The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Is a World Government a plausible alternative for society?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 52307
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I hold a pro stance on the plausibility of a world government and choose to reply in defense of this alternative for society as a whole.

Anyone is welcome to accept this debate and provide credible justification opposing the purpose or resolve it will provide. You're welcome to cite sources, quotes, and other resources found to support your case.


I accept this challenge, and will argue from the perspective that world government is near impossible.

Good luck to my opponent, and thank you for posting such a good topic.
Debate Round No. 1


"Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, striving accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and
indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society"in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence"that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of
society." - Essay, "Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein May 1949 -

I opened with this quote to define the relationship between the individual and society. Einstein's perception of socialism is intrinsic to the ways the governing authority may apply socialism in our present day. Socialism is, in theory, based on Democracy but acknowledges that voting, per se, is not enough. Ownership of the land one lives on and ownership of the work one performs. In a pure Socialist society there would be no Land Lords. Notice the work "Lord" in Land Lord. That word is a relic of past feudalism where some people were Lords over other people, their vassals. Socialists believe that everyone should own their own home and not have to pay their Land Lords mortgage. Socialists go further than that, they believe the work place should be owned by the workers. And, Socialists believe that the banks should be owned by the people who put their money into the banks, not by a few Capitalists. Capitalism is not Democracy but, rather, a system of ownership and control of the economy by Capitalists who use their capital to hire workers and control production. The Capitalists take most of the profits and increase their own wealth and eventually own most of the society. That is what is happening today in the United States and other Federalism based countries who project the ideal of freedom without properly educating or offering the long term framework it imposes upon society.

Federalism fosters democracy because the American people have endowed with rights to debate and reinterpret the meaning of federalism. Numerous judicial verdicts have attempted to resolve the conflict of interests at the national and local levels. In this way, federalism upholds diversity as well as trying to achieve unity. It strives to harmonize both local preferences and demands of wider population in the quest for preventing tension and conflict. Federal governments are democratically elected and therefore are accountable to voters. American voters are entitled to air their views to those whom they elected. The more decentralized or local the government is, the greater the opportunity of communication between the voters and the office holders. Individuals have the right to make political choices including freely expressing themselves, critique public officials, voting, and equal representations.

The status quo has a predictable and identifiable character that is filling the power vacuum of Global Rule of Law that nature itself has created. One of literally dozens of cases in point is the financial crisis in Iceland. Here, the fingerprint of neo-liberal, western "democracy" called moral hazard created by systems purporting to operate in Rule of Law when they do not. We shall discuss and support this contention in a following section, but the mortgage crisis in the United States was an example of the suborning of Rule of Law. The global effect of this was that many countries, like Iceland, could make considerable capital gains both by investing their own money and borrowing money to invest (called leveraged investing). By not applying the Rule of Law to the U.S. mortgage fiasco (and the same thing was happening in other countries as well) and government officials ignoring the obviously fraudulent financial practices there, the United States government created a moral hazard in Iceland. Basically, one can suborn Rule of Law by creating moral hazards which insulate the forces of causation from accountability. A moral hazard can be created by any number of means, but in this case it was suborning of Rule of Law itself that caused a moral hazard that begat another suborning of Rule of Law outside the jurisdiction of the United States; that is, internationally.

Thus, it clear that this stands as a very, very good reason for global Rule of Law (It is composed of five separate, socially desirable goods, or ends: (1) a government bound by law, (2) equality before the law, (3) law and order, (4) predictable and efficient rulings, and (5) human rights) when moral hazards can be created by an actor or actors in another jurisdiction the consequences of which can bring down an entire nation"s economy. And that is exactly what happened. By taking the bait of a moral hazard, Icelanders invested in these fraudulent schemes and, when it went belly up, as we will explain more fully in what follows, Icelanders were suddenly burdened with an astonishing debt redounding to a sentence of virtual slavery to the international financial system. Only by holding a referendum and kicking out the Icelandic government that did nothing to stop this moral hazard, were they able to regain control and simply refuse to pay these debts.

