The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Torvald
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

A World Government is fundamentally not a good idea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+15
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,827 times Debate No: 27436
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)

 

Danielle

Pro

Many thanks in advance to my opponent for accepting this debate.

For all intents and purposes, a world government is self-explanatory: a single, unified government that everyone in the world is expected to abide by. I will be arguing that such an institution would be impractical, inefficient, implausible and immoral. As such, it would not be a good idea to (attempt to) implement. My opponent will be arguing that a world government is a good idea and would be beneficial to people throughout the globe.

Con can use the first round for acceptance and to make any notes or outlines of his case if he so chooses. I will begin the discussion in Round 2. While it's okay for us to put our links for sources in additional space if need-be, using any special cheat codes to override the character limit will be considered an automatic forfeit. There is an 8K character max per round for this debate. Thanks again, and good luck!
Torvald

Con

I reciprocally thank Danielle for making this challenge. I hope for a pleasant and thought-provoking debate.

I agree to your explanation of a world government. Is it understood that later in the debate either of us might, if necessary, have leave expound upon and add specificity to said definition?

I only wish to add, since this is an acceptance and formality round, that I will support moderate world government. Far right-wing anything is dangerous, in my opinion, thus I will be arguing for world government in moderation.

I naturally fully accept my opponent's request for no use of cheating to circumnavigate the 8K character limit, and would never be so dishonorable as to purposefully do such a thing (I say purposefully because I have, in the past, accidentally stumbled upon a glitch that allows one to exceed the character limit).

A very good luck to you as well!
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

"The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed." - Thomas Jefferson

Ah, if only it were that simple: government exists to provide people with safety, happiness, and to protect their interests... but what happens when what makes one group happy, greatly angers another? What happens when what is in the best interest for one group, is not in the best interest of another? This is not an improbable hypothetical, but in fact the blatant reality governments of every nation continuously struggle with and have throughout history. If my opponent suggests that this is NOT the purpose of government, then right away we have a damning conflict. If people can't even agree on what the purpose of government is or should be, then how can we suppose that people can agree on the principles that should be established for a united, single world government? Such a proposition seems absurd.

Perhaps a more pragmatic explanation of the role of government is to provide a system in which individuals give a portion of their freedom in order to create a system of governance that allows for peace and prosperity. Governments are supposed to protect the rights of its people by holding them accountable to certain social standards a.k.a. laws. Laws are supposed to reflect human rights. Of course outside of the right to life (which seems to be universally regarded with only some deviations), rights are little more than arbitrary opinions. We know that based on the evolution of rights throughout history. For example, abortion was once not a legal right in America, and now it is.

Regarding the implementation and protection of government, there are a few ways in which they are established and upheld. Some governments are authoritarian, and some are democratic. Some are a combination of the two. Regardless of the structure, the law of the land - any law in any land - is upheld through law enforcement, typically police and/or a military. With that said, it seems obvious that creating a world government is implausible, impractical, and even immoral. As such, it is fundamentally not a good idea.

First, let's consider the fact that the globe is populated with more than 6 billion people. These people come from vastly different backgrounds and live incredibly different lives. Their culture and lifestyle shape their values. Even people who come from similar backgrounds and cultures and lead similar lives often have completely different values (see: some Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.). If the purpose of government is to establish laws that protect important social values, how can we expect so many people coming to a consensus about what rules we should use to govern? Such a possibility quite frankly seems absurd and would inevitably create conflict. For example, in Africa they practice female circumcision; in the Middle East they stone adulterers. Are those customs that people in the West would appreciate or even tolerate? Of course not.

In trying to infringe on how another population lives or governs their lives, tension, hostility, resentment and other animosity would inevitably ensue. History shows us how populations react to those kinds of conflict. What winds up happening is the formation of a small militia type group that fights (literally - violently) to protect their values within a community. This has happened since the beginning of mankind. With a multitude of groups doing that, you ultimately have the formation and creation of various governments. As such, a single world government is completely unlikely of ever being possible or successful. It is impractical and improbable, to say the least.

In choosing what values to put into law, due to differences in opinion, a significant amount of people are going to be incredibly upset if they are forced to abide by a specific value they disagree with which would inevitably be the case. For instance, consider how in the U.S., Republican citizens all threatened to leave the country or revolt of Obama were re-elected. Of course Americans are too lazy/distracted/apathetic to ever actually fight back... and are ridiculed when doing so, eg. Occupy Wall Street... but that is not the case in other parts of the world where people have nothing better to do than care or worry about their political agenda and fight to change it. Expecting such a number of people to accept unwanted laws is unrealistic. Clearly there would be a significant backlash against the authorities, which would be completely disruptive and expensive both in terms of resources and human capital. Productivity will be stifled and people would lose their lives fighting for freedom from the oppression of global tyranny. It is not moral to suggest that people from one culture in America should be forcefully influential in dictating laws that govern people from a completely different culture in Timbuktu.

