A one world government
Debate Rounds (5)
There is an amount of power in the world today. This power is split into equal bits for each government.
Supposing all this power was given to just one government of the whole world.
That government would be so powerful they could just do as they wished. All the power would be theirs. There is no opposing them.
What you are basically saying is lets say all the power in the world belonged to one government. You cannot oppose them.
This government can do as they please and nobody can stop them.
You CANT oppose them. No matter how strong you are. Because this government has all the power in the world. No opposing them.
And people could still speak up if they wanted to. It's not like it would be an evil, fascist group, which would kill anyone who stands up, would it? It'd be a democracy. You'd still be able to vote on things. and have a say on things.
Let's say for example the one world government was in Australia. The role of a government is to protect the people.
There is a serial killer in London which is killing residents of the city. As the government they must stop it musn't they?
But... From AUSTRALIA its quite hard to protect Britain.
Unless you could say the one world government had more then one base which was stated on each country the plan wouldn't work out.
Even when there is a base on each country its not REALLY a one world government then is it?
Plus each land that is a country needs different needs. So the government itself would have to think of solutions to each countries problem.
Where as a solution to a problem in America may not be the solution to a problem in Russia. Each of the countries needs are different.
Plus think of the LEADER of this government. He has control over the entire world. He is more or less the king of the world.
You say as long as they make choices for the good of people then its ok. Supposedly you are correct. But as I have said the good of the americans may be different from the good of the british.
Let's say one country is swarming with disease which is killing many residents. But another country is clean and no disease is spread.
There are a lot of problems in countries which are much more convientently solved if each country has its own government rather then there being a one world government.
& yes other countries do have different needs to others. But the role of a one world government would be to attend to these needs as best as possible.
It'd be good if countries from all over the world could vote in one person to represent their country. Then whoever they vote in goes into the one world government. There wouldn't be 'one ruler' it'd be a group of people. A new world order.
With a one world government the only thing you could really say to solve these mixtures is that there will be a department in the government one for each country and each one is supposed to meet its national needs.
But that kind of defeats the idea of it being a one world goverment doesn't it?
"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."-definition of government
The departments match this definition dont they? So there you are.
Plus without the idea of these departments then the government for the whole world won't be good. If it was just one group of people in charge of running the whole world it wouldn't fit would it?
As I have explained.
Taking the example of currency.
Each country has different needs for currency don't they? Each bank is different and thus needs different things.
If there was only one group in charge of all these banks they would have to fit ideas into all the banks needs. And what one bank might need the other bank might not. It would be so much work.
What's more convenient? One group to look after all the banks in the world or one group for each bank?
As you can see it'll be a bad idea if option two is not taken. And if option two IS taken it does defeat the idea of being a OWG because while it may have the title of "department" it has the definition of a government. So it more or less for that reason IS a government.
Plus what about power addicts?
Thinking about world war two for example. If there had been your idea of a one world government the world would be in a worse state.
People like Hitler will always exist. Those who want power and won't rest until they get it. When these power maniacs come into power the only reason we can stop them is because we have something of more or equal power.
For example we could only defeat the Nazi Party and end the Holocaust because we had a British Government which was matched in power to Hitler. If we didn't have that we wouldn't have the ability to beat him would we?
Things like that aren't only happening in those days no no. There are many Hitlers in the world. People always come into power.
And when these power maniacs do the only reason we can stop them is because we have equal power.
Supposing one of these power maniacs got to be the one world government. We do NOT have equal power.
There is no equal power. There is only one government remember? and this government has all the power in the world. For this reason we have nothing of equal power. Thus the Hitler of this century wins. A OWG for that reason could do some very very big harm and might possibly lead to the end of humanity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: It was a close argument, but I elected to vote for Con since they actually introduced new points, while Pro simply refuted Con's arguments or repeated his debate topic without backing it up. Their grammar was about on par, and neither used sources. Finally, Pro tended to make generalizations like "What you're saying is silly" or "What you're saying is wrong" without explaining why. Con at least attempted to back up his arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.