Riddle me this...

[jacobschndr]

Lets say that your a powerful being. In one hand you hold 100 of the worlds leaders, bankers, presidents, mega-corporation runners, federal officals, etc. These are the people that keep the world in working order.

In the other hand you have 10,000 ordinary average joes, regular people, nothing world changing special about any of them. Just a chunk of the worlds population.

Which group do you kill?

Keep in mind of the consequences. You kill the leaders, you get rid of the people that keep the world stable and running order. Even if some of them may come off as corrupt and power hungry individuals. Remember, its how you see them, they maybe corrput but they keep the world working.

If you kill the 10,000 people, sure its a tradgic act, but its 10,000 people compared to a world of 6 billion. Small in scope when you think about it. But then again it IS 10,000 lives.

So which hand do you close? You can't choose both or neither, just one otherwise you risk a worse consequence if you don't.

EDIT: Yeah I know it isn't a traditional riddle, but I couldn't think of title OK.

 

[Bob_Bobbington]

I'll wait for the offers for their live before I kill anyone. The highest bidder wins.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Both.

 

[Levitas1234]

I would probably kill the 100 so humanity could start a new political order that isn't ran by the rich few and instead the people.

 

[RatRace123]

Can I close one hand and eat what's in the other?

 

[delet]

Why kill 10k people when I can kill all the people ever?

 

[ExplosivePterodactyl]

Neither. Unless one of the groups wanted my pineapples.

Edit: Poll?

 

[Dragon_of_red]

Neither, according to your start thing i have no reason to hurt anyone, im a powerful being in vain of buddha.

EDIT: But since i should choose, the 100 people, im guessing that most of them migfht be corrupt and idiots.

 

[BloodyThoughts]

I would have to go with the second hand, even though I don't really like the government, but I also don't like 90% of the people on this planet, cause most of them are just douche bags.
Also, if I have the first hand, I can have a strong government, and possibly a strong economy.

EDIT: Infact, I'll just kill them all. they all piss me off.

 

[BGH122]

Neither, according to your start thing i have no reason to hurt anyone, im a powerful being in vain of buddha.

EDIT: But since i should choose, the 100 people, im guessing that most of them migfht be corrupt and idiots.

Yeah, you're definitely right, people who "keep the world in working order" are almost certainly predominantly corrupt or idiotic because anyone can do the highest level jobs yes siree.

I'd kill the 10,000, y'know, the pointless unwashed plebs.

 

[Pyode]

I would probably kill the 100 so humanity could start a new political order that isn't ran by the rich few and instead the people.

The weak instinctively follow the strong. If you kill the 100, a new 100 will eventually be put into power by "the people." That's what the majority want. They want to be led and taken care of.

Even saying that, I would go ahead and kill the 100. You need to clean house every once in a while, but it wont take long for things to go back to the way they where.

 

[Frankydee]

Corruption will eventually breed disorder so I'd go ahead and kill off the 100 if I had to choose one.

However, my cynicism wouldn't allow the 10,000 to live either.

 

[a7r0p05]

I would put them into a modified version of the game show "1 vs 100" it would be "100 World Leaders vs 10,000 Average Joes" The winners would get to live...

for now.

 

[Lullabye]

hmm...tough on-BOTH! Oh, not as tough as I thought. However, prayers, sacrifices and offerings may possibly change the outcome.

 

[DangerFish]

I'd just juggle them

 

[Misaek]

The leader for a few reasons
1. Government officials are probably bad people
2.Mega-Corporations are just evil basically
3. Many less people.
4.Even though society today is so reliant on it, we shouldn't NEED a government.
5. I have no quarrel with the people.

 

[FalloutJack]

Ah, but you are wrong. Anyone who has read V For Vendetta knows that world leaders and such are not necessarily the stability you're looking for. Death to the leaders and life to Average Joe x10,000. At least them, you may have some sort of community without people who are already highly skilled in: Lying, back-stabbing, embezzlement, unwarranted espionage, assassination, and any number of other traits that Average Joes could only be marginally good at...and thus spottable and punishable quickly.

 

[Sneaklemming]

The 100 for the following reason only:

All your information given is not only vague; but also influenced by a personal bias on the part of the deciding party. As such no factual conclusions can be made about the substance of either group.

So less must die. In situations such as this; you cannot make decisions based on assumption and personal bias.

It's kill 100 or kill 10,000. The rest is fluff that cannot be considered due to lack of information, and personal prejudice.

edit: I see lots of people convinced that the 100 must be a bad group; since they are powerful. Their lines of argument prove my argument.

 

[Dorian]

I'd kill the leaders.

Then, while the world's in mass confusion and turmoil, I sweep forth and seize power of the globe.

The Golden Age ensues.

 

[SonicKoala]

Well, from what I gathered from this, it seems that those 100 people are really important, and if they were all to die suddenlly, there would undoubtedly be some kind of massive power struggle in order to fill the void left by those 100 people, leading to the deaths of far more than just 10,000 people. Therefore, I'd kill the 10,000, because, in the long run, less people will die (in theory, anyway, this is a pretty stupid hypothetical question).