They already know they are rulers. It's for the rest of the people.
I have heard people seriously say "Of course I prefer it with copy protection! It protects my copy!" back in the day when DRM was called copy protection. I'm sure they would have been wiser if the thing was called "Copy Restriction", because that's what it does. Similarly, I'm sure more people would realize what DRM means if it was called Digital Restriction Management (which is what it really is).
These things run deep. Who would dare oppose the PATRIOT act? Real patriots should, but none would. These terms run very, very deep.
Seriously, though, who are these people? I mean, how can I get a cushy gig like that?
You have to wonder about them as individuals, right? What path has their lives taken that they step into a room make a horrible decision like this and not retch. Is it a perverse sense of superiority over the people who are left out from the decision-making? Is it a complete lack of personality and individual thought? Or is it just an attempt to climb one more rung up the ladder, maybe move into that slightly nicer home in McClean or DuPont Circle?
From what I've experienced (as someone who occasionally rubbed elbows with such UN technocrats when I worked in international health), it's your last path that rules their lives. They are almost without exception climbers, both social and professional, much more anxious to climb the next step on the ladder than actually to build or change something for the better. Often, they start out idealistic and slowly change into jaded climbers. It's an outlook on life that would be foreign to many people here.
"US Rulers have recently made file sharing a crime carrying the death penalty" vs. "US Dictators have recently made file sharing a crime carrying the death penalty". I think Rulers sounds better (but I think "dictators" is still preferable to "leaders")