I'm curious as to what type of government my opponent intends would be successful (or moral) anyhow. He's mentioned that he wants a "moderate" government, though of course that is completely ambiguous. He also ignores the dangers of a single authoritative state. Essentially every citizen of the world would be a slave unable to escape an aggressive government. That is inherently oppressive in the truest sense of the word oppression. The ruling class (politicians) and those that protect it (the military) would hold indisputable power over everyone else. That is more than a little problematic. I contend that the extent of unpopularity would create perpetual dissonance under such a system.

In conclusion, the fact that people shouldn't be forced to abide by values they don't agree with on such a massive scale; the fact that expecting that to happen despite such vast difference in values would inevitably result in violent conflict as demonstrated through history; the fact that such conflict would infringe on people's right to live freely, as well as create war and inhibit prosperity; and the inevitable futility of trying to implement and sustain such a system in addition to all consideration on a cost-benefit analysis proves why a world government is fundamentally not a good idea.

Back to you, Con.
Torvald

Con

To answer my opponent's first statement that is really addressed to me, regarding what is the purpose of government, there's no need to worry about a damning conflict; we seem to be quite agreed.

A Motley Group
My opponent certainly has a very fair point, that around the world, there are so many different values, that they can hardly seem compatible. There are some societies based off of petty political bickering, some based off of religious fanaticism, and some that have become so entangled in fights for freedom that they have lost other aspects of their culture. I think, however, that what can be said to be common between all of these people is credo, or the felt necessity for documentation or otherwise insurance that they will receive certain laws. Whether it's a shepherd, living in a desert, or an international oil tycoon, everyone feels the need to have something that prescribes what they get out of life. In the case of some societies, this is an extensive legal document, or series of documents, enumerating exactly what they can and cannot do, to what they are and are not entitled. In the case of others, this may be a holy book, written millenia ago. In the case of some, it may be both. Whatever the case, despite highly extensive differences, people all have that common ground (so I think; I'd not object to correction).

I'm very glad that my opponent brought up the example of the United States, for it is, in some instances, a very good example. Before becoming 'united,' the United States were a group of loosely affiliated, neighboring countries, akin to the European Union, and before that, they were a group of unaffiliated colonies, with no ties not geographical. But look at them now--a proud, albeit too proud, united, though not always, country, for the most part civil and peaceful in respect to each other. The concept behind United States government was a revolution in the device of government. Not without its flaws, to be sure, but a very good example of how different nations with different values and different cultures can band together and form one nation which, while retaining the cultural values and interests of each individual component, holds common interests and values. Could not a world government act in a similar manner?

A Pragmatic and Completely Optional World Government
I think it would be prudent to clarify what sort of government I'm talking about, to provide my opponent with something a little more material to critique (I apologize for the ambiguity of a 'moderate world government'). I advocate a world government which is strong, and prudently federalized, yet gentle, in that any country may opt out of it. If such and such a country does not like the law of the land, they're free to either leave the law or leave the land (my specific ideology is socialistic representative democracy). Ideally speaking, all countries are to be fairly represented. Whether that is by parliament, congress, council, or soothsayer is up to those who wish to decide how such a government would work (I have designed such a government; if it is deemed prudent, I will discuss it here, otherwise, private message for details).

As tacky as it may sound, I think that space travel will be the gateway to a unified planet; when humans discover that they are not alone in the universe, when they realize how very small they are, they will realize that their petty bickering amongst each other is futile and childish, and unite. That may be centuries away, but it is an ideal that I hold. When I say 'world government,' I don't mean an oppressive and militantly enforced dictatorship, or policy that represses cultures, or a blending and squelching of the individuality that we hold so important. By all means, individual cultures and identities are to be preserved. The squelching of culture and individual, and the oppressive enforcement of government are the dark and overstated form of globalization. Such forms of globalization have been made famous by tyrants such as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. It should be noted that globalization is not entirely represented by such people! The ideals of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are by no means those of globalization (it may not be necessary to emphasize this so, but in the past, I have encountered such a misconception as it seems necessary, perhaps, to clarify as to what sort of globalization I refer). Globalization is more ideally the peaceful and equal cooperation of all nations. One way or another, globalization, I think, shall not be stopped, but I'm straying off topic, so it's time for a new paragraph.

