World take over

I'm not sure exactly where to put this or if isn't even philosophy. If you had a chance to take over the world, would you do it? Why? Would you be a good person to do so? Would your life philosophy be helpful to others? Is philosophy a good tool to even use? How would you do it? Do you think you would make it better or end up turning it into ****( be honest)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll probably develop more questions, but that's all I got for now.

Nobody is qualified to rule the world, and if they do then power will corrupt them.

Nobody is qualified to rule the world, and if they do then power will corrupt them.

"Don't try to tell me that some power can corrupt a person You haven't had enough to know what its like" -Trent Reznor

That's a joke I just had to, but you never know. There might be someone somewhere that could. Besides just 'cause you unite the world doesn't mean you're the only one in charge. You can appoint people. It could be like a huge government.

[Scott]

Assuming it is true that dictatorships require mass murder to be obtained and kept, my answer is no because I adamantly oppose murder especially mass murder and especially mass murder for selfish politics.

Assuming it is true that dictatorships require mass murder to be obtained and kept, my answer is no because I adamantly oppose murder especially mass murder and especially mass murder for selfish politics.

You are chasing down your own tail: Your very opposition to murder is selfish [politics].

I mean, it is like someone selfishly accusing people of being selfish.

Yes, I would choose to rule the world, and power wouldn't corrupt me. I'd corrupt everyone else.

Being a hedonist, I'd be so out of it, on drugs and pretty girls I barely have time to pass my one single law not only making debauchery of every kind legal, but piling the majority of the GDP of every country on the glode into state funding so it's completely free and on tap 24/7/365.

[Scott]

I don't understand your point, Philobot, but feel free to take away the last three words from my previous statement to sum up my views regarding world takeover without raising the apparent objection you have:

Assuming it is true that dictatorships require mass murder to be obtained and kept, my answer is no because I adamantly oppose murder especially mass murder.

Scott, you seem to quite often miss my point. That omission does not change a thing. What I have meant was that you can never teach a selfish person to be unselfish by whatever selfish means and that while it is perfectly unselfish and sane to defend from an actual physical attack, by 'opposing violence', i.e. to desire other people to be non-violent, you try to fight fire with fire.

[Scott]

The metaphor of fighting fire with fire doesn't seem to me to apply to my reasoning for not wanting a dictatorship.

I wouldn't volunteer myself or anybody else to take over the world until there is common vision and understanding of the things in the world. Because there are many and varied ways of seeing, doing and understanding the "things" in the world nobody could qualify to rule the world. These many and varied ways of looking at the world complicate and confuse the governance and ways of dealing with the world. A die-hard adherent of the wonders of democratic system would be regarded as a lousy and ineffective leader by the imperialistic and authoritarian regime; a benevolent ruler would be an abominable slug to a corporate leader; and, a self-conceit ruler who has the guts to discipline his subjects would be anathema to a consensus- builder type of leader.

To say that power won't corrupt me or anyone else is a lie or just impossible but I would try my best to control myself and think within the scope of helping the people.

I don't know if having full power would be corrupting. I don't see myself doing anything else that I would be morally against anyways. So I will answer the full question from the original poster

1)Yes, yes I would take over the world. Assuming that there was no mass murder or immoral acts involved. Lets say a genie made it happen, a nice one.

2)I would take over the world because, honestly, I just want to have that power. Assuming that this is a direct dictatorship and not a slow and useless democracy that would work tirelessly to not have my way. If I rule the world I would rule the world. I would do it because, obviously, I think my way is right and would like to see it done that way.

3)I don't think it is inherently immoral to become powerful. Maybe my actions would only be helpful to people. Nice and fulfilling to the world as a whole. I would have to say though, as leader of the world, my loyalties would not only be to people but also to animals and the environment. 4)My philosophy, in my mind, would be good to all others. Since everything is pretty much subjective, but not all people agree with that, my rule would be my rule. I would think it was just, moral, and fair - there is no way to please everyone in the world.

5)I think philosophy is a good tool to use. Or possibly, if I wanted everything to be perfectly fair.. I could write 20 methods of action and write them out on a 20 sided dice and roll it for my answers. Seems fair. But in seriousness, is there any other way to run a government outside of philosophy?

6)Ah, here we get to the fun part. Let's say, I am the supreme ruler of the planet due to my rapid expansion to fame and general lovableness and have somehow managed to get all cultures and creeds to listen to me without any bloodshed. Seems possible. The only other option is magic, and we will sit that one out because if I had magic... Well - there would be nothing to say of badness and the world would be a super passive world of tranquil peace and love. Sounds dull, but peaceful.

So, people love me and support my instant rise. And of course there are a few dissidents, like the people who don't like my ideas that I post here.

I would present the world with the two tenants of Dougism, Mill's, "Harm Principle", "The actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals" and The Golden Rule, "Treat others and you would want to be treated" >>>>Therefore if you want to be abused and punched in the face, you cannot abuse and punch people in the face.

Besides those rules, let the world fall into anarchy and it will sort itself out.

7) Honestly, I think it wouldn't turn out as well as I would think. Because there would be no real punishment in this world. Police are not exempt from the two rules..

So.. I guess there would have to be hate-island in which case all of the hateful people get to go and work together on their hatred and start a worldwide rebellion.

Uptopia's never work - but I can dream.. I can dream.. If all else fails, I would colonize the moon, mars, and try to get to another galaxy. Then, at least when everything fails... We have more than one planet to screw up.

--------

Also, Scott. "Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?" is amazing. (I haven't picked one yet - but I will be surprised to see if more than a select handful of people chose the second one. I can see quite a few super anti-abortionists still claiming that the first scenario should have to give birth child. Not saying I agree here though. )

World take over? OK, take us to your leader.

Often I hypothesize on the nature of an advanced alien race - part of that theoretical UFO phenomenon that has been transpiring for many years and is quite popular today in books, talk shows and movies. At one point I imagine a real ambassador from an alien craft making contact and asking: Take us to your leader. And who ever he first contacts informs him this planet does not have a leader. Well he says: Why do you not have a leader? And you say we can not agree on things and must argue and fight wars, and kill each other. And the alien looks at you with those large dark eyes and it almost seems if he could cry he would; And then he says: well we will have to now break contact with you; we had much to give you, we could increased your life span, end disease, solve all your energy problems, etc., but my poor humanoid friends you appear to us to be barbarians, we are afraid of a warlike and spiteful species and will not again attempt contact with you until the day you can show us a peaceful planet and have achieved the intelligence level and degree of civilization where you can show us your agreed upon and respected leader.

World take over? OK, take us to your leader.

I'm not sure exactly where to put this or if isn't even philosophy. If you had a chance to take over the world, would you do it? Why? Would you be a good person to do so? Would your life philosophy be helpful to others? Is philosophy a good tool to even use? How would you do it? Do you think you would make it better or end up turning it into ****( be honest)?

No, I would reluct out of selfishness. To devote yourself to running the world would mean denying yourself the opportunity to live your own life on your own terms—it's simply too great a responsibility to be done from 9 to 5 and it leaves no time for reading and listening to music, not to mention travel. It's OK to be rich, but famous is a bad bargain.

[quote="Grendel"]Yes, I would choose to rule the world, and power wouldn't corrupt me. I'd corrupt everyone else.

Being a hedonist, I'd be so out of it, on drugs and pretty girls I barely have time to pass my one single law not only making debauchery of every kind legal, but piling the majority of the GDP of every country on the glode into state funding so it's completely free and on tap 24/7/365.


Where will all the children go?