In contrast to Left/Right Wings, I now introduce the Up Wing
Debate Rounds (4)
There must be many nations out there. These nations all have freedom of trade and immigration. If you do the paperwork and all that jazz, you can move from one country to another. There would be globalization in this sense. HOWEVER, a single global government is a very bad idea. All, though these nations should try not to fight each other, they should not disarm their own militaries either.
The idea is that nations will compete with one another to be the best nation. If one country has a successful system, less successful nations should set up this successful system to make their own nations successful. Systems that are proven to be failures should be cast aside. One nation being a power should be encouraged. However, instead of this nation bullying other nations, it should use its dominance in a way that helps the world. Also, if it becomes way above all the other nations it should help the other nations become better, closer to its level. Nations that are falling way behind should have ultimatums to make reforms or the leaders of these impoverished nations get removed by a military force. If conditions get really bad in one country, the people of that country should have the freedom to immigrate to a country where the conditions are better.
Speaking of military, if a single nation rises up against them they will all form a confederation against that nation. However, preferrably there would be no establishment of new military alliances between countries in times of peace or fusioning of two countries to make one. Even if it's your own country that becomes more powerful, and you're confident that your leaders are benevolent, conquest of other countries is a bad idea.
It would be a world connected by a large confederation or league, but there would not be a single government. A single government would be a monopoly, and monopolies are rarely good.
This system has some aspects of both the Left and the Right wings, but it's neither system, but it also has some differences from Centralism. I call it the Up-Wing.
I await a response, and please do not accept unless you're willing to debate this seriously.
"There must be many nations out there. These nations all have freedom of trade and immigration." Yes. Freedom of trade makes everyone better off in the end since the exchange is voluntary, but I don't have to argue that since we are in agreement. What I would do from an immigration standpoint is have borders in name only, allowing everyone to freely move where they may. The claim that immigrants "take our jobs" makes no sense, since they nicely compliment our skillset (very high and very low skill to our average skill) and create more jobs in America. And if you think about in in the sense of nations competing like companies, shouldn't we free up the people to decide where they want to live so the nation-market system would be most efficient that way?
"One nation being a power should be encouraged." Not sure about the specifics of how you would encourage it, but I disagree with the concept since power corrupts. It's like saying we should encourage Walmart to get bigger so it can help out other nations. The whole point of competition is that every participant helps themselves, and merely having someone to compete against helps them help themselves. We should support whatever nation is the most efficient, just like you buy from whoever offers the best goods for the cheapest price.
"Nations that are falling way behind should have ultimatums to make reforms or the leaders of these impoverished nations get removed by a military force." My insides started to writhe when I read that sentence. Force is never the answer, it always screws up things. This is the reason we have free immigration for- if people don't like the poor country, they don't have to choose it. Going off of the country-company analogy (I really like this analogy) what would happen if Home Depot said to Ma and Pa's Tool Shop "We don't like the way you are running your business, so we're going to send it the army to take your shop from you and give it to someone else (a.k.a. Eminent Domain). What happens is that if people don't like the way their country/store is being run, they go to a different store to buy their tools. And if people still like their country, who are we to tell them what to do?
Some more related points: government has an influence on the economy, but is never the sole factor in its well being. Much more often things like droughts, wars from a previous administration, or rising wool prices in India can drastically effect a country's economic well being. And economic trajectory is slow and very hard to predict. It is a complicated matter where changes can sometimes take generations to go into effect. You cannot simply point to a country and say that it is poor because of the current president/dictator. And even more frightening still is who gets to decide when a country is doing badly, or what the ultimatums are. Will it be the dominant power? Who here thinks that if Donald Trump had the ability to put his competitors out of business by force he wouldn't do it?
If you want to see a loose statement of my positions as opposed to those of the Up Wing, you could look at Libertarian Party Platform, though I would prefer to keep this debate constrained to foreign policy. I say loose because I would put ideology above party politics any day.
