Your choice for ruler of the world.

roidesfoux

Warlord
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
182
Of the original 7 factions leaders, who would you most/least like to see rule the world? (Earth, not Planet.) Mine are (from most wanted to least wanted):

Lal
Dierdre
Zakharov
Santiago
Morgan
Yang
Miriam

although those last two are neck and neck.

-RdF
 
Lal
Deirdre
(and possibly Zakharov, if he would mind his ethics.)
The rest can just go into a corner and die...
 
Lol.
Part of the exercise is seeing how people will order their least favorite leaders.

-RdF
 
Lal
Deirdre
Morgan or Zakharov
Anyone else

Anyhow, if we let them to their own, any of the above would be surely killed by Miriam or Yang...
 
Santiago, quite frankly a world built upon self-sufficiency and self-defense the core of a survivalist structure have the best chance of preserving humanity.

The crash is coming. Not today, not tomorrow, but soon (relatively) and probably just as retire!
 
Brrrr. The idea of handing over (global) power to *any* of those seven above, listed by Roidesfeux, sends a very cold chill down my spine.

(Its bad enough with those idiots currently running the show, on this planet)
 
Brother Lal
Lady Deirdre (and I would be candidate for king... for obvious reasons)
Chairman Yang (I prefer an atheist maniac than Miriam or Zakharov)
Zakharov
CEO Morgan (I do not deal with liberal capitalism very well)
Santiago (I would not like to live in a violent orderless place)
Sister Miriam (i would kill myself before I would believe in any word written in the bible)
 
all of them are crazy the more the ruler is stupid and weak is better
my choice
1. Zakarov (intelect and freedom)
2. Lady Deidre (Green Pacificist)
3. Lal (look like benladen should have used his face for the Belivers)
4 .Miriam (better be a monk then soldier )
5.Santiago (militarist)
6. Morgan (capitalist -very opressive system)
7. Yang (most crasy dictator)

Eli
 
roidesfoux said:
Lol.
Part of the exercise is seeing how people will order their least favorite leaders.

-RdF
Ok. Let's see if I can manage that, then:

1. Lal - Human rights are imo one of the most important concepts concieved in modern times.
2. Deirdre - If we don't take care of our planet, we soon won't have a planet to abuse...
3. Zakharov - Intellectualism is good, knowledge is good, but ethics are also important...
4. Miriam - Even though I'm a moderate relativist and an agnostic, I'll have to agree with Eli: Religious fundamentalism is better than militarism (by a very thin hair)
5. Santiago - Even though her militaristic tendencies make me believe that she's a supporter of the collective, I must say I disapprove of her methods...
6. Morgan - Even though I would have to steal my uncle's rifle, run to the hills and start a revolution if this guy was in power, I'd still rather have him as world leader than
7. Yang - because his twisted interpretation of communism is sick. Communism for freedom, not slavery!
 
Interesting thread!
1. Lal - for the same reason. Human rights are inmportant as well as unity of all humankind esp. on AC.
2. Zakharov - if only he had ethics he'd be the guy
3. Deirdre - we are humans, not monkies. But i respect the idea.
4. Santiago - she is a realist and I like that. Could benefit from any of the 3 above.
5. Mogran - theg good about him is that he is not the last 2.
6. Yang - nice, but agressive and boring. Totally agree with T: "Communism for freedom, not slavery!"
7. Miriam - hate fanatics!
 
Who won in book in reality? and what happened to the loosers?
 
The loosers probably died ;)
 
1 - Deirdre
She's ethics, she's ecologist, and she's damn -ing HOT.

2 - Lal
A decent guy. Someone who base his politics on human rights can't be bad.

3 - Santiago
I don't like vigilant mentality and gun-addicts, but at least there is the goal of survival, and a somewhat "instinctive/natural" society.

4 - Miriam
She's a religious freak and I would gladly see her dead. But at least, she's trying to do what she think is good, even if it's twisted and corrupted by her fanaticism.

Quite difficult to separate the last three. They are all disgusting and repulsive in their attempt to reduce people to object they can use as tools. I would say :

5 - Morgan
He's the one I respect the least, but at least, it's probably possible to have a life under his regime. Corrupted, unjust, exploitative regime, but there is a chance to have some humans in it, actually.

