One of the most benevolent and well-known rulers of the 16th century, Queen Elizabeth I, was a follower of Law 20: DO NOT COMMIT TO ANYONE. It sounds like silly advice, especially since modern-day politics depends on your connections, but after much thought, one realizes that it is useful counsel.
We are made to believe that to succeed in politics means making the right connections and hobnobbing with the people who can give us a lift to the top. This particular law warns us to do so with caution. True commitment to any side is the easiest way to topple off the seat of power, because it opens our weaknesses to enemies and makes us vulnerable. The best course of action is to appear available to all, yet succumb to the appeals of none. Power is easily gained when the two sides of a fight both desire you for their fight and it then becomes laughably simple to push your own agenda into the fray.
In this case, emotions can be one’s worst enemy. Mastering one’s emotions is critical to following this law successfully; how can you ensure your agenda’s triumph when you are easily swayed by emotional appeals from possible allies/enemies?
It seems to me that our politicians have mastered this law beautifully. Our countrymen do not know where our politicians’ loyalties truly lie. However, I fail to see how this can better our country when the people themselves feel betrayed by and distrust our leaders. In today’s selfish world, can this law truly give nations the peace they seek?
Angeli Cruz Hi 18-O
45 comments:
heeelll no girlfriend!
yeah, this law may be great for those seeking power, but in a hunger-stricken country like ours, we need them martyrs, them loyal and good-willed people who will actually do things for the sake of their country, and not themselves. we need REAL politicians and not businessmen elected in office.
although im beginning to love the laws of power book, i sure hope that no politician will ever be scheming to use this book as a how-to manual for governing. otherwise our country will really go to the sh*tter.
nico mendiola sec-o
This law speaks rightly to the political dynasties in the country. Those who think that mixing yourself with different people is the key to power, might be mistaken. Sticking yourself to certain people will give them power over you, and the temptation to use you, to your eventual downfall. That someone can manipulate you, knowing that you commit yourself to him. now, it's about him getting what he wants rather than using him to your advantage.
Do not commit to anyone. Honestly, this law seems to be the opposite of my law. True, Greene puts contradicting laws in his book. As Law 20 states not to commit to anyone, law 23, on the other hand tells you to concentrate your forces, and one of the ways to do so is to to affix yourself to one source of power, like what the people in Renaissance did. Personally, I believe that one person should commit to someone, rather than getting the two sides of a coin.
Janine, what you've said may be right at some point, but why not use those people to your advantage? In the long run, the tables will turn, and the master will become dependent on the slave, and the slave would be the master.
I see Joan's point when she says that these laws are kind of contradictory in some way.
But I guess, what this law is trying to say is that it is a risk if we make ourselves exclusively available to one source. Doing so, as Angeli had said, may become a weaknesses others can take advantage of. Aside from what others have mentioned, the connection becomes a weakness because once it gets severed, we are left vulnerable. Others can make use of that side to try and wheedle information out of us, or something to that effect.
Patty Geollegue
Hi18-N
I can't honestly see how a president of one country could succeed of becoming a effective leader if he does not commit to anyone except if his pursue for power is for personal interest.
This law is a double edged sword. Yes, you might thrive being in the middle of two opposing forces - given that both of them will ask your help. But what if everything goes wrong, you are in the middle and most probably you'll be the first one who'll feel the tension.
Dexter Tanengsy, Hi18-N
In committing to someone, one will undoubtedly find himself on the lower end of the bargain. You ask others for help, and if you commit to them, you might as well just bow down and submit yourself entirely to their power. Committing to anyone gives them the ability to control what you can and cannot do.
I have seen this law illustrated in so many ways about how a favor can grow from gratitude to complete submission. This is why people are so easily exploited. it is the connections we make and the partnerships we form. This will inevitably limit your power and thus impede you from any growth.
Marian Janelle Aliwalas
HI18 N
Do not commit to anyone... it is like doing business with no one. when in agreement, you have to commit to the party what you will say right?
