What's the first thing Ayn Rand would have done if she ruled the world?
Would she have made a long prophetic speech that all must hear? Would she have set rules that all must obey? Would she have appointed a select few in positions of unyielding power? Would she have freed all of mankind?
In my own opinion, I think she would have stepped down from the throne.
In my own opinion, I think she would have stepped down from the throne.
PLAYBOY: Do you have any personal political aspirations yourself? Have you ever considered running for office?
RAND: Certainly not. And I trust that you don't hate me enough to wish such a thing on me.
Jan
I hope the question causes some people use their minds and question what they may have been told. The hypothetical question itself would never have occurred. It's somewhat like asking,
“What would people think of Obama if he were completely honest?”
Supposedly Napolean was once asked, "You are a great general. What would you do in this [hastily sketched] hypothetical situation?" He replied, "I am a great general because I would not get into a situation like that." (On the other hand, Napolean DID try to invade Russia from the west.)
It seemed as if every time he opened his mouth, he scared the crap out of Wall Street and the Business Community.
When he would talk, my reaction became "Alan, STFU!" Better to say nothing than scare the crap out of everyone!
Instead I'll tell you what I would do in a spot like that, while best applying Ojbectivist principles.
I wouldn't even try to keep a world government going. No elections, no judicial appointments, nothing like that. Instead I would give all the enforcement personnel, maybe ninety days' notice. Meaning at that time they shall cease to be employees of the State, and will need to find employment as private security guards, mercenary soldiers, or the like. And I would order that, effective immediately, any restrictions on the ownership or carrying of weapons was abolished.
And at the end of the ninety days, the State itself should cease to be.
Ayn Rand also wrote clearly on the necessity and role of government - see "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal".
Long ago at Univ. of Chicago I had an informal debate with a now well known anarchist after understanding that you need one law of the land that is simple, understandable, non-contradictory and not contradicted by another such body. This provides for the possibility of objectively resolving disputes that will always arise in a society and protecting individual rights in the face of attempts at coercion.
Only one Person has any business running a one-world State like that. I'm sure most people here don't believe in Him. Just remember this: I could yield to Him. I could not yield to any other man, nor would I dare keep that job myself.
And while you're getting rid of State employees, what about all of the federal employees?
~ Plato
Ayn Rand was not an anarchist. She thought that there is a place and a need for very limited government that would be charged with managing the infrastructure of a society of mutually consenting individuals. Judge Narragansett is mentioned as revising certain flaws in the Constitution, without spelling them out. I think Rand would have taken the Sherman out ("If nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.") .
A better question is, would she have endorsed any one human to be the top administrator of a government? Would she even see a need for nation-states, considering that there should be free trade among all individuals and no restraint on their free and voluntary interactions? The prime directive -- "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"--is pretty much the only rule needed. All other principles of interaction build from that. (Yes, in today's gender-equality culture, "man" should be taken to include all persons.)
I respectfully suggest that an interest in having Rand rule the world comes from that same age-old notion that someone considered superior, whether in wisdom or in prowess, should be elevated to the position of head honcho or chief. It's a Darwinian process of selection of the fittest, a natural eugenics of blood and brain. It's hard-wired into our DNA. We want only the best leading us, using their wisdom to assure the prosperity and happiness of the population. Unfortunately, anyone who wants that job is thereby disqualified.
Load more comments...