On a related note, I suggest we stop calling the heads of state and bureaucratic organizations like the UN "Leaders" and starting referring to them by their real self appointed role, "Rulers".
Language shapes perception, and we've been using the wrong term for too long.
Isn't this an argument to to continue using the term "leaders"? Surely calling them "rulers" would, under your logic, push them further towards "rulership"?
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.
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?
"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")