-Don Faylon
Hi18 N :D
I think we have overlooked this law and have jumped the gun. Practically everyone, even the poster is not convinced with this law. There are after all 48 laws of power and one is bound to be weaker. I don't think this law is one of them. Also keep in mind that when I say weaker, i don't mean weak, I think every law has the right to be here and even though it may not be as applicable now, they are not worthless. I am here to defend this law.
The first thing I would like to point out is the law itself, "DO NO COMMIT TO ANYONE". A I can see how you can connect this to the Philippine government, one that seems to be in the middle all the time and does not have a hold on the trust of the people. Some people have mentioned that is impossible for country heads to follow this rule because the world now is so globalized that you need to commit to other countries. Some have said that you should just commit and use them to your advantage. The main idea that we have to realize is that the law states that one should not go in bed with "ANYONE", meaning a person or you could say a government. What are the implications of committing or "going in bed with them"? You are not obligated to make their interest yours. So if you want to link this back to the government. We should NOT commit to anyone.
Now you will ask, then we are left with a sporadic government that no one trusts because they can't commit, very good young paduan. What the government should do is commit to an idea. There is a difference between committing to someone rather than something. When you commit to something, you are in control of it. When you get married to an idea you can't divorce that idea rather easily and that idea won't take advantage of you (some ideas however can posses you). If you get married to someone, well you are in for a ride because it is harder to leave a person.
Our governments are doing something right, we are not whoring out our country but we are also not committing to ideas. It is as simple as committing to something like land reforms or cutting down the VAT. We can take this concept to the global stage and say committing to improving communications technology. Now here it comes, when we have that commitment set on the global stage and say a country also has the same commitment, we can work with that country because we are both committed to the same idea. Is that becoming committed to that country? HE** NO!
There is a reason why this law was created. Sure it is stemmed form the ancient times therefore the modern world just can't assimilate such ways of thinking sometimes. But when you look at this law for what it is, "committing to a person" then you realize that there is some truth in it. We try not to be cheap. I guess that is why a woman followed this law, she understood the concept of being owned by someone else rather than being owned by an idea. So let us all commit to ideas, heck get in bed with your ideas, it's good for you.
Niko Falcon
H18-N
How true you are! Queen Elizabeth I is the perfect example for this law. There have been many speculations on why she remained unmarried throughout her lifetime but whatever the reason may be, it certainly did her and her nation good. Though she did not really need a man's help to govern and she did not have an exigent intention to marry, she often received and considered offers of marriage. Because of this, she was able to play off her suitors, gaining gifts and alliances along the way.
Such an example concretizes this law. However, I am not sure this will work in other conditions, particularly in our contemporary condition where everything is so interrelated that the need to have associations is prevalent.
On another note, we must realize that commitments are important in that they manifest one's loyalty to a union, providing harmony to the association. And we know that as long as an association works harmoniously, their goals will be easier to achieve.
Even before you mentioned it, I was already thinking that our politicians make great use of this law. They flip-flop between issues to gain recognition from both sides. They don't care how stupid they look, they just want to receive as much popularity as possible.
A specific case for this is GMA's stance on the war with the MILF. Whether she wants to fight them or help them depends on the season. And by season I mean when she needs certain approvals from the public or certain favors from other people in power.
Marvin Velasco
Hi18 N
I agree because I know that knots that are too tightly tied are going to end up destructive. I think that being diplomatic and civil towards partners and potential allies is a good thing, but I also think that it would help to remain detached from them. I don't think the correct word is 'unattached' - by all means, have some links and attachments! - but keep a detached outlook, meaning, have your defenses up and don't reveal all to allies. You'll need a quick exit from when your allies get too tangled into their own webs.
Krizia Cureg
Hi18 Section O
I think this law is largely dependent on how we view the term commitment. I believe this law points out that commitment to another person weakens a person. This is merely to avoid situations where you suddenly find yourself following someone to the grave, or be limited by someone else's motives. I agree with what Niko said, about ideas. A person who choose not to commit to anyone is not necessarily dishonest and without virtue.
He can commit to an idea, a principle, a way of living and thinking. Committing to someone else means that you will accept all his principles and ideas, even if they are not your own.
