»Would the world be a better place under one ruler?«
|
|||
 The world has become a strange place, nations fighting nations for piss weak excuses like 'terrorism'. No one agrees on anything and rightly, most countries do things differently to each other as that is their culture. The thing is though, i feel the world is being reduced to an almost basic level, people are cynical and untrusting of the powers that be, we don't listen to what our leaders say as most of the crap spouted by them is only useful to them and their pockets. Maybe i pay too much attention to the media but it seems the world is a mess and apathy has set in so no one does anything about it. This had me thinking of the Romans(big leap i know  ) At one time they pretty much ruled the planet, the empire was huge and amazing leaps in society and technology were acheived under their rule. Would our world not benifit from one ruler again? every nation is under one banner although they still have their own customs and religions, they are all under one law so we wouldnt get any of this "my god is better than yours infidel, lets fight!".
Would a world under one rule be a better place or a dictatorship? posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Would the world be a better place under one ruler? |
|
|||
 Quote: At one time they pretty much ruled the planet Or what was considered "planet" and what was considered "ruling". Ghengis Khan was also "ruling" Europe with a bunch of horse riders. Quote: Would a world under one rule be a better place or a dictatorship? A benevolent single ruler would be the best. But it should be some sort of higher-than-human being (no illnesses, living for 20000+ years, powers to scan whole areas with his mind), since everything else is too dangerous. Interestingly enough this idea of a mighty+benevolent+single ruler is something many people could agree to, whether they are communists or democrats. The closest you could get without a super-human is "Managment by statistical trends": First you define the exact statistics and then you only promote those who raise the good statistics ("income per person") and lower the bad ones ("crimes per person"). That would actually make democracy obsolete and give you the feeling that you cannot influence who controls you, BUT: Since everyone could get promoted and you have a high income, this wouldn't bother you too much. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't think that kim jong ill ♣ was corrupted by power. I think he was a maniac before. Maybe it's more accurate to say that populations tend to put mad men in power positions. This problem would be solved by my solution: Either super-human or "Management by trends" (or both). If the trends are going down... off you go. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: piss weak excuses like 'terrorism'. can i quote you on that after another major attack that kills even more many thousands of people that may include your family and friends? anyway...to the subject i watched a very interesting documentary last night about the reasoning behind groups such as islamic jihad and al qaeda after the withdrawl of the soviet forces from afghanistan which both the US and the non afhgani arab fighters claimed was their doing(when in actual fact it was the afghani people themselves)...both the neo-conservatives and the islamists tried to push for a spreading of their ideals across more of the middle east the islamists believed in one thing...that anyone who considers themselves a politician is trying to obtain power that belongs only to allah...and that these politicians were legitimate targets for attacks as because they "renounced" islam and the koran...that they were no longer muslims and so the law of the koran that no muslim should kill another was not applicable after this mentality and tactics to instigate an uprising among the people of the islamic world failed...they then blamed the people for accepting politicians...and in doing so also renounced the koran and islam and this made them legitimate targets but this tactic also failed it got to the stage where one such group in algeria called for the deaths of all algerians except themselves(about 10 people) because they were the only true believers in islam so from that point of view...only a single leader exists...and that leader is allah what a very bizzare mentality indeed personally that i think the world is far to fractured in its corrupt belief systems that a single leader that is not based on faith would only come about under a massive pressure from a non earth source...say in the event of a cataclysmic asteroid or comet strike or perhaps even an alien invasion so outwith the realms of hollywood fantasy...a single world leader is pretty much uneccessary and would not work not with a world of such utterly opposing faiths and beliefs posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
i also think that people underestimate the power of patriotism in many societies it is seen by the politically correct here in britain as a xenophobic throwback to imperialism... that for me is just rubbish why cant we celebrate and commemorate out nations history without apologising for every facet of it that would now be deemed politically incorrect without such history the world would be a very diminished place and it is also this patriotism that makes the prospect and concept of a singular united nations of earth a practical immpossibility just look at us over here in europe...we cant get the EU to work and its only 25 countries or so...but with such diametrically opposed views that consensus is virtually immpossible i think the human species has quite a bit of evolution to go before it can be considered a single unified race in both belief and ideology and no...that last comment is not designed to be a racist one...but a merely practical look at the way our world is posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the anomaly: Quote: piss weak excuses like 'terrorism'. can i quote you on that after another major attack that kills even more many thousands of people that may include your family and friends? anyway...to the subject I think you misunderstood my irony, Bush invading iraq because of 'terrorism'? bolloxs! posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 11 February 2012, 19:34 php B.B. |