-Cusses Animatedly- Accidently hit backspace when i was done saying everything.
Very less detailed version. (This version sounds much more rude, I apologize, but instead of gentle transitions from what you got right (in my eyes) to what was wrong and why i think that to what is right in that case to what i believe with a lot of examples to justify things, I'm going to sorta bullet-point)
Society can define several things; you can't confuse socializing with society at large.
Anti-social hysterics are against the current way society functions, but they aren't against people. In fact, they NEED people to get their own beliefs about how society should function set in place. An example is an old Judaist priest way back when who traveled around Eastern Europe spreading Judaism where another religion already existed (I may have details of this example wrong, but there was something like this at least) He was anti-social because he was trying to change the way people lived, but he was good at socializing because he was successful in doing so. He was hysteric (again, as in full of emotional fervor) because he did this all over until he was killed by the then-government (head of the way society functions) for doing what he did.
Psychopaths can have socializing skills as well, because, despite who is called psycho in the book, the only true psychopaths (very bad word, get to it below) are Ayako and business-guy (Tachibana? I'm bad with names, but I'll go w/ that).
Psychopaths are strong people capable of ruling. That's it. Rich-chick is not a psychopath because she is not strong-willed, as in evidence by the fact that the only people she cares about never receive any sort of aid by her. She does nothing for them, even though she could (she could capture her father and force him to transfer everything he owns to her before doing away with him, then using the power of the company to escape due process, then adopt the kids, as one example), and they die as a result. After that she becomes strong-willed in the nothing-to-lose-fight-for-vengeance sense (at this point, she could be considered a psychopath). They are rulers. They can be good, bad, or ugly, that has nothing to do with it. All about power.
Difference between Ayako and Tachibana, who are both psychopaths, is in degree and scope (are those both mouthwashes?).
Ayako's society consists purely of Reiji (no, she's not part of her society, her lack of care for herself is part of what makes her "crazy"). The scope is very small, and the degree of protection is high. She keeps Reiji at something like a 99% chance of survival as much as possible to the best of her ability (as well as keeping his emotional and mental safety in mind, though she keeps physical survival as the top priority. Tachibana's society is much larger than Ayako's, and there is only so much he could do to protect him; since he cant get enough points for everyone to survive on alone (though I doubt he'd do that regardless), he makes efficient teams to minimize losses and maximize "survival points." However, he does not do purely beneficial things for society as proven by his bringing Ayako within reach of it and setting her loose, just to prove a point to himself (she would not have went after the others first, but she would have killed everyone there (which Tachibana knew) to save Reiji (he thought herself).
The point Tachibana is trying to prove to himself is that either Ayako only cares for herself. If she does care for others (Reiji), then that either means a) that she is not a psycho, or
that they both are psychopath (which is the cas).
I should probably have said this earlier, but the definition of psychopath and the definition of psychopath that people believe within in the manga is different, which is very confusing, and I should really switch out one of the definitions with a different word, so I will. In everything you just read, Psycho is the perceived definition of what a psychopath is, and psychopath is the actual definition (its a bad word for the actual definition)
The actual definition of psychopath is what the goddess-like lady describes when talking to Reiji - Strong people who take control of various aspects of life from others to make life easier.
The perceived definition of psychopath (psychos) are killing machines who think only of themselves.
The only characters who know of the actual definition are goddess-lady, Reiji when he tells her (and unimportant-to-this-discussion-chick), and Tachibana, who refuses to believe it but does.
Now, onto your description of rulers (again, apologizing for abruptness and sounding rude, i really am re-typing these things from a much nicer, cleaner, detailed version).
That they have the peoples' interest at heart being important - the majority of people do, thats why they're the peoples' interests. What sets rulers apart? strength (not necessarily, in fact, usually not, physical strength)
Your three types of rulers are actually examples of two types of rulers, plus a third which i believe that line ^ negates part of and the rest of it is mixed in with the two types.
