blah the Prussian

I agree, but what happens if that harm on a global scale does not affect your nation in any way?

So is there anything that it is unacceptable for a leader to do for their nation, other that the obvious?

Assume that the kid could not control her powers, and was a threat to the nation. What should be done?

In regards to Frozen, there was a risk that she would lose control before she could control her powers. Ideally, a ruler is concerned for the welfare of their nation.

Ultimately, though, in this particular case, the effects of Elsa letting it go (pun intended) were far more devastating than the psychological problems. Trade was destroyed, the economy was obliterated, and there is no way no one died. And hell, the regents seemed to be doing a perfectly fine job of running the nation. I myself would have sent her away so there would be no risk of her doing anything to the realm. Ultimately, the whole problem would have been fixed if they had made Anna heir. But here's a different question: what should they have done if some random pea sent girl got the powers?

I understand what you are saying, but they could have just made Anna heir. Also, this thread is more about what responsibility than Frozen.

Okay, so here's a new question: how far must a leader go for the good of their nation? At what point is doing something against the interests of the nation acceptable?

Yeah, but she would have lost control anyway.

So my little sister dragged me to see Frozen. I liked it fine, but there was one aspect that I found I was completely alone on: I thought Elsa's parents did the right thing. Seeing the utter devastation done to Arrendelle, they were only doing what was best for their nation. My opinion stems from my belief that leaders must always do what is best for their nation and people, even if it means directly or indirectly hurting those close to them. So what is more important, or should be more important, to a ruler: family, or their nation?

It's a matter of opinion if living in a totalitarian state is worse than living in an impovershed one.

And that was a half century ago. Society changes.

No, not actually.

Different doesn't mean inferior.

True, Ashoka did many of those things too, but people who did things like that were in the minority, and I don't think that there was anyone who did anything like what Genghis did in the Middle Ages. In addition, far more people were affected by Genghis's reforms due to the great size of the Mongol Empire.

How are understanding and hatred mutually exclusive? I understand the attitude of religious extremists. I still despise them and everything they stand for. Hatred is one of the things that makes us human. Answer me this: If we do not hate the serial killers, tyrants, rapists, and general scum of the Earth, what does that make us? Hatred is just as human as love, and just as harmful to lack as love.

There is this false perception that hatred is bad. We need to have someone to look at and use as an example of what not to be. If we looked at Hitler with anything other than all the hatred and disgust that his actions warrant, we run the risk of forgetting about the Holocaust. Hatred and regret really are the only ethical ways to look at the Holocaust. Also, the ability to hate is one of the things that makes us human. Hatred is just as necessary an emotion as anything. To eliminate hatred is like eliminating love.

Then please, explain slavery, war, and tyranny if people are compassionate. People are first and formost interested in power, and will do anything to get it, compassion be damned.

I am gonna have to agree with Chiki on this. Hatred of Hitler was one of the chief motivators for decolonization.

Equality for women is a bit of a stretch, but he did make the Mongol Empire pretty much the best place in the world to be a woman. Look it up. "That's about it?" The United States of America is still getting around to race equality, and Genghis Khan had it in the Middle Ages. That is kind of a big deal. By any moral system? What about the moral system that said it was okay to torture Jews to death that was practiced across most of Europe? Or the system practiced by the Aztecs where they committed horrific acts of human sacrifice on innocent people? Or the one practiced by Arabia, where women were only good as bartering tools to secure political alliances. About the torture, one of the many complaints about Genghis is that he poured molten metal down the throats of those he captured. The only ones he did that too were the Turks, and that was because they had done the same thing to Mongol soldiers that they captured. While I do not deny that the tactics he used were terrible, his rule was no worse than any other average monarch of the age. In fact, I would say it was better than most. I am not trying to paint Genghis as some heroic messiah, saving humanity from themselves. However, most if not all of the good things he did go unrecognized, and that is unfair.

I didn't mean it that way. Cheney was the real power behind Bush.

The real problem with Bush was Cheney. Cheney was the main reason the Bush years sucked.

Godwin's law! (Jest)

Yeah, that is a moral statement. There isn't evidence for moral statements.

Actually, your almost total reliance on personal attacks says a lot about you.

America did not nearly commit genocide on the natives. We did. Our country is no longer the sole superpower. In fact, we have reached our period of decline. If the E.U. ever gets it's shit together it has the potential to overtake us as the leader of the free world, and China has a stronger army and an economy that is about to be stronger. The fact is, who is right and who is wrong are completely irrelevant. They change nothing. And, since the winners write history, in a sense, might does make right. And yes, I am a cynic.