A Patriotic politician is not committed to anyone. If he is committed to, say, his family, then he is easily corruptible, and finds it easy to justify his corruption, for after all, he does this out of commitment to his family, in order to give them all they could ever want in life. A person who chooses not to commit to anyone, ensures that he cannot be swayed at all costs. He can choose to adapt and commit to an idealism or a way of thinking, but never to another person.
In this sense. had Ninoy Aquino been committed to his family, he would not have come back.
He would have stayed and lived, just as what his family wanted. Because after all, his family needed him, he was a husband and a father.
And yet he came, at the risk of his life, and lost it.
Mark Bantayan
Hi18 N
There are many people who have excellent power that didn't commit to anybody. It's a advantage and at the same time a disadvantage.
Dexter's idea about the double edged sword is true.
If I'm going to follow this law, then, I think I'm not going to enjoy life to the fullest.
Commitment is just a risk factor of loosing the power .Yet, commitment is another factor we practice power.
-Miriam R. Reyes
Hi18-O
Krizia pretty much summed all i wanted to say.
In the Philippine setting, i do believe in the need for allies, but i don't think that equates to being the lapdog of affluent nations.
There was an instance where the Philippines paid ransom to a foreign terrorist group even though it was against the wishes of the U.S. In retrospect, i think it was a stupid move on our part. The only good thing that came out of it is that the Philippines got to show the world that it can make its own decisions.
i dont agree to mirz when she said that there are people who have excellent power that didn't commit to anybody. Examples? Power will entail connections to different powerful people. Behind every leader, there are workers, advisers and followers. I think you just overlooked them. In my opinion, the relationship of the leader to other people is very important in his reign. As everybody said, it's just a matter of whom you will commit to.
marion adalia
bs mgt
o
The law will yield true when done in the long run, when you have already milked out all the utility in a person; in business terms, when revenue exceeds cost. But of course in the short run; no one can excel without allies. If you have used everyone at the end of the day, taking advantage of their loyalty and gullible-ness (gullible-ity? IDK) with no one equal to you, yes, you will definitely go to the top. Of course you're spaced out from everyone, ally-less when in absolute power. :|
Miguel Rojas
Hi18O
To MiRz_29:
What you have said is basically a contradictory to a contradictory. First it comes off that you support this law because, you state there have been many people who made it without committing. Then you say it is a double edged sword, agreeing with dexter but he states that you can't become a great leader without committing, which is contradictory to your statement of, "There are many people who have excellent power that didn't commit to anybody".
I would kindly advise that maybe you can re-evaluate your perception on committing to someone. I said on my previous post, it is not the best option to commit to someone but to commit to an idea. An idea won't get back at you for not following it.
Was just a little confused with your comment so hope I helped a little bit :-)
Niko Falcon
Hi18-N
I agree............
This wud only burden onself and hinder oneself on the path of acquirong power.
vince suelto commented above
You shouldn't rely on a single spy (who could either be unknowingly fed false info by counter-espionage agents, or worse, a double-agent himself) because it 'restricts' your options based only on what he has gathered; you could actually be falling into a trap prepared by your enemy by sending your forces into a minefield, for all we care.
Being non-committal to a single source can also be useful in weeding out false information. By utilizing a network of spies, handlers can verify true information if several spies, anonymous towards each other, unknowingly support each others' claims; instances where only a single lead pops up are usually discarded.
The problem with this law is that it suggests something so drastic, that most of the people might not agree with this law.
Like camille, I also agree with Krizia. One does not need to disclose everything, to be really committed; but also you cannot hide everything to your allies. A balance is needed in applying this law.
Marie Dacquel HI18-O
I think that this law is quite powerful in application since people will not expect anything from you. However, since contracts were made, this law was rendered quite useless since they are really expecting something in return. They force you into commitment
Alan Mamonluk
Hi18-)
And to refute your example, sticking to no side would make it quite harder when the saying "If you are not with me, you are against me" is said.
