Big Big Question

Imagine, for the purposes of this question, that you have found yourself elected King (or Queen) of the World. Imagine, too, that power corrupts, at least to a sufficient degree that you are willing and able to declare some world-changing fiat, on whim, purely for your own satisfaction.

It can be big or small. It can be driven by good intentions or something more selfish. The key thing is, it shouldn’t be a mild and sensible policy declaration: you’re shooting the moon on this one.

So what would you wave your scepter and make so, just for the hell of it?

Sure, you’re not going to murder anyone, or rob a bank, and set a house on fire.  But what about the little things?  What’s the least-bad thing you just fundamentally will not do?  Or what’s the worst thing you will do?  And in either case, why?
Have you ever stepped over what was at the time a clear line of transgression?  Did your ethical boundaries (or your resolve) change as a result?

How much responsibility does the average citizen have to remain aware of an ongoing political process?

Does it depend on the process?  On the location?  On the scope — municipal, county, province, federal?

Hat tip to dbl.

From Mind Hacks, would you vaccinate someone against an illegal drug, or take one yourself? Should such a vaccine be widely administered to the public? If further progress is made on vaccinations for other illicit substances, could this end the decades long war on drugs, and what would be the likelihood that the general American populace would be vaccinated, voluntarily or otherwise?

What are the criteria you would set if you were the only one to decide who was allowed to emigrate from their country and immigrate to yours?

Would you allow refugees, what type (political/economic/cultural), and what proof would they have to provide of their need? Would you set a net worth limit, so that anyone bringing a certain amount of money was guaranteed entry? Would you set an education limit so that only people with a certain level of proven intelligence were allowed in (perhaps barring refugees)?

One of the biggest conflict between the “left” and “right” all across the world is what level of responsibility lies with the individual and what level lies with the government the individual pays.

Without government or any form of community organization, the line is obvious…all responsibility lies with the person. The larger the government gets, the more taking over responsibility is expected of them (and then, it seems, the government gets larger.

Assuming that most people believe somewhere in in the middle is the correct balance, where does that balance lie?

(related topics: health care, personal defense, policing, punishment, freedom, taxation, national defense, loyalty, child care, welfare)

What would the circumstance(s) have to be in order to make torture an acceptable solution? An example…would it be OK to torture one person if it was known that specific person had a specific piece of information that, if it were known by the interrogators, would save a thousand lives?

I’m in no way looking for an excuse for torture to be acceptable in any general way. I’m wondering what chain of events or complicated scenario would be improved with the use of torture.

(based on a post on MetaFilter)

I was thinking of lying on my headstone. Maybe something like “Lived May 28,
1437 - October 12, 2048. Inventor of time travel and discoverer of the third
anti-gravitic effect”.

First question: can I do this legally?

Second question: what are some good things I can lie about?

(Suggested by Kickstart.)