As I've stated before, systems that are proven to be successful should be used to help nations grow more successful. A little experimentation should be allowed with the system to see what works best. There's always room for improvement, after all. For instance, the economic system that has been proven to work is Free-Market Capitalism, with just the right amount of government regulation to prevent corporations from paying their workers $3 an hour or selling undesirably dangerous products to their customers, yet enough freedom for the corporations not to be virtually owned by the government. Whatever aspects of a system are proven to work should be used by countries that seek to improve themselves.
I do not recall saying that immigrants "take our jobs." If they live here legally and pay their taxes and they are loyal to the US, there's nothing wrong with them being here. Immigration should be allowed, but the immigrants should have to pay their due taxes.
Yes, one nation being a power should be encouraged, because if a country's allowed to win, it only encourages competition and causes all countries that seriously compete to better themselves. But you're right to an extent: countries that succeed should not become bullies. They should be obligated to assist other nations in climbing to their level.
As for my next point, you claimed that your "insides started to writhe" when you read it. Actually, military intervention is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that you clean up your mess. For instance, if you invade a nation and topple its government, you should make sure that the new government is stable before you leave. Military intervention can, if done properly, be used to make a country start improving itself. Regime would know that they can't rule without regard to the welfare of their citizens. It would cost them their power. And yes, I know that military intervention shouldn't be taken lightly. And also, people from these nations would not always be able to immigrate. Perhaps they'd be too poor to do so or the government is restricting them from leaving their country.
You said that economic trajectories are "slow and very hard to predict." You also said that changes for the better could take generations. However, an impoverished nation's government should start taking steps to improve, even if progress is very slow. If they're not doing their job properly and these steps are not being taken, they get "fired" (military intervention). Then you asked how a nation's progress is defined. Well, intellectuals who study various systems to see what systems work and what doesn't...they should help decide this.
I await your response.
We already have something similar to that, namely the United Nations. There is the Security council which deals with threats to international security, but is extremely slow because of lack of agreement between nations. I feel that a League of Nations (which was also around, but ultimately failed) would turn out the same way unless you could guarantee cooperation somehow. The European Union is similar on immigration, where 22 member countries don't even have border checks (Schengen area), so the immigration policy could definitely be done wide scale. The problem comes when countries restrict citizens from immigration/ emigration.
I would say all we can do is show them the benefits of free immigration, like the situation involving the Berlin Wall in the USSR. Imagine what would've happened if we had used military intervention then. But we didn't, because they had nukes and knew we wouldn't interfere with them. And if we don't invade a country with nukes, why is it suddenly okay to meddle in a country with none? Is it any surprise that Iran would want nuclear weapons, seeing the respect other weaponized countries are given? Free trade and capitalism has remarkable powers of attraction, and we must be patient in letting other countries improve their policies.
The reason I touched on the unpredictability of nations is that we are I'll equipped to know for sure what systems work and which don't. Some may say the reasons kids aren't starving on the street is capitalism, some may say its social programs, and some would say it is public education. They might all be right. We can gauge that socialism and dictatorships don't work well, but any more than that is hard to say for certain.
"Well, intellectuals who study various systems to see what systems work and what doesn't... they should help decide this."
If only we could live in a world where the experts made all our decisions for us. Yet we can't do that, because humans are easily fallible. These are the people who predicted global cooling, after all (although with this recent weather hey might've been right) Calls for an intellectual, efficient, planned government were what socialism sprang from. I can think of a lot of "experts" who predicted the Iraq War would be an in and out job, but experience has shown we cannot simply barge in by force and expect things to turn out fine.
All force begets is more force, like revolutionaries who don't like the new regime. God knows how we've stirred up a hornets nest in the Middle East. We have to convince people though trade, as it has been said that when goods cross borders, armies don't. And as for nation building- if the U.S. can't even get its own government right, and is so terrible at doing just about everything else, how do you expect it to set up a stable government in a far away nation rife with conflict?
Now I'll get back to the matter of providing a rebuttal of some sort to your aguments.
As you have stated, the United Nations Security Council has been doing a pretty crappy job, namely because the many member nations either disagree with issues or no nation is willing to take action. However, I find it unlikely that the number of Pro nations would equal the number of Con nations. When it comes to an issue, one stance will have more supporters. The majority wins. This is how issues should be resolved if nothing's getting done.
