Education would be the number one priority Gay Marriage, polygamy etc would be legalized. Remove christian references in law/governmental areas. Religion in public schools would only be taught factually. (IE, christians believe in X. Buddhists believe in Y, as opposed to X is true because the bible says so)
1) Monetary reform, push for several main currencies. 2) Divide world into 4 economic zones. 3) Propaganda of health, education, family and civil duty above all. Control of population size in different areas. 4) Citizenship reform, divide citizenship by level, from 0 to 4. 5) Reforming the military. 6) up to 20% of GDP goes into science development alone. 7) Socialist-wise control and resource/goods distribution. 8) Capital punishment, penal colonies and work camps. and more...
Expand to Mars and build a fully independent colony with the capability to expand easily, all the while moving all newborns there so as to fully remove human presence on earth within a few generations. Then make sure no one has any historical records and see what happens.
I would strive to be a just leader, but it would be a cruel justice that not everyone would appreciate. As a chaotic ruler, it wouldn't so much be the things that I do, but the things that I sit back and allow to take place. It would generally be a decentralized government relying mostly on volunteers for its help, but slightly more conservative than libertarian in nature. I say decentralised because every part of the world is different, and they should be free to function the way that works best for them and their culture.
To me, justice isn't about ensuring equality, but rather being consistent in the way people are treated, and creating an environment where those who work hard prosper, while the weak, lazy cowards are left on the bottom where they belong. Everyone's different and unique, therefore people shouldn't all be treated the same way, but they should be prepared to reap what they sow. Nobody would be entitled to anything but the bare necessities. If someone is weak they can seek out power to become greater, and if someone is in power, they'll have to work to keep that power. I might interfere a little bit here or there, but only when I really feel that it's necessary. Otherwise it's up to the people themselves to make the world a better place. That way if something goes wrong, they can't really blame me because they did it to each other.
As for religions groups and corporations, they'd have little to no authority over me, and in turn I would have very little power over them. If people asked my advice for how to live, I would give it to them, but in the end it's up to them whether they listen or not.
By the D&D definition of "evil" I would be close to chaotic evil, but I don't really agree with their definition of the word, since the alignment system seems to completely ignore purity/holiness morality. Even so, full chaotic evil is too extreme to describe me, so chaotic neutral with "evil" tendencies fits the best.
At the beginnig I woud put comunism economy for some years so when I'll let my people free to commercialize as they want they'll start from zero. Probably I'll be very rigid with rules but they wont be too many! And I'll apply death punishment, I'll be straight but fair! Obviously with lot of military by my side to scare them to follow rules. I'm sorry to say, but sometimes if you're not strong enough you can't be a leader of human race.
As I said: for some years! Just to redstribute richness in population! Then (as I said) I will free again commercialization because i know that comunism it's the opposite of progress! It's a very hard decision to take but I think it's necessary to prepare the ground where humen can grow. Tell me: what happens if you built a skyscraper (humanity progress) on a swamp (poorness and unhealthyness) ?
Yes yes I understand your idea But complication cannot be foreseen what if this 'communism' may last for decades your people may be on the edge doctors, businessmen and others of high standard may object. Things are not that straight forward but yes your idea is better than most
My country would have a much more balanced wealth system. The government would work for the good of the people rather then the other way around. The police and Military would become just about the same thing. More Police like Guards in Matching uniform. A massive war on crime and poverty. I would also make my country alot more nationalistic, make people proud to be who they are and have banners and flags of the nation all over the place. Cleaner cities, Completely get rid of non green energy. Make the road,energy, medical, and environment, Ran only by the government. Each person has a vote that counts on the nation's leader. Each person has a say on choices the country makes.Make the country alot more Export based rather then import.
Divide it to several autonomous nations with one governing committee that does relatively nothing aside from revision the constitution. Provide global free internet access. I will have it maintained by highschool students who need to fulfill volunteering hours requirements. Divide the United States of America into New England, the South, Texas, and the Western States. Because i'm tired of their shit.
You can split the country into West, East, and Texas fairly easily. Any other divisions would be difficult. (The power grid in the US is divided into those three sections. Texas has its own power grid because Texas refused to hook into either of the national power grids.) There's not really a national water grid to speak of, so that's not much of a hurdle. The internet grid is currently heavily interconnected, but there are sufficient hubs to make it feasible.
Mine would have to be a monarchy, so I would quickly be splitting that crown on to far more established dynasties.
The world would be readily divided back up into its constituent nation states, and handed back over to their rightful Kings and Queens (where appropriate, I'll make concessions for established republics such as San Marino and the USA).
With a monarch as its figurehead, nations would further be divided into cantons and governed via direct democracy using the Swiss system.
I would certainly ensure that the legal code was developed by non-special interest parties and that all religion be treated as a viral infection. Priests / evangelists / preachers / places of worship would be treated as transmission vectors and dealt with appropriately. All books of religion* would be treated as infectious material and disposed of, with samples held much as smallpox was held.