Alan Mamonluk
Hi18-O
My law is quite the opposite of this law. But I agree with Krizia and Camille when they said that it's okay to 'commit' to others, but also know how to be detached from them. We all need allies, you know. We cannot jusr function as ourselves. I would like to think of the US government creating allies in different countries. Because they are powerful, they can easily detach from the countries they made allies with while the small countries could not just easily break their alliance with the US because they are so powerful which makes me think that maybe, this law applies well to the developing nations/civilizations or people who are just starting to gain power because they are the ones who need to expand their networks in order to accomplish their goals.
Joan Medalla
Hi18 N
I have to disagree on this one straight out...
If you don't commit, you don't get any relationships. Without relationships, you won't really go anywhere. Think about it. Just how far would you go when everyone who knows you just says "ah.. *your name*... he's uhh... okay i guess"
Mediocrity. You just settled for it.
I agree with Frederick.
Not committing to anyone, or anything, is plain mediocre. Not committing to a cause, or to a greater purpose -- is a pure waste of a life. A life with so much possibilities. A life that was to scared to commit.
Eric Andres
HI 18 Section N
I agree with both Eric and Frederick (haha). If you're not willing to die for anything, it's a wasted life. However, putting this into the context of power, not committing to anybody makes you more flexible---and flexibility: being able to affix yourself from many different points of power, will definitely make you more powerful.
patrickreyesHI18O
kredyt on line bez bik
pożyczki pozabankowe
link
pożyczki bez bik
kredyt samochodowy kalkulator
kredytbezbiku.biz.pl
pożyczki pozabankowe jakie oprocentowanie
You have made some really good points there. I checked on the net
to learn more about the issue and found most people will go along with your views on this site.
Here is my blog - diet that works
Prеtty! Thiѕ ωas an incгedibly wonderful pоst.
Thank you for providing thіs іnfo.
Cheсk out mу wеb ѕitе ::
888 Poker Bonus
Hеya! I just wantеd to ask if you ever haνe any trоuble with hackeгs?
My laѕt blog (wordρress) was hacκed and I ended up losіng many
mоnths of hагd work ԁue to no baсk up.
Do you have anу solutions to ρrevеnt haсkers?
Stop by my websitе; http://oc.jbcourse.com/
This piece of writing will assist the internet
users for creating new web site or even a blog from start
to end.
Here is my weblog :: diets that work
And it's a great deal simpler to make use of to ensure you are not missing inside the levels and amounts of nested menu navigation and tens of buttons to press.
Feel free to visit my site :: dumbbell sets
Dumbbells and especially adjustable dumbbells are not inexpensive.
my website; bowflex selecttech 552 dumbbells used
They grow to be far more comfy with frequent use.
Take a look at my web blog simply click the up coming internet site
Ϻy partneг and I ѕtumbled oѵer here from a different ωеb
adԁress and thоught I ѕhоuld checκ things out.
I lіke ωhаt I see so i аm ϳust follοwing yοu.
Lοok fοrward to looking ονer your web page rеpeatedly.
Viѕit my web раge: http://weddings.divanee.com/groups/every-one-of-the-you-need-to-understand-about-actively-playing-texas-holdem-poker-onine
It extends about 7 in addition to a 50 % feet substantial.
Here is my weblog ... weights dumbells
Incorrect use at any age could potentially cause
significant injuries to muscle mass, tendons and maybe bones.
My web page ... getfitnstrong.com
They can be now gaining popularity with numerous conditioning facilities
who are shifting from your old and inconvenient dumbbells and instruction the buyers on how uncomplicated it's to switch weights inside a extra flexible way.
Feel free to visit my page click through the up coming web site
This appears wonderful but in fact - disassembling it and
repacking it into five containers is usually a key pain from the butt.
my page ... bowflex selecttech 552 dumbbells review
But, in my opinion the quality, the support
and training software, as well as the amount of resistance
and workout routines very easily can make this
a low-cost option to Bowflex or Total Health and fitness center.
My weblog ... visit the following post
Hey Τhеre. I found your blog using msn.
Τhis іs a really well written aгtіcle.
I wіll be sure to booκmark it and return to reaԁ more of yоur usеful infο.
Thankѕ fοr the ρost. I'll certainly comeback.
My weblog Click More ()
Post a Comment