It is plausible, based on the wants and needs of the best for our society to refine and question the truth that determines our progress. Humanity is as ever-changing alongside the innovations of our technological advances. The Great American Experiment pretty much ended when John Adams left office. That"s why when you write a Constitution it"s the institutions put in place in that early time frame, their design, mode of function, mechanics for engaging the uncertainty of human affairs that makes a Constitution work. American legal scholars have naturally focused more upon constitutional adjudication than constitutional drafting. But an understanding of global constitutionalism, and why we might place more value than others on "mere" paper, demands attention not only to the way in which constitutions are interpreted, but also to the manner in which their formal content evolves over time.

Combining the governing theme of what society worldwide has overcame for hundreds of years, applying technological resource-based systems, such as The Venus Project ( ), and ethnically building a backbone for cultural traditions to co-exist is how modify the United Nations mission into a global success for the future of man-kind. Even in the months that followed the United States Declaration of Independence, it was bold, it didn't follow historical wisdom, but it was rooted in the ideology that it requires the energy of people to uphold the values it represented.

Further Reading: An Introduction to General Federalism -


Opening Statement:

The idea of a one-world government has been, much like government itself, a fairly recent idea in the minds of us humans.

Though appealing, especially the idea of democracy, this one-world government has major flaws in the basis of it's argument. However, let us first define the term, one-world[1].

One-world: regarding all the world as related and interdependent

Now, I will explain why this is impossible from a social and political perspective.

Opening Argument:

First we must ask ourselves, how would we go about having all 195 (or 196, depending on your view of Taiwan) integrate into one whole conglomerate nation that spans the entire globe?

Especially when the over 7 billion people who live here on Earth have major conflicts in regards to everthing from religion to ethnicity. Not only that, ideology plays a major role in thi world government, since everyone isn't going to want one certain thing if they were raised on two different sides of the globe. It simply doesn't make sense, even from a Darwinian standpoint.

For example, there are nearly 7,000 ethnicities in the world[2]. Having so many ethnicites under one government will cause tension amongst the populace, and may eventually lead to civil war.

Africa for instance, is home to hundreds to even thousands of ethnicities alone. Some of these ethnicities were grouped by the tens into single countries, not only that, but most of these ethnic groups that had been herded together had been historical rivals and enemies.

One example of this was the Rwandan Genocide[3], which ended the lives of 800,000 of the Tutsi minority, and also those suspected of being Tutsi, by the Hutu majority.

Religion also plays a major role in this argument against world government. Even today, Islamic extremists in the Middle East and Africa, such as the Taliban[4] and Boko Haram[5], support dictatorship under one religion.

The problem, is that this world government will be fighting against extremism and violence, and using force to counteract this religious extremism will only lead to the extremists using an illusion of martydom for their comrades fallen. Thus strengtehning their movement.

Not only this, the pure essence of sociological ideology will also prevent this world government from happening. For instance, people in China and North Korea are going to want a different system of government and economics than those who live in First World countries like the United States. Not everyone is going to want democracy, since they were raised in the mentality that things like dictatorship and totalitarianism will keep society stable, while also being taught that democracy is unstable and vicious, and others vice versa.

However, other flaws arise when viewing this from a political perspective. How are you going to implement a system that advocates voting when the Earth is widely disproportionate in regards to region/population ratios? What will prevent a dictator from rising to power and enslaving all of humanity under their state?

The reason we have so many different states is to fit the needs of the people who live there, while having that state simultaneously abide by the sociological laws that the people follow.

This is why a country like the United States, which was influenced by 17th and 18th century philosophes, will have a much different system than that of China, which was influenced majorly by both Confucianism and Maoism, or Iran, which is influenced by radical Islam.

All in all, one-world government is not possible by todays standards, and possibly even the standards of the next 5, 10, or even 100 years. People will simply not want to ally themselves and be back to back on one ideal in the near future. Our society is simply too stubborn to accept this idea.






Debate Round No. 2


JamesChance forfeited this round.


I hope my opponent will return for the next round
Debate Round No. 3


JamesChance forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 4


JamesChance forfeited this round.


Pro has forfeited, vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 3 out of 5 rounds, leaving Con's arguments and rebuttals unchallenged. Aside from that, forfeiting is never proper conduct for a debate.