If I ruled the world...

I sit here after the day-at-work-from-hell, having just opened my fifth beer, rocking arrhythmically back and forth to Taylor Swift, wondering exactly how am I going to trick her into marrying me.  My attention turns to Facebook; it's been approximately 45 seconds since I last checked and any number of updates may have occurred.  Perhaps Amy Winehouse has died again.   Alas, no.  That most erudite and obnoxiously well-informed chum, Scott, has - for the tenth time today - posted something which makes me feel ashamed for spending my free time trawling through youtube, eating pistachios and poking my lizard (which both is and is not a euphemism!).  This particular article pertains to writing an essay about what one would do if one ruled the world.  I write stuff.  I have a messiah complex and the megalomaniacal mind of a tyrant.  Get involved, Joseph.  Get.Involved.

Here is that essay… If I ruled the world.

With a blank slate, there are almost endless possibilities for running the world.  I spent most of my degree studying Political Philosophy and as a result feel better informed than most (i.e. you!) on this subject.  Gather 'round, dear peasants.  Forget what you know and let my words wash over you.

With regards to structure, I happen to side with Aristotle: Oligarchy, or rule by elites.  Democracy, to my mind, is a phenomenal nonsense.  People, or demos, have precisely zero qualifications or credentials to rule themselves.  Power to the people is, euphemistically, simply tyranny of the majority.  Has the greatest literature on this subject (right or wrong) been written by intellectuals and academics, or by plebeians who scratch out their thoughts on napkins while they're on a break from building monoliths for their betters?

Obviously, I see myself as part of this elite, and obviouslyer I'm at the top of this hierarchy (I do rule the world, after all).  However, having the last word, isn't the same as having the only word.  For example, I have very little interest, and even less knowledge of economics.  It's people like me, who have no idea what they're doing, who make stuff like hyper-inflation happen.  There is no rational or reasonable argument why I should be have any dealings in finance.  I wouldn't feel comfortable making those kind of decisions, and for the same reason, the general population have no business in deciding how a society is run.  On an individual basis, of course people know how they want to live their lives.  But humans are, by nature, selfish.  They know what's best for themselves, not what's best for all.

Now that's all fairly boring.  What we're looking for from this kind of text is some harsh and scathing opinions (as if the above was naught but fact).  I'm well into liberty, and freedom of thought, expression, speech, association and all that gumpf.  That's pretty much a given.  There are a few things I would be stricter on, though.

Population control.  This would be a big issue under my regime (based on the assumption that the world's makeup is by-and-large the same as the current one).  Hitler had the right idea with his eugenics program but fucked up the execution (pun unintended).  Instead of forcing people with the "right" characteristics to have children, he should have prevented people with the "wrong" characteristics from reproducing.  Under my reign, anyone and everyone is allowed to reproduce so long as they can fulfil the following requirements:

They can afford to raise it

They keep it out of sight and out of my way

No gingers.

No diseases which can be transferred in utero (AIDS, for example)

The child can be conceived naturally - essentially to stop the elderly and lame from conceiving

Two parent house holds only (male/female)

This last stipulation is going to get me in trouble, I feel.  Gay-rights is essentially my generation's civil-rights movement.  I see no fault or problem with any and all gay issues… with the exception of one: gay adoption.  Put short, I don't think it is fair to subject children to what is, essentially, a social experiment.  The paradigm of the ideal family, is man - woman - child.  I'm not speaking religiously or ethically, I'm speaking anthropologically.  In an ideal world (read *my ideal world*), only people with the ability to successfully raise and support children would be allowed to have them.  Gay parents, for me, essentially fall under the same umbrella as single parents.  The only difference between these categories is that gay parenting can be legislated against, single parenting can't.  As a child of a single parent family  I don't consider myself damaged or hard-done-by for only having one parent.  My mum is awesome and I know most gay parents would be too.  But given the choice, my dad wouldn't be some sociopathic, adulterous moron, and I would have had someone to watch sport with.  Therefore, having given me the option, I choose to only allow parents who fall under the ideal paradigm the right the bear offspring.

