian costume and wielding fully loaded deadly weapons--with the governments' permission to use violence, force and even lethal force if they decide to; peering at the rest of the locals with narrow-eyed suspicion, hand resting on pistol; at the alert for the first sign of anarchy.