Some times it makes me wonder what made the medieval Raja's/ Kings exert power over the people. Or let me rephrase it what made the people to not revolt against the Kings.
Some possible (maybe incorrect) reasons on how to be a sucessfull King:
- Kings must try to prove itself to be superior and better than the rest, or again let me take the liberty of rephrasing: To be King, it must somehow repress its own people, below its own level. The means to do so may range from religious doctrines to utter violence.
-
It must try to prove that it has authority, qualification or Work of God (or something similar) and most of the other people are not worth/ cannot be trusted and must be managed.
-
It must prevent, by any means, other people from challenging its authority by making social, religious and legal laws/ rules and create entry barriers or other deterrences. And must teach people how to obey authority. Must call its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime [Max Stirne].
Isn't this the way our society still works!
In the words of Max Stirner, "the great are great only because we are on our knees."
As per dilbert's doctrine, The word King is replaceable with lesser kings: the Industrialist/ Manager/ Boss/ CEO/ State Heads/ Babu/ Elite or any other word that has some power associated with it.
What if we all can stand Independently on the same and EQUAL ground, will it make the Kings quit India! Maybe, but isn't democracy the way, maybe but still a partial and incomplete solution, and a work_in_progress.
BTW I hope I am not confusing between the Manager and the Mentor.
![[I am an FSF Associate Member]](files/fsfmember.png "[I am an FSF Associate Member]"){kind=small}