Then you argued against military intervention, especially when that nation uses nuclear weapons. But India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and they haven't blown each other up, though they still engage in small-scale fighting. War between two nations with nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily have to escalate to the usage of nuclear weapons.
What you have argued overall on this part of the debate is that the lure of capitalistic success will nudge hostile nations into friendly relations. However, some nations, such as Iran, have sacrificed trade relations for the pursuit of a weapon. Clearly some leaders give little regard to trade relations because they want war. Against leaders like this only military might will work.
Then, you said that no one agrees on what systems work, or how precisely they work. Okay then, analyze the system of a successful nation and copy what they have.
Then what you said about experts...you have a good point. But the world is getting better educated, and as time goes by, intellectuals will have more influence. But then again, the experts may disagree. There are Intelligent Design scientists, Evolutionist scientists, scientists who believe in global warming/climate change, scientists who are skeptical about it, etcetera. I think you may have a point here.
Finally, you brought up how crappy the Middle East is, and how even crappier it's been after the US intervened. Countries like these need long-term occupation, because the people of these nations do not wish to change. They want their Islamic system, regardless of how barbaric it may be at times. But with long-term US occupation and as children of these countries can get a good education under the watchful eye of the Western powers, they'll come to see things in a more Western, more Liberal way.
P.S. Your mention of climate change is something I must criticize you for. In the 1990s all the Left-Wing scientists were talking about Global Warming, and now that it's super cold, it's being called Global Cooling? Seriously? Anyway, you don't have to answer that.
I await a response.
There are certain things I like about the current Security Council, like how it can't get anything done. I have the feeling that if it were a simple majority, more often then not nations would get involved in foreign affairs, which is generally a bad thing, just as an overactive federal government is detrimental to the states here in the U.S. But the current veto powers afforded to only 5 nations defies the democracy we prate on about, so I would say a 2/3 majority may be better. Resolutions relating to the Security Council are fairly important, and should be at least as tough to pass as an amendment. For that matter, representation by population could be explored as well. But mainly I support actions being taken on a nation-by-nation basis as opposed to an international one.
"Against leaders like this only military might will work." I think here in the U.S. we have looked past the defense in National Defense. We are always preoccupied with finding new ways to kill our enemies, and yet still profess to be interested in defending our country from hostiles. To see whether the military should take a proactive or reactive role, you need only use Kant's Categorical Imperative. If everyone in the world tried to suppress foreign threats, then we would very likely get wars, skirmishes, and tension. If everyone were to defend their own nation, then there would be no conflict to speak of. We should concentrate on missile defense shields, not on trying to eliminate the ever growing groups of the world that hate our guts. Terrorism is like a hydra, you cut one head off, and two more pop up. The culture that gives rise to it works in such the same way. Instead of trying to change Middle Eastern customs by force, making them resent us and hold on to them even tighter, we should convert them with open arms. Maybe the reason they don't want to change is because we are trying to change them.
"Countries like these need long-term occupation, because the people of these nations do not wish to change." This is exactly what the Americans said when they were faced with the pesky problem of Indians. Its what the British said when they faced the pesky problem of actual Indians (from India). This attitude that we know better than others (whether we do or not) has got us into many situations in history, always harming those who we wish to help. Eventually, with increasing exposure, people will abandon their harsh cultures in favor of more reasonable ones. If capitalism has turned the world from a society of perpetually warring empires into what it is today in only 200 years, than what is to stop it from doing the same to a few more countries?
Looking forward to the finale.
That being said, I think the basic idea of Up-Wing is alright, but not entirely necessary as its similar to what we currently have (though I may be wrong on domestic issues). This debate has really put things in a new light, since I can now look at the international community as a collection of bickering states, like the US under the articles of confederation. I also recognized that the larger question of whether force can truly solve problems comes into play every time government regulates or makes something illegal, since the threat of harm is used. Ex: Don't pay taxes, go to jail (threat of physical harm).
My position is that military force should be a last resort, though I acknowledge it may be necessary in extreme cases like WW2 (WW1 not so much).Defense needs to be about defense, and if we need to help others along lets do it through persuasion. After all, if we have the best model, why not prove it through debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.