My Opponent's View, and My View
You've expressed the potentially amoral aspects of world government, as is your role in the debate. I'm curious, however, what provides the presupposition that a world government would be aggressive and oppressive? I'm certainly not holding ideal anything aggressive or oppressive. We almost seem to be debating two totally different concepts; you've described world government as one nation or one group of nations militantly controlling others, dictating policies of slavery and servitude of the people to the government. My ideal is far from this! Every country should have a voice, and no country should be forced to participate in a world government. To use a sandbox analogy, each country may be viewed as a child in a sandbox that is the world, and a world government as several children choosing to play together; no child is obligated to play with the others, and is free to avoid the others in the sandbox.

Conclusion, or rather, Response to My Opponent's Conclusion
I agree with you; people should not be forced to abide by values with which they don't agree. I also agree that trying to force people to abide by values to which they're opposed would result in violent opposition. I further agree that the ensuing war would infringe upon all toward which such a government would hopefully be striving. In fact, my opponent and I seem to be agreed, for the most part, and trying to argue against different ideals. Suppression, repression, and/or oppression of any one culture or individual by another, labelled 'world government,' would indeed be a fundamentally bad idea.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con.

It seems my opponent has already argued against and subsequently defeated his own case.

"Despite highly extensive differences, people all have that common ground [credo] ... I advocate a world government which is strong, and prudently federalized, yet gentle, in that any country may opt out of it. If such and such a country does not like the law of the land, they're free to either leave the law or leave the land."

What Con has just described does not at all fit the criteria of a world government. The definition we have established is a single, unified government that everyone in the world is expected to abide by. If people can "opt out" of the government, then not everyone is following the same rules of order. Con pointed out that everyone despite their differences wants to establish laws, so by acknowledging that various communities will establish their own laws, he has repeated exactly what I said in the last round. I pointed out that various governments will inevitably form. Con agrees. As such, this dismantles the notion of a single and unified world government.

What Con is describing is the peaceful coexistence of multiple governments, with perhaps a unified system of order that overrides (or should override) them all - say like an institution resembling the United Nations. In this organization, many governments are represented. While each country's power and influence over this organization is certainly not equal, it's naive and idealistic to assume that this would be the case in whatever utopia Con proposes. There will inevitably be a particular group who is more powerful or influential, and that will probably be based on wealth (resources) though there may be other factors. Regardless, the point here is that Con hasn't advocated for an actual world government. He's advocated for the allowance of various groups to form their own governments or opt out of the alleged "world" government.

Con asks what would necessarily make a world government oppressive. If people could "opt out" of the government, then of course it wouldn't be oppressive. However, it also wouldn't be a world government! What this sounds like is a variation of anarcho-capitalism -- a system where property rights are acknowledged, but everyone is free to live their life according to their own values/laws within their given territory. Anarcho-capitalism supposes - as my opponent does - the right for people to govern themselves by opting into a system of governance that appeals to their values. On the contrary, a world government would be inherently oppressive because people would have no choice but to follow the singular law of the land. As I said in R2, a government's rules are usually upheld by law enforcement - the police or military. If there was only a singular legitimate authority with a monopoly on force (as a world government implies), then oppression is evident. However that is not what Con proposes.

To be sure that my supposition of what qualifies as a world government isn't off base, I'll refer to Wikipedia's definition and my opponent can feel free to challenge it. He can and perhaps should go into more detail about what this government should entail in the next round. After all, saying it should be "strong yet gentle" is still completely vague and ambiguous. "A world government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity. As of 2012, there is no functioning global international military, executive, legislature, judiciary or constitution with jurisdiction over the entire planet" [1]. I'm assuming that in advocating a world government, Con supposes that there should be. However Con concludes his last round by suggesting, "Every country should have a voice, and no country should be forced to participate in a world government." If a world government is optional, there is room for other governments a.k.a. no world government - no singular authority with world jurisdiction.