6 - Zakharov
Voiding the idea of science, by making humans tools of it rather than the opposite. Like a religious fanatic, but worst, because at least religion emphasize on people, while these guys could rip you of your organs alive and conscious and don't even care about, only about the result. Bring shivers all along my spine.

7 - Yang.
Well, when the goal is to destroy the very humanity you have in you and to make you a robot, and to do this on the whole mankind scale, there isn't really any room to go further down. So I think it's really the ultimate bottom.
 
It's good to see people who not only posts the what, but also the why; a much more interesting question.
 
The question is: Who would I most like to see rule the world. I placed the seven primary factions in order using this basis, but I also included (what I believe) their leadership would most resemble if compared to a historical nation/leader:

Morgan: Late 19th century/early 20th century United States ~ Post Civil War but pre World War I, a nation rapidly expanding economically and industrially, filled with entrepeneurs and con men, philanthropists and robber barons. Virtually no government regulation over business whatsoever. This leads to an exploding economy but widespread abuses in safety and quality. Any citizen has the opportunity to reach the heights of success with luck, talent, and hard work. Few do, but most rise to a comfortable niche within the strata.

Santiago: Late 20th century United States ~ in the height of the Cold War. An economy largely driven by military buildup. Constant fear of the 'big one' going off, but constant preparation means that it is a manageable fear. Distrust of the motives of outside factions, Fraternity and Cooperation abound within the faction itself. Individual Morale is highest of any faction reflected by a "Can Do" attitude that allows citizens to overcome nearly any obstacle. Celebration of Spartan culture and patriotic efforts to preserve peace through superior firepower. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Dierdre: 21st century European socialism, particularly those nations focusing mostly on living standards and environmental harmony at the cost of many freedoms. Most citizens content, but few truly 'happy'. Very high taxes limit personal wealth (by extension freedom as well), but all basic needs are met, art and culture celebrated, political correctness the happy thought for the day. A lovely "Brave New World."

Lal: 17th or even 20th century Holland (?) A society filled with scientists, artists, and philosophers, determined at any cost to prevent war with neighbors. Democratic society with virtually every social liberty available to citizens, good And bad. Excellent external diplomatics, capable of appeasing and setting potential invaders/opponents at each others' throats before they make the Peacekeepers' society their target. Completely incapable of protecting its citizens in the event diplomacy breaks down. Constant fear of the inevitable day when an opponent Does decide to gobble them up.

Zakharov:
A Eugenic state ala 1930's/1940's Nazi Germany, led by Josef Mengele instead of Adolf Hitler. All citizens serve the state's insatiable hunger for technological gain. Ethics are completely ignored. Eugenics (genetic manipulation, embryonic research, euthanasia) is the watchword. The movie Gattaca is a good example of society's strata: Citizens with pure genes achieve leadership, Citizens with less than pure genes not allowed to breed, but are used as labor and research projects/laboratory animals. Nothing and Noone must stand in the way of scientific progress.

Miriam: Late 20th century Iran/Afghanistan ~ A society ruled by the theocratic elite, where only the 'faithful' are allowed any rights and privileges. Infidels and non-believers are treated as slaves at best, executed as unholy influences at worst. End goal is the complete religious domination of All other nations and construction of a Hegemony of Believers following one true faith. Within the society, one can find many examples of compassion and altruism, but only to believers. Freedom of expression, art, even science is rigidly restricted to only those outlets that glorify God.

Yang: Mao's Cultural Revolution ~ mid 20th century China. A society where the intellectual elite have already been dispatched, as well as any others who might threaten the goals of the Hive (politicians, schoolteachers, artists). All citizens are mere cells in one organism: the State. All citizens exist to serve the state. All things exist to serve the state. All else is to be altered to serve the state, or destroyed. The absolute worst form of human existence since all aspects of humanity have been completely eliminated.


-Elgalad
 
Personally, I see more of Yang in Pol Pot and the Red Khmer in Cambodia, but Moa isn't exactly the antithesis of Yang, either...
 
I don't think Pol Pot gave anything more than lip service to the notion of Communism. Mao at least gave the impression he was serious.



-Elgalad
 
I think both of them are a good match for Yang... unfortunately

Anyway, excellent job, elgalad!!! :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:
 
Back
Top Bottom