World Peace or World Domination?

This was an interesting poll on another site I frequent...

Put simply, would you rather:

A. Have the world be at peace?

B. Rule the world with absolute power/an iron fist/etc.?


I choose B. Wielding absolute authority would allow the world to gradually be forced into a peaceful state. Then there's the issue of making the peace last when the gun is finally removed from the equation...

As well, peace is good, but what about other issues? Economic development(while facilitated by peace, having absolute power involved could help, especially since pesky democratic rulers tend to suck away public benefit for personal benefits), environmental issues, etc. A dictatorship, benevolent or non, could easily tackle these issues more efficiently than a democracy, provided the dictator kept a circle of wise advisors to help him.

...Finally, who wouldn't want the world at their fingertips? It's every capitalist's wet dream...

...I'd also be able to make the Sonic cult an actual entity. Muhahaha.

World democracy = world peace.

Until then, I refuse both peace and unity.

A dictatorship, benevolent or non, could easily tackle these issues more efficiently than a democracy, provided the dictator kept a circle of wise advisors to help him.

Click to expand...

Totally false. His "wise advisors" would have no perspective on poverty and other issues. We need people from all walks of life to solve multi-faceted problems that transcend economic and social classes.

As has been proven time and time again, a handful of people with limited perspectives cannot get the job done. The benevolent dictator (with advisors) efficiency argument falls apart because they would need to be omniscient. Benevolency is actually irrelevant; the form of government is simply fail.

I don't know what makes you think that dictators, theocrats and monarchs do not keep a circle of advisors, because they do... and yet they all fail spectacularly.

Authoritarianism is necessarily violent (i.e. not peaceful); how else do you get the majority to obey the whims of the minority? Coercion is necessary to protect the privilege of the elite. Neither coercion nor economic privilege can exist without the other. Thus, a world at peace is one without rulers, and vice versa.

Also, note that even in your so-called "liberal democracy," there are still ruled and rulers, still an elite bourgeois class contrasting with the poor masses. Thus why we "democracies" keep police forces and militaries, rather than antifascist militias. Our armed forces exist to enforce law, not to defend ourselves from external invasion.

I don't like people, eliminating the World Peace option.

So that only leaves world domination.

Gustave5436 said:

Authoritarianism is necessarily violent (i.e. not peaceful); how else do you get the majority to obey the whims of the minority? Coercion is necessary to protect the privilege of the elite. Neither coercion nor economic privilege can exist without the other. Thus, a world at peace is one without rulers, and vice versa.

Also, note that even in your so-called "liberal democracy," there are still ruled and rulers, still an elite bourgeois class contrasting with the poor masses. Thus why we "democracies" keep police forces and militaries, rather than antifascist militias. Our armed forces exist to enforce law, not to defend ourselves from external invasion.

Click to expand...

I thought that we have police on criminals not on poor. But thanks for enlightening.

One quote from social liberal K.Čapek "Poor dont want rule, they want eat"

As well, peace is good, but what about other issues? Economic development(while facilitated by peace, having absolute power involved could help, especially since pesky democratic rulers tend to suck away public benefit for personal benefits), environmental issues, etc. A dictatorship, benevolent or non, could easily tackle these issues more efficiently than a democracy, provided the dictator kept a circle of wise advisors to help him.

Click to expand...

You have no idea how hard top-down economic development is. Classic planner's problem.

Assuming I have efficient, smart AIs to carry out my directives, the latter.

Definitely world domination. World peace is for hippies. I hate hippies.

Ecofarm said:

World democracy = world peace.

Until then, I refuse both peace and unity.

Click to expand...

What relation does democracy have to peace? And what if some peoples simply don't want democracy?

Gustave5436 said:

Thus, a world at peace is one without rulers, and vice versa...

Our armed forces exist to enforce law, not to defend ourselves from external invasion.

Click to expand...

Oh sure.

.

The benevolent dictator (with advisors) efficiency argument falls apart because they would need to be omniscient.

Click to expand...

I believe we could tackle that in 50 to 70 years.

Correction: Omni-understanding

World domination = World peace

Edit: Damn it Ecofarm beat me to it!

Ecofarm said:

Totally false. His "wise advisors" would have no perspective on poverty and other issues. We need people from all walks of life to solve multi-faceted problems that transcend economic and social classes.

Click to expand...

This. For evidence, just read any period of Chinese history. As Romance of the Three Kingdoms states in its opening passages:

Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce. When the rule of Chou weakened seven contending principalities sprang up, warring one with another till they settled down as Ts'in and when its destiny had been fulfilled arose Ch'u and Han to contend for the mastery. And Han was the victor.

Click to expand...

