I cannot address AR's position without including that she knew as well as others that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Men are not by nature angels. This fact is ignored by our magical fearless genius the divine immaculated tyrant BHO.

She would have pinned medals of honor on successful business men.

First word that came to mind: "abdicate."

Simple, she would have dissolved all governments and retired.

Case-in-point: About a Woman President, Page 267 in The Voice of REASON.

I was going to ask if any of the Greenspan-defenders were actually AROUND when his policies were being followed.

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!

Interesting thought experiment. Having "rulers" is a deeply embedded meme in human societies--just think of all the stories and fairytales of princes and kings, princesses and heroes. Its roots are in tribal living, with chiefs and alpha males running the affairs of the tribe. Wanting to conquer the world is another powerful meme sitting at the apex of human motivations. People recognize the individuals with the highest qualities and willingly endow them with power over their own existences, whether by acclamation or election or, more perniciously, by belief in and obedience to an invisible superpower.

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.

Recommendation - read C. Bradley Thompson's book, "John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty". After I read it a contacted Brad and thanked him for the first book I read that made sense of the term "Political Science". That refers to John Adams' research and reasoning. It's a fascinating history and philosophy lesson too. Adams, as a young man choosing the law as his profession, set two questions to answer: 1) What is the nature of man?; and 2) What is the architecture of government comparable with that nature? (my paraphrasing as I best recall). The science part is his research on the known history of governments and his analysis of the alternatives and their consequences. From that we get our tripartite government with balancing branches. While we have lost the common understanding of so much of the founding principles - to the extent it is embodied in the US Constitution and understood by those sworn to uphold it - we have maintained our freedom - though far from what should be. This give us time to revive an age of reason through our universities and public debate. That's why I support ARI.

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.

I can't speak for Ayn Rand, and I wouldn't even try.

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.

Drink a glass of wine...and do absolutely nothing. For years. And years. Let all of the governments of the world scurry around in paranoiac fear as to what she 'might' do...and just keep anyone else from occupying the throne of the world.

Jan

The answer to the question above may not be so obvious to those who have only heard of Ayn Rand via social sources.

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?”

Back then Alan and other economic planners were “heroes.” “Saviors” of the American economy. That is until the reality of inflation hit and the money printing drug was withdrawn. Now most people seem to see him as more as a villain causing that extra high inflation that many suffered though.

She would have leaned sideways slightly, revealing the pistol in her ribs, and said: "Get the hell out of my way!"

Rand, of course, wouldn't come anywhere near the "rule the world" statement. But, I am so weary of the idiocy that seems to be ruling the world at present I fantasize that an all-powerful alien race lands on earth and forces everyone to read her books, including the polemics, then flies away. But I'm afraid that even then, many humans being so used to the comfort of slavery, that they wouldn't respond.

Alan was Chairman of the Fed for a while. Some contend that he helped postpone an inevitable collapse.

I don't know the term, but I do remember hearing her reject attacks on her theory of ethics when the attacker posed a hypothetical "lifeboat" question. Hypothetical situations do not define ethics--or anything else.

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.)

Likely, an accurate assessment ... that most "here" don't believe in Him. And, absolutely accurate that only one Person has any business running this world! I, for one, follow Him, Temlakos ....

Any other course of action would constitute fraud on my part. Any person who says he can think for seven or eight billion souls, is guilty of fraud against those eight billions. And anyone who really believes that, defrauds himself first and tries to defraud you second.

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.

To answer 1 question with another (and to arouse some good old fashioned controversy on this Memorial Day) ... "Who is Ron Paul?"

I like that answer ... alot! Not only would it serve yourself, but all of mankind! Many, many inherent problems and obstacles to overcome, which naturally goes without saying (and which could defeat your noble desire) ... but, nonetheless a very noble pursuit.

I have seen this in industry. A good worker, competent, enjoys their work, gets a promotion offer. They turn it down wanting to stay where they are. Often, the good worker then suffers under a bad manager. An important test of a good manager is restraint, nothing beats a well motivated self-actualizing workforce. Same in the public area, but the big talkers seldom know when to stop.

thannk you.

Is there a term for when a hypothetical question is so fundamentally flawed?