what would you do?

financial gain irrelevant. 

if you were the leader of the world, or perhaps the most influential in the world, what would you do to make the world a better place?

[B]

I'd control the vast majority of military forces to ensure a somewhat "libertarian" world, leave people of x area do whatever they want unless they do something against their neighboors or against "human sense". Secession would be a vote for only the concerned territory and union would need a vote from all territories concerned. There would be a minimal set of International laws which are respected everywhere, not just an idea of good will like it is in our current world.

That military force would be divided in multiple armies and branches that are independent of each others and the countries national military/security forces to reduce the risk of a coup d'état against my command.

Money like most things would be voted on a regional level, meaning, that the regions the people agree to be part of, share the same type of money and that region can vote to share the same money as the neighboor region, etc. A bit like currently, but more directly, we vote for it, instead of having representatives taking their time.

There would be 4 tier of police force around this world :

Tier 1 Municipal (City)
Tier 2 Regional (Region/Province/State/City-State/Else)
Tier 3 National (Country)
Tier 4 International (Under my control)

Mainly to ensure relative level of independence/integrity between each political entities (notably for when it comes to supervize elections). Tier 4 would only ever intervene when individuals or a small government acts against international laws, if more it will be the Humanitarian Army's job.

Anything related to my political entity affairs would be made in the same city, same buildings, no need to spend hundreds of millions on expensive building and specific security details like we currently do for the g5, g8 , g20, else.

There would also be a shared réseau of information between every governmental agencies/universities/research centers/else to make knowledge easily reachable for every country.

Lastly, to ensure this wont collapse when my perfect being die, an extensive and independent process would be going on to decide who would replace me at any time. Since we can't decide when we die, but it wouldnt be publicly known to prevent any coup. Power would go to the individual worthy enough, or divided between the worth of mentions !

I see your view clearly. Had to read it a few times. In this world, you could see a lot of success we do not in the current one, but also, problems we don't currently have.

I would keep everything the same, but change the army's of the world into philanthropy for the world. In the sense that instead of destroying, we build. Remove "borders" and allow people to be citizens of the world. Respect for everybody would be in the law book.

That's kind of my utopia. I don't even need to be rich or drive a ferrari at that point.

[B]

I see your view clearly. Had to read it a few times. In this world, you could see a lot of success we do not in the current one, but also, problems we don't currently have.

I would keep everything the same, but change the army's of the world into philanthropy for the world. In the sense that instead of destroying, we build. Remove "borders" and allow people to be citizens of the world. Respect for everybody would be in the law book.

That's kind of my utopia. I don't even need to be rich or drive a ferrari at that point.

For laws to work you need to have people who make you respect the law. Without borders, having no armies/security forces would only let power to the hands of the first person recreating an army, or leave only 1 "coercitive political power" to make the rules for all, which is potentially extremely dangerous depending on who's at the command. In both case there will be a reactionary response, if a country raise an army, an other will, then another one, an other one, (etc.) and if the sole army of the whole planet turns "against it's population interests" ("Evil") resistance will rise in matters of weeks, civil unrest, manifestations, riots, revolution ...

Then its the wheel of violence starting to roll again.



So im glad we are talking about utopic ideas, because we can simply assume that me or you or someone else would be a very good and benevolent world leader/dictator.



But if you didnt know the person trying to be the world leader, would you trust him/his country (Depending on his "ideas") ?

Factors to consider :

1. You have to consider that if you give that stranger free reign, the second he has full power, he will show his true nature whatever it is and let's just say that people trying to get power over the whole world are "rarely" (never) libertarians

2. And there is no other standing army / political force to counter balance him, meaning he can do whatever the f*** he wants, before the population rise against him (if it does).

My Answer to my own question (yeah i know very pretentious) :

I wouldnt trust anyone with any form of power over the whole globe, even the potentially best human that nature could create. Why ?

If "power" corrupts, then absolute power destroys.

Even the most kind hearted persons would intervene in our current world in some countries (let's say only NK to make it shorter), which would results into probably millions of deaths. And thats if it falls into "good" hands.

An individual utopia would be other individuals dystopia.  

Hence the need for coercitive political balance (3 different links if interested), our current "peace" being mostly reality because every countries knows its in their own best interest to not do anything that could make a WW3 become reality.

Because it would only end with a mutually assured destruction .