Sunday, November 28, 2010

Am I a Tyrant?

Andrew D Atkin

A few days ago I had one of my 'scenario' thoughts, and wondered...If someone gave me the power to control the planet, then would I hand that power over for the sake of allowing a global democracy? The answer is no. I would keep the power to myself so as to force things to go the way I think they should go, whether others like it or not.

Why? Because I only trust democracy up to a point. I do not believe that people--nor corporations (and other) that manipulate people--can be trusted to make the right "big" decisions. And because we are now a massive world in terms of population, and now have potentially devastating power to destroy ourselves and our environment (via our technology and infrastructure), I would rather be a partial dictator for today simply to make sure that the worst (according to me) does not happen.

Hideously arrogant? Maybe. I would still do it though.

What exactly would I do?

I would introduce a system of reproduction licences to be employed globally. People will not be allowed to have children if they are in a messed-up state. The reproduction licences would also serve to control population when and as required.

Reproduction licences are the only thing I would specifically insist on, along with honesty and accountability in all aspects of social leadership. I would attack corruption on every level I can.

Other than that an "AndrewTopia" would be extremely prosperous, safe and free. It would protect people from the tyranny of bureaucrats and the raw power of money. It would also protect people from the "tyranny of the majority" which represent democracy at its worst.

It would be the end of occurrences such as the gulf oil spill and half the Amazon rainforest being destroyed for cheap meat etc. It would also be the end to true poverty (globally) within an incredibly short period of time - so easy to do.

My point:

If I can be this "arrogant" so as to claim ultimate power over the world, if I could, and in the name of my personal ideals, then can we expect a global elite to be any different? Would the reader be any different too?


Addition: 31-12-10:

It's a curious thought, but if you're born into the position of a functioning elite--be what/who they may??--you would then be left with the inheritance of incredible responsibility, whether you like it or not...

Sure you have the power to hand control of your world back to the democratic process, but if you have that power you must then ask yourself if you should really do as such? You would have to be deathly realistic about the consequences of your actions/inactions, because in substantial part at least it will be on your head if that democracy becomes diabolical - because you were the one who had the power to stop it.

You would have to think: If I allow for a true global democracy, then is it realistic to believe that psychopaths (and there are literally MILLIONS of them out there) will not be attracted to power*, of whom could (and eventually would?) someday use and abuse their nations ever more potent weapons of mass destruction, and the like? Would those consequences be on your head, Mr Elite, if you relinquished your power?
Hmmm...the best way to understand someone is often to just put yourself in their position.

My Optimum Sustainability is relevant here.

*And psychopaths are terribly good at obtaining power due to their ruthlessness, and shameless capacity for false-fronts and manipulation.

Note: Population control and Eugenics:

As an elite, you would have to confront the issues of population control, at least eventually. And in turn you would have to confront the issues of eugenics, because you can't really have one without the other.

When you control who can have how many kids, you are then a eugenicist by default, because even maintaining the biological status quo is "unnatural", because you would then be suppressing the "normal" process of reproductive success and failure throughout the human world.

My point is that the conspiracy theorists might be right. Because if we do have a virtual-elite with master control over everything, then not only may we need it, but that elite may have no (ultimate) choice but to control population and in turn make eugenic decisions.


  1. Yes you are an arrogant bastard. But more importantly, I don't think a few reproduction licences will save the world. Almost every human on this planet is neurotic enough to spawn a destructive child. Unless you plan to sterilise the vast majority of people, I suggest you come down from the clouds and think in more rational terms.

    I like your idea of throwing all serious criminals onto an island. Inexpensive. Shoot them with laser beams if they try to escape. The prisoners can never return to your daughter's bedroom, and they will get more mental stimulation and satisfaction from using their skills to build a life on an island, without any harassment from guards. Great idea.

    You won't be able to enforce your reproduction laws without mass-rioting. If you don't believe in democracy (I certainly don't), there is another way to manipulate the masses:
    Add sedatives to canned food and spray oxytocin into air conditioners.
    If we can reduce violence and increase family bonds, albeit artificially, we might just have a chance to build your utopia.

  2. Thank you, Richard.

    The central point was that I would not be surprised if the world is being run by people who have a distinct contempt for democracy, because I can kind of relate to that. Other than that, of course my expression was an "acid trip"...if I may use the kind of words that you would probably use.

    I agree that the world is plagued with mass-neurosis [see link below], but we can still make serious long-term progress by effectively sterilising (ahh...sterilising is such an un-pc word!) the worst of the worst.

    And yes, my eco-prison idea would do a great deal to stop the worst of us from having kids and in turn reproducing themselves. for *your* ideas, some people believe that that (and worse) is already happening. I don't know myself.

  3. Prisons:

    Incidentally or not, prisons are in fact a sterilisation programme.
    In our society (New Zealand) we have soft prison sentences for violent offenders. And so we let these people out after only a short sentence for if they get any jail time at all...

    And in turn we let them breed, and we let them have as many children as they want because we support them to do so via our welfare system.

    And it's all done in the name of politically correct "kindness".

    ...But did the politically correct calculate the long-term costs? Did they care?...Or was it even deliberate to help destabilise society, so as to make it easier to change it?

  4. Riots:


    Just thought I would comment that riots should be extremely easy to control. It's just a matter of using maybe hundreds of part-automated/remote-controlled "mini tanks" that shoot rubber bullets (or other) into people's legs [see link below].

    Sounds nasty (and it is) but it should leave very little permanent damage and it would rapidly eliminate the beginnings of any serious riot. And in turn people would quickly learn that riots cannot realistically form and function.

    I must say it's a bit scary that absolute social control can now be so easily and efficiently achieved. Soon you will hardly even need a goon-squad to suppress people.

