It's an interesting mind exercise. I expect such a man (or woman) would be resisted at every turn, by every country, by every leader, and deservedly so because we have no reason to believe that he has our best interests at heart or that he has the skills to bring it about.
But there's always try before you buy: if such a man (or woman) was to work their way up, as mayor, then governor, then president, in each case ruling in an exemplary and almost god-like way, maybe then they would... well, probably still be resisted at every turn and still be mistrusted as soon as he drops democracy and brings out the armies, but by less people at least.
Really, if someone were that good, they could teach every country's rulers how to be better people and would then be far more successful and cause far less harm to the world.
Well, history shows that this is possible, but its an incredibly rare event when a leader emerges with the kind of charisma and daring necessary to pull this off. I'd say Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar (Julius was more of a warlord, Augustus was the one with real vision), Ashoka Maurya, Hammurabi, and Napoleon could qualify, though Napoleon certainly had his faults (as they all did, to some extent). Also, depending on who you talk to, Genghis Khan was this too, though he was a certainly more brutal example if you got on his bad side.
Not to say our hypothetical Caesar wouldn't engage in brutal military conquest when it serves his goal of world unification - though he or she would prefer peaceful unification if it is possible. Such leaders almost always are a tad Machiavellian.
So... anyone care to explain to me why a ruler going on a campaign of world domination might possibly be a good idea? Especially since someone capable of running such a vast empire would be so incredibly rare that its collapse and decay after their deaths would be near-inevitable?
Even during their lifetimes, a single government for the entire planet seems like a horribly inflexible, inefficient way to run things. Different regions have different needs, and governments have very poor economies of scale.
What's precedent ever done for us?In this hypothetical scenario, it would be a good thing, especially because it being a good thing was a given, but in real life, it could never work.
Still Sheepin'Just to say: I wouldn't want any of those guys ruling over me, or anyone like them. They may have been awesome geezers for their day, but those were still truly horrible days as far as I've heard.
Also worth noting is that none of them actually took over the whole world, and what they did take eventually crumbled back to single countries (more or less). Could someone like them have taken over the world with modern technology? I'd say no, because they would also be opposed by modern technology. I'll still take democracy.
edited 20th Nov '11 9:38:59 AM by betaalpha
Nay. Nay to Caesar, American or not, and nay to all would-be dictators.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.I'd support them with all the heart in the world, up until the point where they try to invade and kill me in the name of peace.
That's pretty much in the job description for a dictator.
I'm baaaaaaackHmmm, I wonder if that's why they're so disliked?
If Caesar were an American today, he wouldn't have a problem becoming President, at least.
I'd support an American Caesar. I don't think he'd invade other countries though,but he'd do good for the people at home.
Now if we had an American Alexander the Great then it'd be different.
edited 23rd Nov '11 5:25:03 PM by TheWesterner
I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.So which properties of ancient leaders do you guys and gals really like? What do they have which would make you support them to the point of letting them abolish democracy in order to take control? What do they have that you don't get in modern politicians?
I'm quite interested in shedding some light on this ceasar. In the original post, Full Of Stars said he has a vision (which most rulers have), charisma (which many have) and the means to take control and banish humanity's biggest problems. What means are those?
The whole point of any government system is to produce an immortal leadership (not that humans are immortal but the replacement of the humans in the leadership results in the same good leadership) where
- The long-run cost of government is the least of all options
- The needs of the people are addressed
- If the people largely do not understand the best way to address their needs and in fact choose an inferior method of addressing them, the leadership is capable of convincing people of the superior method
- That the people are convinced of needs more pertinent to improving the quality of life and the longevity of the society
I'm all for it, if that Ceasr cares about the people/their problems.
We'll still need to fight for it to happen, though - it's the only way in age where those on the top don't listen to those on the bottom - this would have to be the starting point!
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio