1 Leader Controlling The Globe

[SheffieldWednesday]

Thats What i think should happen

1 leader to 1 world not millions of leaders to millions of countrys

[TheAbominableMatt]

At 11/12/05 10:33 AM, SheffieldWednesday wrote: Thats What i think should happen

1 leader to 1 world not millions of leaders to millions of countrys

Ok, first thing... there are not millions of countries.

Obviously such a thing could never occur, but in a hypothetical situation if there was one world leader then it would be a dictator kept in power through mass media, fear and force. Like a kind of 1984 deal.

If that ever did happen there would have had to be a massive change in the global population structure. Something like nuclear war could wipe out alot of the global population and therefore it would be alot easier for one person to sieze power.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 11/12/05 10:33 AM, SheffieldWednesday wrote: Thats What i think should happen

1 leader to 1 world not millions of leaders to millions of countrys

Justify your beliefs.

[Seb69]

i think its stupid cuz then the leader would dicktate all

[Ravens-Grin]

At 11/12/05 12:18 PM, Seb69 wrote: i think its stupid cuz then the leader would dicktate all

Fully justify your beliefs with supporting information. As well as that, please run a spell check, grammar check, and an idiocy check before you post.

[Shadic-1]

cough *sieg heil* cough

[SheffieldWednesday]

At 11/12/05 11:45 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 11/12/05 10:33 AM, SheffieldWednesday wrote: Thats What i think should happen

1 leader to 1 world not millions of leaders to millions of countrys

Justify your beliefs.

3 reasons WHY
1. there will be no wars
2. no people who are in charge who are insane
3. it will be better orginised anyway

[tigerkitty]

At 11/12/05 02:46 PM, SheffieldWednesday wrote:

Justify your beliefs.

3 reasons WHY
1. there will be no wars

Sure there would be. Think of the revolutions, and the resistance movements that would arise and explode all over the planet under a single ruler.

2. no people who are in charge who are insane

Have you ever heard the phrase, "absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

3. it will be better orginised anyway

According to whom? Every culture has different requirements as to what is best for them. No one can just pick one ruling structure and declare it supreme.

[Peter-II]

At 11/12/05 02:46 PM, SheffieldWednesday wrote: 3 reasons WHY
1. there will be no wars

There's such a thing as wars within countries, you moron.

2. no people who are in charge who are insane

Apart from the guy in charge of the world, maybe?

3. it will be better orginised anyway

I fail to see why.

[TheAbominableMatt]

At 11/12/05 02:46 PM, SheffieldWednesday wrote: 3 reasons WHY
1. there will be no wars
2. no people who are in charge who are insane
3. it will be better orginised anyway

You're basically talking about a global dictatorship, that sounds like an ideal solution to you? First off, there can be wars within a single country- they're called civil wars. Furthermore, in the society you're talking about there would be constant revolution.

It's easy to say don't put people in charge who are insane, but the people who sieze power in dictatorship are those who have the power to back it up- and they don't necessarily have to be sane. Hitler siezed power and he was a nutjob.

You can't just say it would be better organised and not give us an idea of how. I don't think you've this concept through very well.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Given the historical attempts at this, if it were feasible to unite the world under one government, it would have already been done so.

[fahrenheit]

At 11/12/05 02:53 PM, tigerkitty wrote: Have you ever heard the phrase, "absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

Please, you still use that? In ancient Japanese times there where rulers called Damios. Rulers of small areas, like land lords. There were tales of a Damio who ruled a large amount of land, the most feared man in Japan, those who heard his tales of battle would quiver at the thought. But the people who met him, knew what he was truly like. A kind and fair lord, he wasnt corrupt or power hungry. He had the largest amount of land and samurai but he was nothing that you would consider corrupt.

[Kaabi]

I think we should have a set-up like Alexander the Great had. He selects certain people to be in charge of certain areas but they are still under his rule. So basically the way things work now except there would be one person in charge of all the presidents/dictators/etc of the world.

[TheAbominableMatt]

At 11/12/05 04:48 PM, Velocitom wrote:

At 11/12/05 02:53 PM, tigerkitty wrote: Have you ever heard the phrase, "absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

Please, you still use that? In ancient Japanese times there where rulers called Damios.......

well that was quite random, you can't really apply ancient Japanese scenarios to present day in the western world. Nor can you assume that just because there was one fair and just ruler who had alot of power that every person in power will follow that example.

[smith916]

At 11/12/05 02:46 PM, SheffieldWednesday wrote:

At 11/12/05 11:45 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 11/12/05 10:33 AM, SheffieldWednesday wrote: Thats What i think should happen

1 leader to 1 world not millions of leaders to millions of countrys

Justify your beliefs.

3 reasons WHY
1. there will be no wars
2. no people who are in charge who are insane
3. it will be better orginised anyway

We're facing a problem here, unless we can somehow go into a control center and rewrite history as well as change the minds and thoughs of every human being this wont happen. We're living in a world devided by water and our differences, no man or women could lead the world unless ->

That person had no religon, race, etc. like ANYONE else on the face of the earth
The world was dominated by robots
Everyone alive... suddenly agreed with this man/woman out of fear or just agreed,
Everyone shared the same beleifs.

WAIT A MINUTE! isn't somone trying to do that, oh yah, the terrorists.

The final ruling is, this couldn't work, it's unfathomable no world would obey one persons rule, there would be hundreds. We're better off separated peacfully, and united mutually.

[Lykaki]

Answer to first post:

Do you happen to have a hooked cross on your jacket?
Everyone that gets more power than he deserves gets corrupted... And there is NO PERSON who deserves to rule the world. If someone achieved absolute power, he would have had to slaughter many people and bribe even more people on the process...
And no wars??? Are you serious? I completely agree with the people above me that mentioned civil wars!

My opinion is that the only too good options are a FAIR democraty (VERY unlike the one we have in most countries now), one in which people truly decide, or anarchism, but not the violent chaotic one, just a peaceful living without rulers but WITH MORALS.

[TheAbominableMatt]

At 11/12/05 05:14 PM, Lykaki wrote: Do you happen to have a hooked cross on your jacket?

swastika?

[Peter-II]

At 11/12/05 05:10 PM, smith916 wrote: WAIT A MINUTE! isn't somone trying to do that, oh yah, the terrorists.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[Kommisar-Kowl]

You know, people have tried that, but none have succeeded, oh, and I agree with the guy who said "cough sieg heil cough."

[fahrenheit]

At 11/12/05 04:54 PM, theabominablematt wrote: well that was quite random, you can't really apply ancient Japanese scenarios to present day in the western world.

Oh? So power back then doesnt have the same effect it does now?

Nor can you assume that just because there was one fair and just ruler who had alot of power that every person in power will follow that example.

I am not saying that, I am saying that its not like every ruler who was powerful was corrupt. It is possible to have someone who dictates the world, be a fair and reasonable person.

Its just most people assume he would be the next hitler.

[TheAbominableMatt]

At 11/12/05 05:54 PM, Velocitom wrote:

At 11/12/05 04:54 PM, theabominablematt wrote: well that was quite random, you can't really apply ancient Japanese scenarios to present day in the western world.

Oh? So power back then doesnt have the same effect it does now?

Ok well I guess you're right there to some extent but I think that the type of power we're talking about would be far too corrupting for most.

Nor can you assume that just because there was one fair and just ruler who had alot of power that every person in power will follow that example.

I am not saying that, I am saying that its not like every ruler who was powerful was corrupt. It is possible to have someone who dictates the world, be a fair and reasonable person.

Yeh ok it's possible, but I think it's unlikely that such a just ruler could exist since to get ahead in politics you often have to morgage your principles and make more and more compromises the further up you get. Anyone who would be able to hold the type of power would be corrupt, especially since anyone who was a just ruler would recognise that they have no business controlling the entire world. I don't care if you believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, it's still true.
.

Its just most people assume he would be the next hitler.

Someone with that much power would have such a god-complex that even though they might not have the same belief structure as Hitler, they would still be a corrupt dictator.

[fahrenheit]

At 11/12/05 06:16 PM, theabominablematt wrote: Ok well I guess you're right there to some extent but I think that the type of power we're talking about would be far too corrupting for most.

I dont know, Damios may not control the country but they control everything in the area. And its the amount of power given, not the size given.

Anyone who would be able to hold the type of power would be corrupt,
True, unless it was given. Like a hand down monarchy type deal, or the countries of the world united and appointed one person that they all agreed on.

they would still be a corrupt dictator.

Like I said, unless it was given.

[Shadic-1]

At 11/12/05 02:46 PM, SheffieldWednesday wrote:

At 11/12/05 11:45 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 11/12/05 10:33 AM, SheffieldWednesday wrote: Thats What i think should happen

1 leader to 1 world not millions of leaders to millions of countrys

Justify your beliefs.

3 reasons WHY
1. there will be no wars

what the hell is civil war?

2. no people who are in charge who are insane

It's called lieing your way in, that guy could pretend to be a loving fair person and then turn into a hoorrible dictator hungry for power. And whow would the elction take?

3. it will be better orginised anyway

That's not a reason, thats a blunt unproven statement.

In summary: Once again, *cough* sieg heil! *cough*

[Shadic-1]

At 11/13/05 10:30 AM, merijn wrote: one dictator to rule evrey one ur crazy

http://jorn.hiptones.nl/klik?x=merijn

stop spamming that link you retard.