  5. Well, reducing violent crime is a good start. Then we could move on to the much more difficult task:
    repairing all the neurotic minds, including yours and mine

  6. Your ‘tyranny’ is borne out of the belief that you are capable of running other people lives better than they can. I can certainly appreciate your frustration. Watching people eschewing the burden of personal responsibility simply to indulge in self-destructing acts is quite troubling. But I would rather suffer though the drudgery of the current system than see any utopia implemented.

    In you world with reproductive licenses, I wouldn’t be here to have our nice conversations as my maternal grandmother was a prostitute and drug user. I’m sure you could justify the loss of her reproductive contribution because statistics say the offspring of such maladjusted people have a low success rate. The question is where would you stop? Would you eliminate of those with physical and mental defects? Why not implement an age for euthanasia? Both plans would certainly make for an easier, less cumbersome society. And the savings would be enormous.

    I’m also curious of what would be the cost to achieve the safety and freedom of ‘AndrewTopia.’ I’m sure you wouldn’t be able to convince residence in the Middle East to simply join along in your plans. Are you willing to leave them be, or would you eliminate them for the sake of peace? What of general dissidents who would oppose your actions because of moral or religious grounds? You would certainly have to round up all the guns to minimize any popular uprisings, a prospect not likely to go over well in the U.S. Just how many would have to die to achieve your utopia?

  7. Yes Richard - no one's brain is 'neurosis free'.

    But the only mass-scale way you can "repair" is to prevent.

  8. You would have to look much further than "the worst of the worst." If you want to reduce child abuse, you might consider rewarding the abusive parent-to-be. For example, if they keep the sperm away from the egg, they are entitled to cheap rent and food (canned food with sedatives).

    "Good parents" (parents who passed the psychology test) could be rewarded with special privileges such as better seats at a movie theatre, and more power in their vote during elections, if there are any fragments of democracy remaining.

    Rubber bullets and jail time would create a bad feeling for everyone. I don't want that. I want Utopia!!

  9. Yes Richard. Forgive me for looking like a "red neck" but I was only reacting to your comment on riots - and yes, from a bluntly pragmatic outlook.

    Creating "carrot" incentives is always a better idea, at least to the degree that it's affordable of course.

  10. vandiver49: My main point is that I can see how a governing elite can develop a contempt for democracy.

    The practicalities of "AndrewTopia", if it were to ever be (incredibly unlikely), are a separate issue. But for the record I would enforce human rights on a global level, if I could.

  11. Well, when you put it like that, tyranny could be a good thing in the right hands. You gotta ask yourself though, how many leaders started out with grand plans and ideas only to later become exactly what they set out to destroy?

    While I love the idea of a reproduction license (if you've ever seen Jerry Springer, you'd know that here in America we seriously need to implement some kind of preventative reproduction measures), however, as pointed out in the comments above, it wouldn't go over very well. How about mandatory parenting classes instead?
    These classes could start in the first grade, but instead of teaching six year olds how to become good parents we could start with teaching them how to be good older siblings. Then, when children enter middle school and the possiblity of pregnancy becomes more relevant, they can begin parenting classes. I'm not talking about a one hour class every two weeks where kids learn about changing diapers (well, that too, of course), but classes on child psychology and development and the effects of abuse.
    Fast forward to graduation day, if you cleared all of your 10-11 years of parenting classes, THEN you get a reproduction card! ;) Or maybe, just maybe, it won't be necessary at all.

  12. Hi Mikela,

    Good post. I certainly agree with the parenting courses - you would think it would be a priority! Alas, it's not what the doctor (i.e. corporates) are ordering. Schools are human resource factories - not "have a good life" factories.

    ...only seen snippets of the Jerry Springer show - it can be amusing. I hope not all Americans are like that (I'm sure they're not).

    Here's a less than charming story from NZ which provides a good example of why we should consider those reproduction licences:

  13. Tyranny is never far out of reach. Every well intentioned movement goes astray. Either you would go corrupt or someone would over throw you or your descendants. Change is a constant. I also share some concerns about primal neurosis interfering with all good intentions, as Richard does. But let me put it this way.

    We will call this Democracy vs. authoritarian rule of one; or one of principle rather than the will of the majority. Which is better? The masses can be very ignorant, yes. But the top can be very brutal and oppressive. Neither is too good.

    In the USA, we argue about protecting the rights of minorities and individual vs the will of the majority and their rights. But minorities, who obviously do not have power, can not defend themselves. So they are dependent upon benevolence of others, likely not the majority. But if you wanted to overthrow a good majority, you would need those possibly subversive minorities to help you, right? It’s a delicate precarious balance, and always falling over.

    It is easy to fool the masses. They think they are choosing who gets elected when in reality, they are led to vote for whoever the media says is good and gives publicity to. This is pseudo democracy. But as well, using minorities to overthrow a good majority is also very common.

    So I say that even though the majority rule can be ignorant, they are smart enough to see the basics that can be harmful or helpful and big government should not be able to shove things down our throats. If the top can rule without any check, then the people are in grave trouble. Mobs might get a little out of hand at times but not nearly as much as ruthless dictators. I would always prefer to take my chances with the majority popular vote.

    I would also call for very small towns to rule over themselves and not belong to some big collective nation where no one can make anyone account for anything. Accountability is essential always. Keeping things small and local is best for accountability.

    If some towns should stray, others could unite to put the crisis down. Or they could live and let live. But the harder it is to unite towns, the better it is for all. Its like a layer of protection. For instance, in espionage, individuals are told as little as possible, so that if caught or if they sell out, there is not too much lost in info or whatever. Same with towns. If one falls to another, the rest have a chance to put it down, if they are smart and vigilant. But if a huge nations invades, they are dead. If there are no big nations, then you have a fair degree of safety and security and the many divisions.