Could one person rule the world?

[Drifting Dreamer]

Some food for thought

I was thinking about it yesterday, could one person through whatever means amass enough power to be called the ruler of the world?

I'm interested to hear your opinions

 

[BUTTERLOVER7683]

Well, in my general opinion, yes, but the thing is everyone from these different cultures of disliking would be forced to come together and there would be riots, fights, and so much more world devistation that I think if someone were to rule the world as one united country, it would not last very long.

 

[RipplyTiger151]

Could there be? Yes. But really by themselves? Probably not. They would probably need a council to assist them. But its probably possible. But just like BUTTER said above, there would be so much conflict globally that the world would just fall apart.

 

[SassyTz]

I wouldn't think so myself. Don't think it would be a good thing. News would be boring to watch, if leaders weren't on making fun of one another.

 

[redhat]

If someone had a extremely huge militia that feared their leader, then yeah. It's very possible.

However this has been attempted in the past and has resulted in war. As long as there's strong government and military in other countries, they would have a tough time.. it would essentially be them against the world. The conflict caused would most likely result in nuclear warfare and the end of the human race, assuming the person trying to take over the world has an army big and strong enough to put up a strong fight.

But before we got to that point, there would be riots and mayhem in the streets of effected countries, and if they attempted to invade the US they would have to go against every gun-wielding citizen as well as our military, so it would be pretty hectic, and very, very bad.

 

[motive]

Nope Pinky & the b\Brain tried

 

[Drifting Dreamer]

An interesting example of this is the Roman Empire.

The last order of Augustus was a caution to future emperors warning them from conquering lands beyond the natural boundaries of the empire. Now, we know that many individuals took advantage of this and did exactly that but in doing so also abused their privileges and in some cases brought the empire to its knees. HOWEVER there were some individuals who declared themselves that they wanted to conquer all the world, but if we look at the empire under their rule we can see that civil war was rampant and they could barely control the entirety of their own dominion let alone the world.

There were characters who were charismatic and loved (Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus Pius) but they did not want the world, they only wanted the happiness of Rome's populace and as a result during their rule, Rome was arguably at it's most fruitful period and the emperors were at their greatest in terms of support.

It seems to me that when somebody wants the world, they fail to realize that they must first have support from all people they rule (even those they have conquered)

It also seems to me that when someone has support, is loved by all and has charisma they rarely want the world. Arguably Hitler had support and charisma but he was FAR from loved by all within Germany pre world war two.

For someone to control the world in my eyes they would need charisma, support, a mind of ingenious strategic thought and to be loved by the majority of those they rule.

No one person has ever ruled the world in my opinion because they have failed in at least one of those aspects.

Hitler was not supported by the majority of Germany
Julius Caesar did not have the support of Rome
The British Empire enslaved those they ruled and would not realistically have been able to maintain control of their dominion if their empire had subsisted/succeeded any longer.
Napoleon did not have the mind of absolute ingenious strategic thought it would have required to conquer the world.
Alexander overreached and was arguably foolish in some of his acts and so his downfall came before he has his chance to conquer the world.

I'm sure that there will always be people who want to rule the world though because as Gibbon puts it “As long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters.”

 

[MUTE]

Short answer: Yes.


You never asked how well this had to be implemented. Any ruler of the world that will exist will be just a figure head of course, but you know.

 

[JimmyJumpdrive]

Simply put, no.
Power in general just drives people insane.
I believe it was President Truman who said, "No man should hold a position of this much power for so long, not because of what man can do to the power, but because of what power can do to the man."

 

[beg2389]

Negative. A single entity cannot rule over so many separate entities while maintaining complete control. There are entirely too many people to have to control, in order to rule the world. This is clearly demonstrated by the need for such a thing as police and confinement. If everyone just did what the authority in any given situation said to do, then such things would not exist, and it might be possible under those circumstances to rule the world as a single person. But then, why would any one person want to rule the world? Rule yourself I say, that is truly a reign of power