Do you think there should be one person can rule the world?

Politicians and Power - Featured Image 10

In my opinion personally i think there should not be one person that rules the world because of people can just do what they want and not listen to others opinions. I think we should have much more people that rule the world.

on the other hand, I think there should be no people that should rule the world and I think there should be people that own countries but not the world because that will ruin are food and drink trading and it will all just crash and no one can have any food or water.

Also politicans can not have any power over people and there job would be no point of spreading there opinions because no one will listen and the person that rules the world can choose to not to vote and people can not agree with them so he can just rule the world forever.

Also I think there should be prime ministers and king or queens that rule a individual countrys and that means it is fair and people and public can rule the world and people and politicians can rule and make there own decisions. Also trading will be normal and we can all have the right things to eat and drink and it will be the same.

Thanks for reading

want want to hear your opinions

thoughtful_snow

Comments (11)

  • Lyons Hall Primary School happy_fact | Lyons Hall Primary School B
    23 Jan 2020

    On the one hand, some people think that there should only be one leader. This may be because they think that if there are lots of leaders, they would argue and not agree on one idea/decision. They might also cut out the human rights of us public because they are so interested in trying to make their idea/decision go forward to be talked about in the House of Commons. Take China for example. These people think that China are in a better state than us.

    However, on the other hand, other people think the right thing to do is to have lots of leaders. This is because they think that people can think more freely and make better decisions as a group rather on their own. If their are lots of leaders, they might make more of an effort to include the public and give them an opportunity to SPEAK OUT!!! Take us for example. These people think that we are in a better state than China.

    After approaching the information with open mindedness and scepticism I NOW strongly believe that there should be more than one leader because of the reasons I stated above. Also I think that we are now in a better state than China because we live in a democracy which means everyone gets a say in what happens to us and we all have freedom of speech. I like living in a democracy and I never want that to change. Thanks for reading my comment!!!

    Reply to this comment
    1. Olivia-Avatar.jpg Olivia @ the BNC
      happy_fact's comment 23 Jan 2020

      A good comment, happy_fact, well done for giving reasons for both sides of the argument. It would be good for you to keep these ideas in mind during your sessions, as it links nicely to one of the questions, "Who has more power in a democracy, the people or the politicians?".

      Reply to this comment
  • Lyons Hall Primary School happy_fact | Lyons Hall Primary School B
    23 Jan 2020

    Thanks for your opinion Olivia!

    Reply to this comment
  • Hillyfield School logo splendid_thought | Hillyfield Primary Academy
    23 Jan 2020

    I disagree that one person should rule the world for that would highlight that that person is more important than everyone else. This is obviously untrue but you could take advantage of that power and use it for bad as well as good. In addition, a president earns roughly half a million dollars for being in control of one country so just imagine how much they would earn being in control of our mother earth. That money could be used on ceasing poverty or climate change.

    Although I disagree of the idea, I could see why some people would support the suggestion. Having an overall leader would be easier. You could just listen to there say and that would be that. Being a citizen to an overall leader would mean you only have to listen to them and no-one else could cloud your vision.

    Also, the leader would face a lot of hate and responsibility. Being in control of the world would be an extremely challenging job.
    In conclusion, I would rather stick with our individual leaders and be as equal as the world permits.

    Reply to this comment
    1. tom Tom @ the BNC
      splendid_thought's comment 24 Jan 2020

      An open-minded approach, splendid_thought!

      Reply to this comment
  • Lyons Hall Primary School victorious_bat | Lyons Hall Primary School B
    24 Jan 2020

    I do not believe that we should have one leader because It would be to hard. It would be nearly impossible to manage every single country at once. Potentially that leader might make choices for only the benefit for his country.

    On the one hand, having one leader can sort out many daily problems around the world. For example the Hong Kong crisis. If the leader understands the situation he might have the best reason/ solution for the problem.

    Reply to this comment
  • Hammond School logo thoughtful_snow | Hammond Junior School A
    24 Jan 2020

    I agree with you victorious bat, there are both reasons that there should be one leader

    Reply to this comment
  • Hammond School logo daring_date | Hammond Junior School B
    24 Jan 2020

    I do not think ther should be a person who would rule the world because each and every country is different in all different ways and there should not be a person who should change that . There could be another person who can help like the prime minister and the Queen So maybe that is the way forward.

    Reply to this comment
  • Moreland logo independent_piano | Moreland Primary School
    24 Jan 2020

    I think there should not be one leader because there will be a lot of crime in lots of countries and they won't be able to do anything about it .

    Reply to this comment
  • Hammond School logo versatile_molecule | Hammond Junior School B
    07 Feb 2020

    I strongly believe that there should NOT be one to rule the world, i think this because:
    Firstly, power would not be spread equally because there is one leader, this would lead to disagreement and lack of productivity, people would become angry that they can not not decide much.
    Secondly, not many people would be represented due tot the fact that the one leader has a particular set of views, if the leader was elected democratically, billions of people might vote against the leader but billions might vote for the leader, one side will get represented, the other will not.
    I can see this from another angle, having one leader would means that there would be less political corruption because there would be one leader, there would not be politicians who are hiding in the shadows and being dishonest for the rewards, everyone would be exposed. In addition to this, having one leader of the world means that there would not be anyone else to confuse your views.
    In conclusion, I understand that there might be less corruption if the world was ruled by one leader however, if the world was ruled by one leader, power would not be spread equally, there would be lots of disagreement and not many people would be fully represented.

    Reply to this comment
  • Michael-Faraday-logo-250x250.jpg memorable_orchard | Michael Faraday School
    07 Feb 2020

    I do not think there should be one person ruling over the Earth. I reason in this way as it would put a lot of pressure on the person as different people have different issues. Meaning, there would be an approximate amount of, 7.5 billion people relying on ONE person, which can make a great deal of stress for the leader. Another reason why it is not good to have one person to rule over the world is that, if they become unwell, or is absent, there are many dilemmas and problems ongoing on the Earth, and every second of help are very vital. So, it would affect some parts of the world if that one leader is absent, whereas if there were multiple leaders, different people could fill in for them. If one person was to rule the world, they are at risk of having jealous enemies, who would want to inherit the leader's power for themselves. For example, Martin Luther King received death threats as he was famous and a well-known leader at the time. These letters may have been from jealous people who wanted his victory and favour to end for good. In the end, he was assassinated, which had a terrible effect on America. Therefore, if the leader of the world was to die, the effect worsens. If we had only one leader when trying to help people with their problems, they have their issues, so it would be great havoc to try and handle them at the same time. We should not have only one leader; that would mean there would be no democracy as there would be no parties or MPs, just that one person. Also, since everyone has different opinions, the leader's decisions may disappoint some of the people in the world, whereas if there were multiple leaders, their rules would be more balance. If there were to be a problem in countries, the leader would go there to make a new law. Depending on where the leader lives, it would take a long time to get to some countries. Speaking of which, a leader lives in the capital city of the country. However, if there was only one leader for the world, where would they live? In conclusion to my argument, I do not think we should have one leader for the whole world to share.

    Thank you for reading.
    memorable_orchard.

    Reply to this comment

You must be logged in to post a comment