A villain only wants peace and prosperity?

Only a liberal Democrat could want Peace and Prosperity without Freedom.

See, Peace in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing. It depends on the means, the nature, the terms of that peace. World unity is not necessarily a viable option if we have to give up our freedom to have it.

It's easy to have Peace. Simply surrender to the first adversary who threatens you. That's easy. Would you trust a Hitler, a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Mao, a Fidel Castro with your livelihood, your freedom, all for Peace? Okay, maybe those were a bit extreme, you might think. So let's trade those clowns in for Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama? Would you trust your peace and prosperity to, say, Ronald Reagan? Abraham Lincoln? Calvin Coolidge? How about George Washington?

Maybe a President isn't what you're looking for. Perhaps you might want someone that might be fictional but has all the attributes you're looking for in a leader...say, a King Arthur. There you go! He's brave, bold, daring, has a gorgeous wife, a good sense of justice and fairness, and as he prospers so does the country.

The correct answer is: None of the Above.

Because as a citizen you have to take charge of your own destiny, your own life, and those in your charge. You have to take responsibility. Freedom is Power, and with Power comes the Responsibility to use it well and just. That means it takes work, and that means you may get into quarrels. You may even have to defend yourself with violence. Same goes with entire nations.


But you might think that having Peace and Prosperity under Colossus/Guardian is preferable. It isn't. Because we don't get to decide what Prosperity is, or what Peace is for that matter. Suppose its solution to solve overpopulation is to force people only to have one or two children per couple. Any extras, even twins, are summarily executed. Similarly, if you're over the age of 50, you die. Would you be all for that?