Taking Over The World

If I ruled the world, then I would almost immediately renounce my rule over the world, since trying to keep the entire planet under one government is impractical. In the short time I rule, though, I would make sure to make certain changes, such as redrawing national borders and neutering the power of certain nations through various means.

...

Wait, if you just let go of the power, won't anything you do be for nothing?

The second you step down, people will probably forget about you, your changes and get right down to a vicious power struggle, civil war, and backstabbing.

A long reign would have more time to really drill it into the minds of everyone just who is in charge and how things are going to be.

If you do a very good job of it and plan a heir or transition system for when you let go of power, your mark in human history could be eternal instead of maybe 15 minutes.

That would depend on what the changes you are trying to enact are. I'm guessing my changes would require around 50 years to just get started, but everyone might not be that abitious. CPF Mfan could use his power to break the status quo and then step down. It could very well be enough. It all depends on what you're trying to achive.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

My big goals would probably be the classics. World Peace, End World Hunger, Space! yada yada.

Even assuming I didn't have to flatten half the world into an irradiated wasteland and feed the dead to the living in order to survive, I estimate that any change I do that I want to be permanent should take about at least 20 years.

30 if I want to make sure.

It will take that long because I will have to work on the children if I want it to work on the long run. Years of being called a leader to the point where the kids have kids should cement my rule. (Unless I was horrible at my job in which case I doubt I'd last 1 year anyway.)

When I'm not playing Super Nanny, I'd work on the other projects.

Things like universal metric measures, currency, "promoting" an offical Earth language, standerdising the living conditions of those stuck in poverty from utterly destitute to "Poor W/ Chance Of Getting Better", going to have to over haul banking (screw leveraging and fiat policies!) and stockmarkets too.

May have to push for a universal standard on cities, transport, factories, heavy machinery, etc. To ensure ecoloical sustainability.

Militaries would have to be repurposed into things like extreme remote construction/exploration task forces. Providing labor and security to key installations, and ultimately, turning elite killing machines into something more usefull like tech specialists or deep sea construction crews.

Damn that's a lot of things to do.

My list overlaps somewhat, with the big addition of getting rid of money and instilling future generations with a culture where people want to work for the common good and everyone is provided for. But

remains a constant, which is why the list must include research into how to signifigantly prolong human lifespan.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

What would you replace money with? Or in other words, how would that work?

edited 17th Jul '12 7:27:50 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

What he said.

I can not even begin to imagine a world without money. (Makes the world go round you know.)

Its going to be part of my Vital Trinity of Guns, Goons, Gold.

How would this Moneyless world measure (Market) wealth? Transfer value (ie Trade)? And in what medium?

Money has been around (in some form or another) since the Stone Age. Getting rid of it may be a fatal blow to the global economy, spark black markets outside (unless you planned this you Evil Master Mind you!) your control, and undo progress to near the Stone Age level again.

My crude image of what the end result would be is below. There would be a long transition period where we would be weaned of greed and selfishness, during which the position money has would gradually diminish.

• You recieve the goods you need to live for free.
• Other resourses ´will be distributed according to need, not money.
• You work for whoever or whatever cause or project you determine worthy of your time and effort. (If it's something where incompetence might cause danger you'll be rejected/accepted by your potential peers.)

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Uh....that sounds like Communism.

It didn't work too well.

Anything different you gonna do to make it work?

Honstly why would somebody want to rule the world? A huge part of the world outright sucks and isn't worth ruling. I wouldn't mind being ruler of a small prosperous European nation, like Liechtenstein or Monaco, or even a sunny Caribbean island like Martinique or Aruba. But the world? That's just too much responsibility for not much reward.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Why? Why not?

Seriously though, ruling the entire world, instead of just the good bits of it have some advantages.

For one, you don't have to worry about neighboring powers or potential violent conflicts. Probably because you crushed all opposition to become world ruler after all.

Then there's the resources.

An entire planet will yield you more everything. You won't have to trade, you can just take what you want from the entire world. A very usefull and convinient thing that is best displayed right now by China's Rare Earth Monopoly (neede in electronics).

You'd still have to worry about potential conflicts, such as popular uprisings, civil war or the like. As well as the ordinary problems that countries have.

Some advantages would be a severe reduction in global military spending, free trade, economies of scale, and exploiting comparative advantage. If the world were united under a single unitary government, you'd also have the advantage of uniform laws, tax and fiscal policy, and the ability to enforce a required standard of living, if that was your thing.

I guess if I were running things as an autocrat, I'd prioritize universal education, health care, scientific research and a mandatory minimum standard of living for all people. I'd focus the criminal justice system on crime prevention and rehabilitation rather than punishment, abolish the death penalty, legalize drug use for anybody over 17, and replace incarceration for all but the most severe crimes with community service and fines.

