If I Were King ...

In the "Crab Bucket" article discussion, I quipped:
(of course, if I ruled the world, it would be a much better place...)
and Landon Erp replied: Thank you Victor Von Marotta. Been brushing up on your Nietzhce?

It does raise a serious issue regarding Objectivists -- if not Objectivism -- and so I place it here in the Dissent area, though that might not be quite right, either.

Maybe this should be a poll.

Do you think you have special knowledge not shared by others?
Do you think you know better than most people how the world should be arranged?
Do you believe that you can make a better world?
Do you believe that you are "on a mission" to make a better world?
Do you want to live in some other kind of society?
How do you relate to this quote (often identified with Robert F. Kennedy, but only an unattributed citation from him, apparently):

Some men see things as they are and ask, "Why?"
I see things as they ought be and ask, "Why not?"

See this link: http://www.hol.gr/greece/grkpg1.htm They note first that
"To the Greeks, however, life is the most significant fact in the world, and human life is the greatest wonder on earth. The Greeks were the first people to play. Their famous Olympic Games are witness to their boundless enthusiasm for living. Their art speaks of the pleasure they derive from the form of the human body. But the Greeks were also well known for their achievments in sciences such as philosophy and medicine."

And that is pretty easy for an Objectivist to understand and appreciate. However, they also state: "The Greeks were the first people to say that the world was knowable, because they believed in man's power of reason. They had no idea of changing their own life or the world around them through the knowledge acquired by reason. The world was something to be understood and admired as it was. Through understanding the nature of the universe and the nature of man, a Greek believes he has the key to understanding man's own place in the scheme of things."

What kind of person are you?
Is Objectivism a personal philosophy?
Is Objectivism a universal philosophy?
It is both, neither, or something else?

And if you ruled the world, would it really be a better place?

(See, for instance, Ursula K. LeGuin's Lathe of Heaven. A psychiatrist meets a young man whose dreams can change the world, so the psychiatrist hypnotises the young man to dream of a better world. Of course, actions have consequences...)

Post 1

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 12:04pm

First off I realize it's Nietzche can't believe I let that slip.

Secondly, a lot to cover. To me Objectivism is a personal philosophy with some universal implications. A phrase I started using shortly after accepting Objectivism was/is "I refuse to care more about your welfare than you do." This has several implications, in that I refuse to care about a person who chooses to have unwanted child after child in order to create a larger welfare check to support themselves but refuses to further their education an or seek meaningly gainful employment. It also applies to "finding a perfect solution to a person's problems." You can find the best solution in the world to a problem that seems elementary to you and so simple it's almost a waste of time, but if the person it will benefit does not see the value in it, that's not worth wasting YOUR valuable time over.

One of the hardest things a person ever has to learn is that some people just don't want to stop suffering for one reason or any number of others. You can be destroyed by this fact or you can eliminate that mindset from your own life and allow people their self-made misery.

And as hard as it may be to live in society as it is, if there are not enough individuals willing and able to create a better one there really aren't many better options. I'm assuming most people reading this are reading it on a computer with their own internet connection or something close (rented time at Kinko's, a friend's connection). And the fact that they both have this and have enough resources that this isn't an immeasurable drain on their lives and livlihoods (with some possible exceptions) is symptomatic of a decent society.

At times I think I know all the answers to how humans should best deal with each other, but if I cannot find others who share my ideas or can be convinced then I simply have to live without my ideal and search out the best real world alternative in existence. A utopia forced upon someone, anyone or any group of people is nothing but a golden cage.

---Landon

Post 2

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 12:42pm

To take the question seriously, and not just as the premise of an SF story, one would need to consider what it would really mean to "rule the world." Traditionally, 'ruling' has meant exercising the use of force or having a strong influence on how it is exercised. Substituting one ruler for another does not substantially change the problems that are inherent to rule by force. Leaving aside any magical powers, "ruling the world" would mean working with a huge bureaucracy, full of people with their own little realms of power and their own agendas. I believe Rand once noted (and if she didn't I'm sure someone else did) that the worst abuses in a centralized state often don't come from the top, they come from the swarm of "favorites" that surround the ruler. Even an enlightened and well-intentioned ruler would not be able to completely stop that. What is needed is not better rulers at the reigns, but rather an end to the practice of ruling by force in the first place.

But in a sense all of the above is of little relevance, and not just because I will never be ruler of the world. Rather, there is a completely different question that any good egoist should be trying to answer:

If I ruled the world, would I be a better person?

I think the answer to that question is, No -- at which point, the answers to any of the other questions would seem to be irrelevant.

--
Richard Lawrence
Webmaster, Objectivism Reference Center

Post 3

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:18pm

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

> And if you ruled the world, would it really be a better
> place?

I doubt it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and giving me dominion over an entire world would either crush me beneath the weight of the attendant responsibility, or be more temptation than I can handle.

I don't want to be king of the world. Being the captain of my own soul is work enough.

Post 4

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:57pm

> And if you ruled the world, would it really be a better
> place?

Sure it would be.

I would say, here is a constitution that enshrines your individual rights as defined by the philosophy of objectivism. It may never be amended or changed.

Go elect yourself a Government and live by it.

And as a recommendation, keep yourself familiar with the principles behind it.

Post 5

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:02pm

The first and only command of the Objectivist dictator:

"I command you all to be completely free!"

Post 6

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 9:39am

Matthew Diehl wrote:

> The first and only command of the Objectivist dictator:
> "I command you all to be completely free!"

That's a contradictory command if I ever saw one. How can you order somebody to be free? Freedom can't be given. It has to be taken, usually at gunpoint.

Post 7

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:56pm

Matthew,

It was not intended to be taken literally. I had hoped that my use of the term, "Objectivist dictator" would provide sufficient illustration of the obvious (and intended) contradiction.

MCD

Post 8

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:28pm

Marcus,

I have often given thought to improving the US Constitution, but the reality is that Americans do not choose to live by the pretty good constitution they have. Unless a people are committed to live by their constitution, even a perfect Objectivist constitution will little improve government and society.

More generally:

I know how to live my life better than anyone else knows how I should live it. Despite that, I know that many people would be willing to tell me how I might do it better. In fact, no small number have told me how I might do it better.

There is a lesson here. I might think I know many things about how other individuals might live their lives better, at times. But, remember the above paragraph! In truth, I have no business trying to inform you on your personal choices of who to have sex with, how much money to strive for and in what profession, how much time to spend with friends and family, how often you should go to the doctor or what operations you should choose to have, what food and drink should you have, how much time should you put into the upkeep of your home, how long a commute should you make, and billions of other individual decisions you must make. In fact, I really do not want the weight upon my shoulders of trying to make these decisions wisely for you even if I could. Keep them and enrich my world by being the individual that you want to develop yourself to be. I hope you will be happy with your results.

I would appreciate it if you understood my own need to develop and manage my own life. Do not be presumptuous enough to think you can live my life better than I can and I will try my best to understand that I cannot live your life better than you can. My life is my ultimate property right. I must recognize what your ultimate property right is. I must not use force to interfere with your rights and you must not use force to interfere with mine. As ruler of the world, I would accept only one function and that would be to rule my own life and to deny anyone else the option to rule my life. As such a ruler, I expect everyone else to be a similar ruler of the world of their own life. It is your life, not mine.

Post 9

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 1:14am