Wouldn't it be easier to have a President of the World, instead of a leader for every country?

Question

That way there would be no fighting over countries, because there would only be 1 country.

Answer 1

Power corrupts . Absolute power corrupts absolutely . No one should have that much power .

Answer 2

If you could get all of the countries to agree to it, yes. But that was the original idea of the U.N., the League of Nations, and others. It just won't work in the condition the world is in. Funny thing about human nature, solutions tend to only work when they are not needed.

Answer 3

I can't even stretch my mind that far to consider that...Who could possibly be great enough to lead 6.4 billion people, all considered to be living in one country? Plus, civil wars are much worse then wars between the countries, because families are separated between the North and the South or whatever they're fighting for.

Answer 4

Uh...no?
Do you know how many people are in the world? Like 3 billion! The world is HUGE!!!! I can name 1000 reasons why that will never ever work but i m too lazy to type.
One major reason is the fact that the world's lands arent connected!!!! I cant drive 2 hours from my house in America to get to London.

Answer 5

They will one day have a 1 world leader...he's called the Antichrist or the beast.

Answer 6

No because it would be too many cultures for one person to take on. Why doesent USA get devided in to countries>> Or china

Answer 7

I think things are complicated enough as it is,trying to keep up with just one country much less all of them.

Answer 8

That would be the Antichrist