do we need to have a world dictator to stop the world bickering and bring it to peace?

Answer 1

I accept your nomination.

Answer 2

A benvolant dictatorship is the best form of government, as nobody can argue with what the leader says - the trouble is getting a leader who wants what is best for their people, and not what is best for themselves - and will generally let them carry on their lives regardless. God used to fill this role - although those who interpreted his/her/their will were often in it for themselves. That way there would be little resistance, because everyone would be happy with what the dictator decided for them.

A solution to the problem of benevolance would be to have a supercomputer decide everything for us. It would take into consideration everyone's point of view and perspective, but would also be able to make decisions from an objective viewpoint. Plus there could be no argument and no blame - AND a machine is absolutely incorruptable, and could theoritcally "know" everything.

However, seeing as there's no garuntee you'll get a benevolant dictatorship, and seeing as how people probably wouldn't much like being run by tin and clockwork democracy is our next best bet.

Answer 3

Not a dictator, but a loving and kind universal ruler.

Daniel 2:44 speaks of a time when God's kingdom will bring all other kingdoms (governments) to ruin and establish righteous rulership on earth.

Answer 4

Its an interesting idea - and it certainly worked in Iraq. Look at the mess they are in now that they have removed Saddam.

It is a trade off -- are you willing to put up with death lists, authoritarianism, lack of human rights, torture etc for the sake of outward peace?

You can't have the best of both worlds!

Answer 5

Nope, Hitler tried that, it didn't work. If we had a "world dictator" resistance movements would spring up all over the globe and you'd have insurgents and terrorists running riot even worse than they are now.

Answer 6

the only thank you to get peace is to kill all opposition to peace, which means conflict which equals no peace. do no longer think of when you win that conflict that it is going to be over then, after basically somewhat of peace human beings will start to combat and kill and disrupt your peace, so which you may could desire to kill and kill to get peace. as quickly as you get peace the 1st time you may preclude conflict by using forcing human beings to no longer argue, which means each and each ones consumer-friendly freedoms would be taken from them to "safeguard" them. this could reason hate against you and that they are going to insurrection and reason civil conflict which will bring about bloodshed and as a effect wreck your non violent peace regime. to provide up conflict you like a clean worldwide order, and that i in my opinion do no longer and a great style of individuals could strongly oppose that which means there could be conflict to provide up that. so in case you will see that there won't be able to be peace with out conflict to hold peace which will reason conflict.

Answer 7

I am amazed that a rational self willed person would be so quick to turn over your free will to exercise your faith, your time and your money to someone else

do you support hillary?

a world dictator is coming and you will die because he is in power.
you have my sympathy.

or you can reject him and live, the choice is yours. chose wisely, your eternity rides on your decision

Answer 8

No, I think we need to educate our children about the destruction, death and annihilation war causes to innocent people. If every soldier refused to fight, who would these mad men who want war have to fight for them?

Answer 9

Are you up for the job?

Answer 10

NO!!!