Me and Jimi had this conversation over msn, due to his facebook quiz and his dreams of being president of the world. Is that even possible? The world that is governed by one rule is a dream right? Or can jimi realy bring it into being?

If it wasn't me... it wouldn't be impossible. My argument is that if I'm the ruler of the world, I could destroy all weapons, then there's no need for military because I can't fight myself. Then I'd spend all that money on education and healthcare to raise the standard of living everywhere. With all the money that goes to military and defense, we could make sure no child ever goes hungry again.

Being the ruler of the world would mean huge responsibilities. If there's a financial crisis, then it would be blamed on you, if there's civil unrest in certain parts of the country, then it would be up to your forces to apprehend these 'trouble makers', which would also brand you as an evil power in that country, creating more civil unrest.

War is in the blood of mankind, it can never be banished and forgotten. Hatred and jealousy are apart of our system, we will never achieve world peace because of it.

I don't know if war is necessarily a human trait. I think people go to war out of what they believe is necessity. If the standard of living is high and there is no desperation, there might not be any war.

Now I'm not saying no one will ever fight each other, or things like that, it's impossible. But if there is no one creating weapons, there's no full out wars.

Yes that may be true but in times of crisis such as natural disasters, being president of the world in its entirety would be tough, for example, an earthquake hits an urban area in China, meanwhile a drought hits Africa, you'd be dealing with two highly inaccesible and hard to deal with issues, it is true food in the world is enough, but if every country in the world got the same level of tech, education etc, our as it is extremely limited resources would drop dramatically and in no time, we'd have fossil fuel, coal and other natural resource issues that would cause greater issue furthur increeasing problems. Plus we must not forget the underworld groups that exsist in our time, such people may not be willing to turn to a new ruler even a promising one and especially a pacifist, rather, they may turn more violent or more demanding and open due to the fact that they can't be stopped. Human greed and desire makes people want, and when they want they may do anything to get it. It is impossible to remove greed and desire from a human body and yet as long as this remain, 100% peace can never be attained due to rebel groups which want said ruling power and would fight to get it. Fighting is not neccesarily out of neccesity as seen in our society but underworld gorups such as the mafia. These people could have gotten decent jobs but they decide to risk their lives why? Because of greed, because of the want for more, humans are willing to do whatever it takes to get more. Plus weapons need not be guns. Knives, stones, even long wooden poles could be turned into weapon. If you say this new world order were to happen now or be built in the future, you have to remember that groups such as the mafia do carry weapons and seeing a world without weapons, may try a violent takeover which would be blamed if it succeeds since the leader of the world was the one who ended weapon production to prevent said takeover or reduce damage significantly. Of course there is also the fact that airguns can also be modified into real guns, stopping weapon production may also mean the end of such items as well, this puts many companies out of business and creates more unemployment. Even if it succeeds, people from the police force, weapon development researchers and weapon manufacturers could be put out of jobs and fighting jobs for such a huge group especially the unemployed police force(not neccesarily the whole force but a significant amount since peace can supposedly be brought around)
Of course we or at least I thought it would be this way probably cus well, with the current state of our world, placing one single ruler is impossible. If it happened many years back it may have succeeded though

When it is achieved and everything... that sounds awesome and it would work for a while, but as the others say [specially unkown with that spech ^^ hehe*] later on it would turn around since we tend to think differently. Some may be with you but there are always others against you. And you know how people are... and I think everyone would agree that we wouldn't want anything happen to J. And to achieve that, there would probably lots of bloodsheds since, again, there will those who oppose you and when they loose, then you gain that, but you lost even more. That might bring more people against you since so many people would die during battle, bu knowing J, he'll do everything he can to when their favor without any battles. There's always a way to win if you compromise.

Yeap but even so, there is a saying "You can't please all the people all the time"
For example, creating low food costs will be good for citizens but not for business man, trying to end a war helps the people but may not help the government which may force it to not relinqiush control just like in the zimbabwe incident where one person's greed caused the country to be without food.

The worlds under one ruleing bring all event bck to most 'fingers' Terroist games, this is because no matter how many people you get under one ideal there are 5bil on our planet there will retaliaction for not catering too all.

But in truth it would help to start it