(Additional: corporal punishment within parenting would not only be allowed, but encouraged.  Do you think a child is going to talk back to you again, if it's pushed down the stairs after the first offence?  No.)

There would be universal healthcare, for reasons which John Rawls would be in agreement with.  If you got hit by a bus, you would want to know that you could receive medical care regardless of your financial status.  "No, no.  He's only got car, van and truck collision insurance.  Just leave him there to die."  HOWEVER.  There would be an enormous tax levy against things like fast food, cigarettes, drugs (more on this in a moment) and alcohol - destroy your body as much as you want to, but you can pick up the medical bill as you do so.

All drugs would be legalised and therefore brought under state regulation.  The immediately dangerous ones (LSD, heroin etc.) would fall under the same tax bracket as cigarettes and fast food.  Marijuana, cocaine, etc, less so, but subject to laws similar to those which regulate alcohol at the moment.  Take it as much as you like, but if your use of it negatively impacts someone else (i.e. drug-driving and knocking someone down) you can expect a heavy prison sentence.   This may sound irresponsible, and there is of course no way to prove or disprove the success of this initiative.  Alcohol is pretty much the basis for this line of reasoning.  It's intoxicating.  It's bad for your health (long term).  It's addictive.  Yet, the vast majority of us are able to enjoy it without becoming mad, toothless, old alcoholics.  Why wouldn't the same be true of other drugs?  (I am hardly the poster-boy for responsible alcohol consumption, but I think my point stands for itself)

As a personal gripe, spelling, punctuation, grammar, syntax, and all the other linguistic foibles which seem so irrelevant to most people, would fall under strict legislation.  In the same way that companies can currently be fined for using misleading advertisements, they would also be fined every time they displayed the word "DVD's".  (If you don't know why that's wrong, stop reading now.  Go away.  Go away and hang yourself).  Similarly, once people reach the age of adulthood (say, 18) they'd become culpable for the language they use.  It would fall under antisocial behaviour laws, I think.  Kick in a shop window: fine.  Thump an old woman: jail.  Pronounce the t in "often": pummelled to death with dictionaries.  For example, I'm sure I've misused a few commas or misspelled some words somewhere in this (you point them out to me and I'll stab you with a quill) but, if I was fined for every one of them, I'd learn not to do it again pretty quickly.

There would be fines for driving too slowly as well as for speeding.  Old people would have to retake their test at 50, and then again every 5 years.  If they don't pass the rigorous examination, their licence is torn up and their car impounded.  Speed limits in and around residential areas would be relaxed, and punishments for drivers who hit children outside schools would have immunity.  A child has no one to blame but themselves or their parents if they step out in front of a car.  If a child doesn't already know that a car will kill you should you step in front of one, then the driver has done the world a favour by removing such stupidity from the gene pool - buy that man a pint… then send him out on the school run!

Now for international affairs (although "international" may be a misnomer considering the only state which now exits is Joetopia).  Global issues would be administrated from my ivory tower at the centre of Joetropolis, the capital of Joetopia.  The system of trade would be capitalism.  In an ideal world, I would go for communism, but this isn't about an ideal world, it's about my world.  I've essentially been put in charge of almost 7 billion idiots.  People are competitive by nature - it's what spurs evolution - and competition in trade is a logical extension.  Like it or not, but for the most part capitalism is self sustaining, self regulating and it works.

Taylor Swift would be my second in command, and "Our Song" would be the global anthem.  My cabinet would consist of the following people:

Steven Fry (Education secretary: Hugh Laurie as an independent contractor)

Those blokes that wrote Freakonomics (Finance ministers)

Russell Brand (Media and the arts minister)

Sarah Silverman (diplomatic relations)

Some no-nonsense type matron (Healthcare)

I've been writing this for a while now and have already exceeded my 750 word limit by more than double; if I don't stop soon I fear never will.  But I think you get the gist by now.  

Any and all criticism will be read, assimilated and ignored.