Most taxes would be abolised and replaced with a uniform progressive income tax, and a single central bank would issue a single global currency.

Naturally the people would enjoy freedom of speech, religion, assembly, expression, press, due process and equal protection of the law.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I take it you think plutocracy/capitalism is working splendidly?

• No genocides/persecution.
• Focus on bettering lives instead of some dickwaving.

Basically what communism ideally should've been, but then some idiots messed it up. Also this would be much easier if it were accomplished peacefully.

edited 17th Jul '12 12:01:02 PM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I think we could all agree that any system that doesn't involve genocide and persecution is better than one that does, right? Why would a plutocracy be inherently better or worse than supposedly "pure" communism with the same goals and features?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

In any case, getting people into the mindset that obeying to a single person is a good idea tends to end up badly. Even if I ended up being the awesomest tyrant ever (and I doubt that, since, as I said, I have no head for administration), what about my successor? And my successor's successor, and so on? Or should I find a way to obtain physical immortality (unlikely) and rule the world forever (unlikely and unpleasant)?

Nah. People need to learn to get their stuff together without relying on a single ruler, no matter how well-intentioned. I'd immediately resign, without even trying to solve anything.

edited 17th Jul '12 12:17:21 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Or you could try like Claudius in I Claudius, where he hated the fact that he got pushed into absolute power. His plan was to name Nero, the worst possible candidate, as his successor, and hope that the people would overthrow him and bring back the Roman Republic. Of course in reality, things did not go that way.

After all, many people think that they would be a good leader if they were put into power. Conversely, the people who believe that are probably the people who shouldn't be in power in the first place.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

If I remember correctly, there was a Sultan (who had been imprisoned in a palace for all of his life, and did not really care for ruling) who made the point more clearly. He ordered all those who conspired (against his will) to put him on the throne to be decapitated, and then resigned.

edited 17th Jul '12 12:39:16 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Well, there are probably some people out there who would be good in absolute power, and who believe that they should be in power. Like me, for example.

Any decently constructed government needs some sort of checks and balances. Historically, even the most absolute rulers had limitations on their power, whether through fear of assassination, respect for custom, or the practical need of preventing revolts.

edited 17th Jul '12 1:23:46 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Nah. I'm not gonna accept a single person holding world power, not even if it is the greatest person ever.

Unless it's Princess Celestia. I'd be OK with that

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

So the best person to rule over the human race is a non-human?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I once had that idea, that if I took over the world, I would first start some global purge or other shit of all those who think autocratic rule is good for them, just so they would know it is not.

edit reason: typo

edited 17th Jul '12 1:32:55 PM by lordGacek

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

Exterminate those most loyal to you. Then the people who hate autocracy come to think that maybe you've got the right idea after all in getting rid of those who love autocracy, so you then have to exterminate them as well.

If you want to get overthrown, you need to get out there and do some oppressing. But if the oppression is too bad, then the people may be too afraid to rebel. And if it's too light, then the people will decide they can live with it. This is what is known as the "Goldilocks principle of tyranny."

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Of course, I wouldn't allow myself to be overthrown before I prepare a secret escape route, preferably to a tropical island.

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

Good luck being a tyrant who can enjoy a comfortable retirement. Pinochet and Marcos kinda sorta managed to pull it off. Napoleon could have if he had stayed on Elba. Being a dictator-for-life means you get to be a dictator until you die, one way or another.

edited 17th Jul '12 1:55:55 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Actually, the Genocide thing might be mandatory.

It may be bad but one probably had to use that option (or it happened against your wishes anyway) to obtain Ruler of the World status.

I don't think the Ruler of the World job should strictly hereditary.

Sure, it would be nice if I had a kid that could fill in for me but it seems like such a gamble and a ridiculous limit to my options.

Would need the proper combination of Nature and Nurture, genetic gifts of intelligence and emotional toughness, a personality suited for ruling over the world, a DESIRE to do so, etc.

All of the above would be hard to reliably have in one's children even if the harem gave you thousands to choose from.

A sort of cheating way I might be able to pull it off would be state orphanages/schools I suppose.

I'd scour the globe looking for The One. That Golden Child(ren) who have the potential for greatness who can groomed into it.

OR I could just have a form of government ready that isn't so autocratic by the time I'm done.

One last thing, as Ruler of the World, I would probaby set aside a little reserve or No Go Zone for myself.

Somewhere my Law does not reach and people can flee from my rule.

As a safety valve/social experiment.

Maybe even turn it into a ritual thing like students on Spring Break going to Vegas or Mexico.