What does "what luck for rulers that men do not think" mean?

Question

What does "what luck for rulers that men do not think" mean?

Answer 1

It means that it easiest to rule over a group of people that do not think on their own. The lack of individual thought makes it easy to control the masses. Without individual thought, who will question the king?

Answer 2

If people thought, they would overthrow most of their rules.  

Answer 3

If men (and women) of nations, had:

1) Some freedom.

2) Some education.

3) Some experience.

4) Some brains, enough to think with.

5) Some sense of political and social efficacy.  (Google the word efficacy.)

6) Some bravery to speak out, to demand, and if needed, to act...

Then, the rulers who "lead" (I use the word extremely loosely, here) and who take advantage of, abuse, steal from, enslave, and harm those people (as in:  WE the People of...)... would not, could not, do the mis-leading, the evil, and the stupidity they do.

For the people would rise up, and set them straight, and force them to act properly.

Let us take one small, insignificant instance, which shall probably not ever be remembered to history...

Once upon a time there was a tiny unimportant fictional country called Irraque.  It was "led" by a harmless and ignorant little man called Sadham Hussan.  He thought he was a great leader, but, was not quite so.

Well, there was this other unimportant country which went by no name, but a set of initials, namely a U, an A, and an S.  It was also led a less than competent man.  He thought he was a great leader, too.  He was perhaps, half right.

Well, Sadman, insulted the other coutry's leader, and people.  The people were, at one time, a great people, and forgiving.  But Sadham then tried to put a "hit", an assassination attempt on the other country's former leader, the daddy of the current leader.

Clearly, the Sadman was a loose cannon, in the panoply of nations and "leaders", for he had tried similar acts before.  (And he had, unfortunately, succeeded!)

Well, the "leader"  (I use the word loosely) of the slightly larger country, wanted revenge for this attempted (but failed) assassination.  

So he told Sadman, to resign, from the government of Irraque, and go into exile, or he would face the consequences.

Now the people of Irraque did not rise up and tell Sadham to go.  As a result their country 'got the S**t bombed out of it'. (And a resulting civil war, led by yet more "leaders"...)  Had Sadman left, a minor military exercise could have been avoided, and some several dozens of people would now be alive.

But the people of the country of no name, but 3 initials, what of their role here?  Should they not have spoken up to their "leader"?  

Should they not have said: "Let us not waste the small sum of 7 Trillion (year 2005) Dollars, and a few lives, on this crackpot?  Let us instead, merely hire a good mafia soldier to put a $1.00 bullet in him, for a few thousand dollars?"  

But the people of the country of only 3 initials never spoke up. And thus, inconvenient things, like $4.50 a gallon gasoline came to pass.

And Sadman?  After a drumhead monkey trial, he was hung by his own people, after a sham court case that took 3 years.  And it was done in a shameful, wasteful, public display of chaos and injustice.

Of course, this story is entirely fiction.  In the real world, competent patriotic leaders, and careful international tribunes prevent these things from ever happening.

You can go back to sleep now.

If only men (and women) would/could think, and speak, and act.  

Would you like some more stories?  I have a cute one about an archduke that was killed, and a 5 year war, which lead soon after, to another 5 year world war.  The second war re-drew global maps, and gave the people of a small insignificant planet, orbiting a minor Class G3 star, a weapon sufficient to blow themselves to bits.

Please forgive my sarcasm and cynicism.