<tino72> Hm! This is interesting. I was thinking of Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain). I've done a quick google search, and it appears that both said it. I wondered if this was due to some freak historical mistake, where the fact that they're both named "Samuel" led to some sort of confusion over the years.

Laws are defined by statute and then imposed from above. An excellent example of this is the current European convention on human rights, which is a bit off my patch but regarded by some people as deeply flawed and not properly thought out.

Traditionally, in the British model (which crossed the ocean to America)the judiciary was almost completely independant of the government and the common law was almost a process of discovery with the verdicts of juries helping to shape the law. Thus the law flows from the people to the legislature rather than from the legislature to the people.

It might be jingoism but I prefer the British model to the Napoleonic code, it is more flexible in this regard.

The British position was best summarised by Lord Grenville in a letter to the French ambassador on 31st December 1792 ( before the rise of Napoleon ):-

"England will never consent that France shall arrogate the power of annulling at her pleasure, and under the pretence of a pretended natural right, of which she makes herself the only judge, the political system, established by solemn treaties, and guaranteed by the consent of all the powers. This government, adhering to the maxims which it has followed for more than a century, will also never see with indifference that France shall make herself, either directly or indirectly, soverign of the Low countries , or general arbiter of the rights and liberties of Europe. If France is really desirous of maintaining friendship and peace with England she must show herself disposed to renounce her views of aggression and aggrandisement and to confine herself within her own territory, without insulting other governments, without disturbing their tranquility, without violating their rights."

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

Basically it says respect international boundries.

However, things got rather out of hand, and an ambitious young Scottish gentleman - Boswell, I think - was taken in entirely.

Drudge/Johnson was finally debriefed by Mason during his famous trip to Scotland, at a secret meeting in an Inn on the Borders. Mason was peeved that Johnson had revealed his secret identity in a throwaway line in his dictionary, "a harmless Drudge", and refused to continue payment.

In my humble opinion, however, an enlightened ruler is far better than the mob rule of democracy. I just don't think "the people" are generally smart enough to govern themselves. I suppose some people may take issue with this characterization, but there are plenty of examples to support my claim (insert your own complaints about manipulative/corrupt politicians here).

After all, Margaret Thatcher, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Hitler were all elected (to be fair, Hitler's power grab after the death of Hindenberg was not really decided by election, although his chancellorship was- nonetheless, he did enjoy 90% support for his ascension).

And anyway, I'm not as concerned about corruption so much as ineptitude. I think most people would agree, for instance, that Hitler was a pretty despicable leader. However, even as Germany was losing WW2, and even as his government was in dire need of capital, Hitler refused to tap into funds secured for social programs for the German people. According to some criteria, one could even claim he was an "honest" leader- a pretty lame claim, unless one ignores the massive humanitarian disaster, for which he was responsible.

Therefore, it is perhaps better to have somewhat corrupt leaders that lead well, rather than honest leaders that lead poorly.

To take one of your given examples, I quote from Wikipedia's article on Peter The Great:

"All of Peter's male children had died—the eldest son, Alexei, had been tortured and killed on Peter's orders in 1718 because he had disobeyed his father and opposed official policies."

I detect a certain lack of benevolence in there somewhere.

Your example is not so much the result of poor government as it is a symptom of the epoch. Rome was a democracy (at least at first), and the ancient Romans still owned slaves and subjugated foreign lands. True, this remained the case when Rome became an empire, but the point is that these things don't hinge on the system of government, but the era during which the government ruled. I would argue that Rome was better off under "benevolent dictators" like Marcus Aurelius than it was during the Republic. Of course, one may argue that it wasn't so well off during the reigns of Nero and Calligula, and so much is true, which is why I'm generally opposed to dictatorship. However, in the rare event that a nation finds itself led by a wise and enlightened ruler, this is generally better than mob rule.

To directly address your example, I would say that Russia under Peter was a considerably better nation (at least relative to the rest of the world) than it is under the current democracy- which is anyway sliding back into a dictatorship, under a not-so-benevolent (and not-so-enlightened) Putin regime. The point, however, is that, despite a few exceptional incidents, progress and the welfare of a nation may be radically improved under the leadership of a thoughtful, organized, all-powerful ruler.

<in the rare event that a nation finds itself led by a wise and enlightened ruler, this is generally better than mob rule.> Agreed.

<To directly address your example, I would say that Russia under Peter was a considerably better nation (at least relative to the rest of the world) than it is under the current democracy> I do not know enough about world history to possibly agree or disagree with you, except to ask a question: is Russia's world standing now as opposed to then at all relevant in assessing the comparative merits of its historic and present political systems? I am extremely sceptical of this comparison. However, as I said, I am too ignorant to argue much either way.

You make interesting points, but at the end of the day I do not share your implicit view that the ends can justify the means.

And how often do the public get to influence government decisions? Only at election time? How crude, in the self-proclaimed information age.

Funny, isn't it, how none of the aforementioned systems - from democracy to despotism, enlightened or otherwise - tends to produce leaders who are also philosophers, poets, or even well-rounded pragmatic altruists?

Which suggests - to me, at any rate - that all leader-selection systems select people who enjoy the exercise of power. They don't even need to be corrupted by it: the rot is implicit in their desire to take charge.