If I Ruled The World

[Lark]

I'd institute the basic income, I'd also put secularism and the liberal causes back in their respective boxes, then I'd chill out a live a life like Archer.

- - - Updated - - -

Then perhaps the world would be better off without a ruler, for no heart of any man can be trusted with such a burden.

But without a head, a body can't function. Leaders of some sort must thus exist to keep order among the would-be chaos.

Yeah but surely you are talking about mere mortals, I would be good to great as a world ruler.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'd institute the basic income, I'd also put secularism and the liberal causes back in their respective boxes, then I'd chill out a live a life like Archer.

This is pretty much what I suspected.

 

[Passacaglia]

yes, it seems like a thankless task -- just from having modded two forums + watching enough Game of Thrones.

Plus, someone is always wanting to kill you to take your job.

That's why you don't rule the world directly -- you control a pliable figurehead to dictate your edicts.

And when he gets killed, it's because you were backing the 'freedom fighter' who assassinated him, because your figurehead was getting too uppity and began asking questions.

 

[Passacaglia]

-When criminals are charged for killing someone the death penalty will be implimented as pennance regardless of other's emotional qualms about it. Because technically if someone is willing to kill an innocent, and often brutaly. Why do we let them a guilty killer live for life in prison? To which we have to pay for it all. They have become a threat to society and they've taken undeserving lives.

I'd be happy to see all heinous criminals get their just desserts...except that history has proven that juries and even judges do make terrible mistakes.

We can set a wrongfully convicted man free from a life sentence, but we can't un-execute him.

I'm assuming you mean when criminals are convicted in that first sentence...I hope?

 

[Tellenbach]

There are several places I'd love to nuke, but I'd start with banning curling as a competive sporting event.

 

[Kanra Jest]

I'd be happy to see all heinous criminals get their just desserts...except that history has proven that juries and even judges do make terrible mistakes.

We can set a wrongfully convicted man free from a life sentence, but we can't un-execute him.

I'm assuming you mean when criminals are convicted in that first sentence...I hope?

The threat of imperfection always haunts our choices. A life sentence is suffering. While the latter would be more final in an end of existence, but there is no structure to take here without any sense of risk it would appear. Some convicted falsely may on rare occasions be killed, but more often would the strongly convicted murderers be executed from society, not having to deal with them in courts for so many years. A double edged sword, if we are willing to take the risk. Yet such risks exist as of now, too.

And, yes. I do mean that.

I just believe people have become too nervous about executing those disserving. Perhaps, only on the grounds of proof could such action be taken. However such is claimed, and whatever it may be.

 

[Kanra Jest]

There are several places I'd love to nuke, but I'd start with banning curling as a competive sporting event.

Nuke the destabilizers of peace, and there we go. But if we eliminate a city of terrorists for example, any civilians there may be wiped out as well. So is it worth the sacrifice? To prevent a great war from ever occurring. But that would be morally repugnant.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Nuke the destabilizers of peace, and there we go. But if we eliminate a city of terrorists for example, any civilians there may be wiped out as well. So is it worth the sacrifice? To prevent a great war from ever occurring. But that would be morally repugnant.

It's not morally repugnant if you think death is freedom. Then, when you kill people, you're offering them freedom! The family members of the dead people will be happy that their relatives were given freedom and be grateful to you.

Everyone knows this! It's common sense! You must be an idiot if you don't understand it.

 

[Kanra Jest]

It's not morally repugnant if you think death is freedom. Then, when you kill people, you're offering them freedom! The family members of the dead people will be happy that there relatives were given freedom and be grateful to you.

Everyone knows this! It's common sense! You must be an idiot if you don't understand it.

Of course I do. I wouldn't think many would be able to appreciate that kind of sacrifice, or freedom, depending on perception. Nuking seems to be a touchy subject regardless of reason, but if it gets the job done ultimately, it should be sufficient. That's how America won and stopped the war, after all. Empathy in that situation would've got in the way.

People tend to focus on the details of what happened than the big picture. For the people who were oppressed having died, despite the fact it was a haven full of the scum that needed to be extinguished and would be constantly drawn out otherwise. A nuclear move of some sort would probably be inevitable, anyway. Nuclear war and all.

I agree with you, though. I was not expressing my own doubt in such a maneuver. I would have no moral qualms with it's efficiency, myself. But what I would expect from common society a difference since they tend to blow things out of proportion missing the big picture of many things. Do you think they wouldn't have a problem? America remains hesitant to ever let one off again.