Con has defeated his own argument; a world government is fundamentally not a good idea.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Torvald

Con

I sincerely apologize, but, due to a significant increase in business, I shall likely be unable to participate in any debates. Since it is more sporting for me to concede than forfeit, and because I legitimately do wish to continue this debate, I simply request that we continue the debate at a later time, with the arguments of this one transplanted, so as to continue from this point. I left this late, in the hopes that my schedule would somewhat clear up, but have been unable to do anything about this schedule. My reiterated sincere apologies.
Debate Round No. 3
Danielle

Pro

No problem, Con. I would be more than happy to continue this debate with you at a later time. Good luck with whatever you're working on.
Torvald

Con

Thank you, and thank you. I imagine my temporary concession (due to time constraints) is a disappointment. At a time less busy (potentially after Christmas), a continuation may be prudent. Once more, my apologies.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
This is a difficult argument they way it was spelled out. A one government world has it's perceived advantages of pure equality but by examining ALL countries who have tried to achieve pure equality, they have all failed. What destroyed Babylon, Egypt, Macedonia and Rome was the same liberal progressive notions that are dooming America today. We are not equal. Should I make as much as Kobe Bryant? Why not? We are both people who bleed red!!! Maybe Kobe should only make as much as I do! Is it his fault that he is 8" taller than me? Is it his fault that I preferred to play football than basketball so he is a better shooter(except outside the arc, I am awesome)? We are not created equal, we are created the same. An apple and a pear are essentially the same. They both have seeds at the core, grow on a tree, can be yellow, have to ripen, are a fruit and look somewhat similar but they are not purely equal!!! People should all be treated fairly but not equal. The larger the government the more corrupt it becomes. Imagine how big the government would have to be to run the world! The old Soviet Union was composed of Russia, Bashkir, Buryat, Dagestan, Yakut, Kabardino-Balkar, Kalmyk, Karelian, Komi, Mari, Mordovian, Northern Ossetian, Udmurt, Tatar, Chuvash, Chechen-Ingush, Tuva, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and at one point Yugoslavia and Albania was under their influence. Yet 45 years later they fell apart. Even though they were ruled with an "iron fist" they could not control everything. How is a world wide government going to control all the different nationalities, races, religions, beliefs and mind sets without greatly reducing the world population?
Posted by thigner 4 years ago
thigner
Various and destructive warfare has occurred around whole world since the time we could start write down something. Nations are the one of catalyst for instinct humans beings have. They people can be able to get the reasonable reason that we would fight for us, even there is high probability to kill opposite side's humans and also our men. It's frankly ridiculous. the nations are the main one which publicly demands humans' pain and dedication. some of them lose their lives for that ambiguous agent called my country.

We just let the victims for security of nations go to be killed.
Governments cover it with silk named patriotism and victims became the heroes.

If we can get the chance to demolish all weapons and just keep the minimum weapons for managing
small or big rebellion on the world government, I definitely am sure that we can make the first world which EXPLICATED POVERTY OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS.

we are living in the world that farmers keep discarding their crops to maintain or increase the price or value. Meanwhile, crops are possible to save all the African babies.

That's obviously plausible and must be possible.

Afghanistan and Iraq people who were dead from the war.

We must remember the just only fact that 'there was no chemical weapon American said they were.'
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
Slo1 or Kinesis, I would be willing to debate this topic with either/both of you. I know I can be a little verbose in general-- I'm trying to work on that in my every day life :P
Posted by slo1 4 years ago
slo1
Danielle, not certain of proper DDO etiquette, so I'll ask nicely. I would love to debate this if you wanted to start it again or mind me to open a debate.

Thanks,
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
See the first comment.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Oh yes, to clarify your question, Danielle, "See what," at the beginning of the debate, Mouthwash stated "Obvious Pro win."
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
I put undue emphasis on 'temporary' because certain comments, namely the one by Mouthwash, indicate that the reason and nature of my concession was unclear.
Posted by badger 4 years ago
badger
con won :P
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
See what.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
As I have said, this has nothing to do with the debate. I wish to finish it sometime. I just have had scheduling trouble.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by MochaShakaKhan 4 years ago
MochaShakaKhan
DanielleTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con couldn't finish.
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
DanielleTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: there should not be a world government
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
DanielleTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented her arguments with eloquence. In contrast, Pro's "but I'm straying off topic, so it's time for a new paragraph." is a great example of how not to end a paragraph. Con did indeed defeat his own argument, before conceding the debate in round 3.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
DanielleTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Danielle that Torvald's proposal did not meet the requirements to be considered a government. Danielle's case seemed pretty verbose to me - I think it could have been compressed into a more concise form. I might be interested in debating this with her sometime if she's interested.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
DanielleTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Disappointing. First Danielle debate in months and it ends in a concession.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
DanielleTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
DanielleTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
DanielleTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession