"Those willful enough to make up the top of society are

>>2465632

THOSE WILLFUL ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE WISEST, OR THE NOBLEST; THE TOP OF SOCIETY" SHOULD BE THE NOBLEST AND WISEST, NOT THE MOST WILLFUL.

>>2465712
>[THE] WILLFUL...

>>2465712
Why? The former only exist because of the latter.

>>2465712
http://www.strawpoll.me/12213586

http://www.strawpoll.me/12213586

http://www.strawpoll.me/12213586

>>2465719

?

THAT IS NONSENSICAL.

>>2465632
The desire to rule over people produces more evil than any other desire on earth.

>>2465729

THAT IS WHY A LEADER SHOULD RULE WITHOUT DESIRE.

>>2465632
seems legit to me

>>2465719
Not really. The most willful people could be evil and have nothing but ill-intentions for the rest of their countrymen/mankind. In this case, noble people rising against them in response to their evil would make what you said true. But both evil and good people can exist want to make positive change on their own, in both peaceful and less peaceful times

File: G7Y2O.jpg (47KB, 610x448px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 610x448px

>>2465729
NOW you're thinking.
Don't fall for the power meme, take the Anarcho-pill.

>>2465632
What does deserving mean? He has sufficient merit for the job? He worked for it so he gets it? Those with the power to rise to the rarely have the interest of those they rule over in mind.

It assumes those who want power over other people deserve it. It's not a matter of will, it's a matter of willingness to be violent.

>>2465632
Absolute power corrupts absoluely

But if you are talking meritocracy, how about you read the creator of word's essay The Rise of Meritocracy. Seriously why do people who have heard of the concept never hear about its creator, Micheal Young and his original criticisms?

>those with enough will to inherit wealth and be born into a dominant social group who already make up the top of society are most deserving to be there