Who says it's right? An angry moustached guy in the first half of the 20th century thought for sure there was a master race and that killing everyone else probably was the right path. Another dude (incidentally also with a moustache) had this vision that the state should be the end-all-be-all and own everything, and killed a bunch of people including his own citizens to try to realize it – right around the same time as the aforementioned fella actually.

I mean, there's plenty of things wrong with trying to steer humanity on to the "right" path, and at the top of that list is probably the arrogant notion that you know what "right" is while others don't.

Everybody else is free to try and stop people whose idea of "right path" is incompatible with theirs. I just don't think that we should generally forbid everybody from trying to change the world.

Well therein lies the problem, doesn't it? The notion that I have to stop someone just to live in peace. I mean, if people have visions for the world and think they're grand and all, that's perfectly fine. The problem starts when you try to impose (or steer, if you will) that vision on others, who may not be interested at all. Unless it's perennially opt-in, there will be conflict, and as history proves sometimes those get real ugly.

You are a consumer, a borrower, a voter, a worker, et cetera. You have lots of power.

Regardless of your feelings of not being at peace, civilization is absolutely a compromise. A world that avoids the compromises of civilization is not one that will be static and unchanging either.

Society expects less of you than ever before.

And are you not allowed to leave, as Christopher McCandless did (and other trancendentalists before him, more successfully). Plenty of mountain people operate under the assumption that they are entitled to be left alone, and they consider the US flag to be a flag of pirates. We should have room for those enclaves if their municipalities allow for them, I guess.

How about the idea that everyone should be allowed to live in peace and pursue their interests without harming anything? Would it be wrong to "impose" that vision upon everyone?

How is imposing universal laws, like "Don't murder", any different? Why don't we allow people to "opt-out" of things like, say, paying taxes?

You see, one way or the other, you are already living under a "vision" of the world imposed by other people, decided for you before you even existed.

There is no problem here you dont have to be violent or hurt people to change the world. Let people try to do what they think is the best thing.

Conflict is inherent to groups of people living together. There isn't much you can do about that.

Well, I believe anyone below IQ of 140 after age 20 should be outright killed. Only beautiful and strong people are allowed to reproduce. Anyone who is unhealthy or have prolonged health problems should be castrated.

Do you have any problems with my vision? I can tone it down so it seems passable, but still, everyone would only benefit from it!

I think the right path for humanity is to remove the tendency for violence from the population pool. To this end, I have been developing in my secret laboratory a retrovirus that can achieve this.

This is the true path to world peace, nay, to serenity. What could go wrong?

A foreign species is waiting exactly for this to happen (cloaking ship behind the moon)... they will invade and destroy us. All because you imposed your path on us ;-)

What happens when that path is in conflict with someone else's idea of the right path ? What happens to that someone if he doesn't have the ability to counter your force and is at your whim ?

Also to suppose that one's sphere of influence extends to all of humanity for centuries to come, implies one believes himself to be something more than the rest of humanity.

To be honest, that's very much what the UN charter says:

> 5 All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

> 6 The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

In other words, whether you like it or not, you have to adhere to our rules and if you do not, we're free to make any member force you to.