This is the problem I always have with any sort of autocracy. Any nation built by the military/political aptitude of one man which establishes a sort of succession will crumble eventually, generally under the strain of an inept ruler and corrupt advisers.

I'd like the right to dictate a new Constitution to all parts of the globe (creating a new form of democracy, eliminating the power of political parties, making votes express more than a choice of the lesser of 2 evils, following generally geolibertarian principles, making citizenship require informed consent, etc), but wouldn't want to actually rule.

Ecofarm said:

Correction: Omni-understanding

Click to expand...

Also possible via universal biomods linked to a global AI It's a long road, but we'll get there eventually.

Though I surmise not all would like the idea of perfect democracy...it easily translates into perfect slavery.

World domination according to B means trouble.

To be more clear with my thoughts:

Ecofarm's criticism was that the advisors would not be wise because they'd be out of touch. To clear this up, I think a "perfect" group of advisors is drawn from all walks of life; the poor and the rich, all races, religions, beliefs, interests, etc. When all interests are present, it allows a dictatorial being to - hopefully - try and find what's best for most of those interests.

On democracy itself being a perfect system, I'm going to just have to disagree. I don't see what's so sacred about the vote if you have healthcare, a job, a home, a family, a car, etc. All the luxuries of a social democracy, just without the democracy aspect. In fact, if we were guaranteed all these things, I think most wouldn't care about voting at all: it's a burden.

However, dictatorship has the chance of corruption. Just as democracies make slow and regrettable decisions, a dictator can make quick and regrettable decisions, as a dictator is the state itself. Therefore, his/her kneejerk reactions can translate into the country's kneejerk reactions. A dictatorship also can easily become abusive when founded for good principles, as has happened countless times in the past. In order to keep Enlightened Despotism(as it was once called) efficient and benevolent, a leader must be bred to be both. It doesn't always work, however, as even the most brainwashed of people still have their human free will.

For this reason, if we were to branch into foreign policy, I'd think that dictatorships aren't so bad, provided they have a liberal democracy keeping them on a leash and making sure they aren't being abusive to their people(I have no issues with the King of Saudi Arabia or whoever having total control over his country, but theocracy and all the backwards social policies must end). I put economic development and stability above democracy and liberty, but I think you can have liberty, stability, and economic development without the precious vote. Democracy can come to a country once it has a solid economy and is stable, as that way the democracy can be maintained.

Taniciusfox said:

To be more clear with my thoughts:

Ecofarm's criticism was that the advisors would not be wise because they'd be out of touch. To clear this up, I think a "perfect" group of advisors is drawn from all walks of life; the poor and the rich, all races, religions, beliefs, interests, etc. When all interests are present, it allows a dictatorial being to - hopefully - try and find what's best for most of those interests.

Click to expand...

You should outline what decisions your dictator will be making, and what decisions will be left to decentralized processes. This is a critical factor in the feasibility of the system.

Integral said:

You should outline what decisions your dictator will be making, and what decisions will be left to decentralized processes. This is a critical factor in the feasibility of the system.

Click to expand...

Well if I get into too many specifics, it sounds more like idealpolitik than realpolitik.

I imagine economically-speaking, this dictatorship would have an economy similar to the Western World's. Of course, being able to set up such a complex system - on par with the West's - would be difficult due to the levels of development required, but what I mean is, while a free market is in place for most issues, a strong level of government regulation and some state services are provided.

You mentioned how I wasn't aware what a nightmare top-down planning could be. To be fair, I am a firm opponent of top-down planning of the economy, simply for historical reasons; the economy - and society in general - should primarily be bottom-up, with a government acting as a "guiding hand", investing via taxes. While capitalism can determine the current wants of the populace well, it can't decide what's best for the future, and so I'd leave this role to the government; there is a reason state and business are separated, after all. For a specific example, try renewable energy; many businesses aren't really interested in such a thing, but with generous subsidies and grants of money for research, they quickly fall in line. For a general, historical example, look at the Industrial Revolution: proof that unhindered capitalism can't be trusted for the good of society.

So, in conclusion, I'd say the economy would likely be similar to a Western one ideally, with a mostly-free market, and plenty of economic liberty. Once economic prosperity is solid, the transition to democracy can be made, as the people actually have economic weight to maintain a democratic system.

Social policies would be fully centralised, at least the basics(i.e. none of this "states' rights" crap about basic liberties such as homosexual marriages). This central control of social policies would help turn the dictatorship benevolent in the first place, as with enough pressure from the (theoretical) puppetmasters, the dictator would enact liberal policies such as abolishing torture, granting protections against the law such as habeas corpus, restricting or eliminating the death penalty, etc.

Does this sound feasible? I would of course, hope such actions take place gradually, as hasty changes can greatly upset stability, especially if they're economic(as you probably know, given your economic background).