Type One: "The Original" - Physical rule: This form of ruling is established through simply physical supremacy; this is generally how rule is first established, and it is naturally reasonable. Individual strength is a very short-lived form of rule, as no person can overpower many other people, but then faith and perception come into play. An individual being the strongest of a set of individuals, then, can be the ruler, because he is the best. Then, those people who believe he is the best become an extension of his power, because they add their individual power to his beck and call. This type of rule exists when survival is not something to be assumed but instead to work for. People never believe that their survival would be assured in an anarchy situation, except those are individually strong, so physical safety is a big part of why rulers are allowed.
Basically, faith/perception is not a type of governing, its a natural system that comes into play regardless. God-given right is a belief that they are physically and mentally better suited to rule, based on faith, but a combination of both types of rule.
The second type of rule is Mental/Emotional rule: Once the body is safe, the mind is free to wander, and wander it does. But there are scary things to think about and things that suck to feel.
Religion is an example of mental/emotional rule. Scared of death? There's an afterlife. Sad someone's died? Don't worry, they're in a better place. Don't wanna touch on religion too much because its unnecessary, but because most people can't answer these questions or cope with those feelings on their own, they need guidance, and guidance is giving up control of something, ergo a form of rule.
Those are the two elements that form the various styles of rule.
They do need people to rule because those people are psychopaths (as in people strong enough physically and mentally to rule - horrible word, can't repeat it enough lol)
If the ruling body becomes destructive of society, the society will do absolutely nothing about it, until an antisocial (anti-ruling body) hysteric (fanatic) does something (Someone has to say "hey, lets stop the government" and someone has to lead the charge). As you say, if "society is organized enough." It can't be the organization that the governing body uses, because that IS the governing body; it has to be a new organization, which needs to be created, which needs a revolutionary governing body (essentially no one willingly falls into anarchy).
So let me take the stupid words out of the situation, and explain.
1. No structured society aka anarchy
2. Revolutionary creates society which they then rule
3. Ruler governs society.
a) another ruler who presides over a stronger society absorbs the society (loops back to 3)
another revolutionary topples the ruler then begins to rule (loops back to 3)
c) The government is perfect and no one ever tries to end or change it.
4 is what we want, its an ideal, 2-3 is the process, 1 is what we never want, and why we started the process.
Ruler = psychopath
revolutionary = antisocial hysterics
They aren't quite a dichotomy because one invariably leads to the other unless the perfect solution arises.
Ayako represents the first government (she follows the natural rules of Taker society)
Tachibana represents the first revolutionary, and he becomes the second government.
Reiji is the second revolution, who, like Tachibana before him, believes there is a better way.
In the final chapter of the manga, Reiji has finally become a ruler, a psychopath, a somebody who can do something.
He is now a third government, and he is intending to fight the second government.
Who should win? Up to the reader. Who will win? Nobody will know unless the fight is done.
That was Twilight Zone, one of the only two episodes I've ever seen.
Seriously, very sorry about being blunt, It was better before.
I know its not a manga, but my mind was elsewhere.
Interesting psychological manga, not delivered especially well, perhaps not even suited to the manga style, though I think the problem is that it was sold as a shounen manga instead of a very serious social analysis, so at to reach more people but also so as to reach a bunch of people who don't like it.
Just real quick, forgot to add it in - justice, cruelty, yada yada, are all subjective perceptions and therefore dont "apply" to any of the styles or forms of ruling. The most cruel character in the book is physically Reiji's childhood friend or mentally Tachibana's secretary, but they're most definitely not rulers. The most just character is probably the goddess-lady, but she is just that; some sort of invincible godly omniscient story tool."Peoples strength has nothing to do with how compassionate or ruthless they are" <- Exactly as you put it.Taking what you need at any cost is Courage or Bravery if its done personally, Smarts if you take it with the least cost, Cruel, if you accrue too much cost, and greed, if you take too much. Its all about perception.