To be honest the only solution I see for some problems woud be confiscation, although in the case of land that is eternally fought over I suspect that fusing to highly radioactive glass / pounding from orbit until no recognisable topography remains is the only real solution.
Legal equality for all humans, irrespective of race, gender, orientation etc. Ensure all companies can pay for their own development, close the stock and currency markets, outlaw monetary interest. All lawyers to be paid a flat rate from community funds so the rich can't buy the law.
Finally create incentives for groups to focus on the large scale issues that face us - for example getting off this rock so we aren't all sitting ducks.
That's a start.
__________ Any that can withstand a rigorous checking against observation and that are free of deliberately obscure waffle would of course be acceptable, but nothing that contradicts best observed evidence. I have no idea if such thing exists. Given that there is no evidence for any kind of supernatural being, I suspect not.
snuffles11Featured By OwnerNov 27, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
"and that all religion be treated as a viral infection. Priests / evangelists / preachers / places of worship would be treated as transmission vectors and dealt with appropriately. All books of religion* would be treated as infectious material and disposed of, with samples held much as smallpox was held."
Seriously, why? Objectively (i.e. not from a position that posits the existence of the supernatural, something for which there is no evidence) then religious texts are fairy stories at best and books filled with violent hate-speech at worst. In many places such works, if written from scratch today, would be tightly controlled and with good reason. Faith is no defence for wilful blindness.
snuffles11Featured By OwnerNov 27, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
Thoughtcrime does not yet exist, and I surely hope it never will. Action is the only thing that can be truly thought of as a crime.
As opposed to that, my church gives a boatload of money (no pun intended) to victims of Hurricane Sandy, does community service, feeds the poor through our food pantry, and wishes safety and happiness to all men, women and children of all creeds. (I go to an Orthodox Christian Church.) Saying that religion ought to be outlawed because some people USE it to justify rash actions of hatred and violence is a pathetic and flawed strategy that wholly misjudges the problem at hand, and seeks an easy solution that isn't forthcoming.
Essentially, the easy answer to your question is "Why not?" Because you have to justify taking away the right of belief to billions of people just on the chance that they use religion to justify something. It's not even statistically sound when you think of it that way. It's pointless, especially in this modern day and age when religious toleration (both inwardly and outwardly) is at an all time high. You aren't hung for disbelief, or for belief in something else (most places, anyway.)
This whole train of thought really just grates on my ears to be honest. I'm not advocating for theocracy, over here. Why go all opposite extreme on me?
It isn't you, trust me on this, it's humans; I know I have to live as one, I know I have to accept their idiocies and irrationalities, but given the OP's post about, essentially, a personal utopia, I would wish for a world where faith and belief simply didn't exist, a world where belief in the supernatural is universally considered a charming phase of childhood and then lain aside as with other invisible friends. I would wish for a world where people accepted exactly what they are and focus on the larger scale and the longer term.
snuffles11Featured By OwnerNov 27, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
Considering that we are concerned with existing in line with the morality handed down by the Creator of the Universe and are looking forward to our salvation and eternal life, I can see that we have identical plans, but vastly different definitions of what "reality" and "long term" are.
And despite that, we CAN live together in harmony.
Which is why we ought to be able to- while believing whatever we want.
I am not concerned with the morality handed down from a putative sky fairy of dubious nature in the slightest, although I appreciate that you are. I seek no salvation other than history and I have no idea what you mean by eternal life. We can certainly live in harmony however, especially if we stick to observable, quantifiable givens and observables.
It's when we (and I include myself here more often than I am happy with (insert emoticon for wry smile - I don't know which that is)) make authoritative or absolute statements about things that are non-spacio-temporal in extent that we get into sticky situations.
Example: "God want's you to do X", is a problematic because there are a number of conflicts with observable reality inherent. "I think it would be really good idea to do X because of Y and the resultant Z", (assuming Y and Z are logically derived from the action X and require no outside context responses) is better because all the givens are demonstrable.
snuffles11Featured By OwnerNov 28, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
Why does the assertion in the third paragraph matter? You obviously won't even if He commands it, so don't. I just told you I'm not advocating a theocracy- so enact whatever laws you will that allow people to do whatever it is you want. We believers will restrict ourselves, and leave the rest of you alone- those who don't are not following the Scriptures anyway. I see no reason why this should bother you to the extent that it obviously does.
Not so much right wing; generally I'm seen as fairly left wing - except on issues of faith. On this point I am fairly extreme in that the more I consider faith and read and learn, the less clearly I can separate it from mental illness.
Love it lol, though I disagree with your disposal of all religious texts, it reminds me starkly of the decree of Theophilus, who (allegedly) ordered the destruction of the Library of Alexandria in his quest to destroy paganism.
And seriously? Nothing about fixing all the tissue boxes? Am I the only person p*ssed off by this?