User blog comment:Piratehunter/A Moral Argument/@comment-1872981-20100829060834

So you'd allow the rule of one free for the sake of peace? To let this one treat his brethren like a toy? To give them free will, then strip them of it when conflict arises? All for peace? That one would be driven into insanity if left alone. With that kind of power at hand, there's no telling what he/she would do. At one moment, he/she'd be preserving peace, and at another, he/she'd order men to create a monument in his/her image. What I'm trying to say is this: Too much power can lead to corruption and abuse if left alone

A perfect example: Ferdinand Marcos. President of the Philippines (my country). He is most famous for his declaration of Martial Law on the country, in an attempt to contain the turmoil. While this law did help drop the crime rate of the country, and also help skyrocket the economic system, Marcos (and his wife, Imelda) became mad with power, which led to the government's corruption. He disregarded the voice of the people, thinking only of himself, and remained in the President's seat for about a decade. What came after that was the People Power Revolution, a movement which led to Marcos' downfall.

What the Templars perceive as "peace" is, in my opinion, false. What they think it means is being free of turmoil and chaos, regardless of the means. That kind of peace is only an illusion. True peace, is where man can co-exist harmoniously with everything around him, through their own whim, through free will. If having free will means the possibility of war, then I say let the world be, and just go with the moment.

Heh....I'm starting to sound like an assassin O_O AWESOME!!!!! Oh, and if you have jazz stuck in your head, mine is party music ^_^