Security in fear

"The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved."

If you were to choose between being loved or feared, what would it be? This question has been common among democratic and authoritarian countries. It may not be seen instantly but it's embedded into society. Being loved means being free. Being feared means having dominant power over another person.

Silly as it may sound but the latter might hold rationality. If you're feared, you most likely are less to be hurt because people see you as invincible. On the other hand, others may love you but nothing might be certain and permanent. Love, as we know it, transforms in may forms. It is also measurable by some. In other instances, the one who you think loved you the most might be also the one who can hurt and break you.

But, is that set-up fulfilling? Will it be ALWAYS justifiable? And will it give you infinite happiness? A leader or a prince, as Machiavelli situate it, may be at the upper hand if he is feared. But isn't it in authoritarian countries, those who were feared were the ones who were hated? And people will always have the urge to revolt and overthrow the leader once they realized they can do so? Being feared may give guarantees but they are pointed to a direction not enjoyable by men.


Oops, but the argument a while ago was - being loved is not permanent since love might transform into something else. Therefore, in answering the question posted earlier, it is better to think of what will make a person happy - having guarantees or being immersed in a risky condition? Being feared or being loved?