I just published my new novel called "World War 3 and 1/3rd". The main theme of the novel is whether control a good thing or not. Suppose one takes the extremes: full control like in the fascist or dictatorial regimes vs. the complete absence of control like in libertarian or tribal utopias. In that case, it becomes clear that both extremes are unacceptable. The reader will face arguments for both extremes. If one takes evolution that lets all the living things compete across generations and produce “better” generations in complete chaos, maybe control is not necessarily bad at all. Moreover, control by definition means that one entity gets additional power over other entities, which feels “unfair.” Now the main argument for control is, of course, the ethics of it all. Only in a controlled environment the “weak” can get fair treatment. Only in controlled societies kindness can be achieved. Those kinds of thoughts are addressed in the novel through the protagonists.

I will be happy to discuss this dilemma here. Link to novel if someone interested in trying it out: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0927ZPQ1K

Some might ask what "Fair" even means. Fair is another word for Good, which brings us back to the old question of Good vs Evil, and whether those terms are absolute or relative. In my other novel "Answers in Simulation" I explore that question in-depth and arrive to the conclusion that Good is not relative but absolute in all circumstances. So therefore fairness is also absolute and does not depend on circumstances. All players of the game of life will play a fair game and therefore should not have any advantages, one against the other. So "control" in such case is Evil because it puts certain players at advantage! But in my last part of the novel I prove that the world itself the way it operates is evil therefore control presence in the imperfect world is justified.