Is world government a good idea?
Debate Rounds (3)
I will take the opposing side. I do not believe world government is a good idea at all. I would request my opponent, in his opening statement, define 'world government' so I can get a clearer idea as to what exactly I am arguing against.
On a different note, I would ask all potential voters to vote based on who debates better, and not on their personal opinion, and instead to post their personal opinion in the comments, because that's the only way for me to really judge my debating skills... Thanks :)
Firstly, I wish to define the type of world government that we are arguing about - "World government', or global government, refers to the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority. All countries on earth would be involved, and the borders of the countries would not change - the country's identity would remain and all countries would have an equal say in the political affairs; it would be democratic. Also, each country would have a few people-elected representatives in the government. That would ensure that no country would lose out in the process.
More than ever, we need a new international order that draws on the experience and results achieved in these years by the United Nations. It would be able to provide solutions to the problems of today... based on the dignity of human beings, an integrated development of society, solidarity between rich and poor nations, and on the sharing of resources and the extraordinary results of scientific and technological progress ~~~ Pope John Paul II
There are many advantages a democratic world government would give -
1) The first of these is that world government would stop wars and bring peace.
If a world government was proposed by a country, and was accepted by all, then all potential wars, including the possible third world war, could be stopped before they had even begun.
If a world government was accepted by all countries, how could one country break away from them and attack?
That country would be facing ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY FIVE others, all who would be unified. Even if a country could secretly try and form alliances with others, it could not corrupt a HUNDRED countries!
With creating a world government, we would solve many problems, including war, and would unify the entire world. How could racism be be possible when the entire globe is one?
2) The second is that it would decrease poverty in third world countries. In fact, there would be no third world countries anymore!! The entire globe's funds would be enough to remove all poverty, while not ruining the richer countries - Every country could give a certain percentage of it's annual income to a global fund, which would be used to help the poorer countries. Almost all poverty would be removed...- it seems like a bad way for your taxes to be spent, but in the end, for us to become a better, stronger, and more unified globe as a whole, this is how to do it.
We, as the human race, have progressed from the Stone Age to the Age of Technology, and it's time for us to move on, become better, and help each other.
3) It would introduce a general employment all over the world and it would therefore abolish unemployment, as there would be no need for obtaining visas, and other such documents - there would still be rigid security, but it would be easier for people to move from one country to another. Not only would this reduce the cost of going from one country to another, it would also unite the entire globe for the first time since many centuries...
I conclude this round with this - all of the world's greatest leaders are talking about world peace, but that cannot be done by just talking about it... Something has to be done, and I believe world government would it.
To many, the idea of a one-world government sounds appealing. The idea of a unified body consisting of all the nations of Earth, which would somehow make everybody get along, lends a great deal of optimism to many, especially those on the political left who see such a idea as the easiest pathway to worldwide socialism/communism. It also creates an appealing premise for futuristic sci-fi flicks like Star Trek. However, there is no evidence anywhere such a body could be created, there is no proof such a body would be uniformly democratic and immune to tyranny, there is no evidence such a body would end international disputes or wars, and there is no evidence such a body could treat all nations equally. In this debate, I will not be assuming such a body can or would exist. I will be arguing on the sheer merits of the idea, and proving that such a body could not be a viable solution to the problems of our time.
To begin, I want to note that there is no way a unitary body of world government could have a representative, democratic government that both avoids giving undue control to the largest countries while avoiding giving undue control to the smallest countries. The largest sovereign country in the world, China, has a population of 1.35 billion people, or about 19.07% of the world's population. The world's smallest sovereign country (excluding Vatican City), Nauru, has a population of 9,945 people. Let's assume the parliament/Congress of this world government would be apportioned by population; to ensure each sovereign state gets a vote, let's say for every 9,000 people, a state gets 1 representative. China would be assigned 150,449 representatives, while Nauru would get 1 representative. Obviously, that is unfair - Nauru's representation in such a parliament/Congress would be meaningless, while China would not be able to organize their caucus effectively. If we change this to 'one-state, one-vote', we would have the exact opposite - China's 1.35 billion people would be denied fair representation, and small countries like Nauru would be just as powerful even though they contribute far less to the world. In fact, the top ten countries in the world by population, composing a collective 57.66% of the world's population, would have only 5% of the vote, while the other 186 countries, despite having only 42.34% of the world's population, would have 95% of the representatives. Simply put, that is not fair or democratic, and their is no real solution to this problem - you either overrepresent the people, at the expense of the states, or you overrepresent the states, at the expense of the people.
Similarly, presidential elections would face a similar problem. There are nearly 7.1 billion people in the world. Even assuming only 35% of the people vote, that is still almost 2.5 billion votes to count. Let's say that the presidential race involves only two candidates - canidate A and candidate B. Using math, I will calculate what the margin of victory would be if Candidate A wins by 1% of the vote out of 2.5 billion votes:
Candidate A - 51% of the vote would be 1.275 billion votes
Candidate B - 49% of the vote would be 1.225 billion votes
1% is a very small margin of victory, but would still be separated by 50 million votes. Under such a situation, a recount would be timely, expensive, and very impossible. Parliamentary elections under proportional representation would face a similar issue. As with representation, there is no clear solution to this problem.
With it now established that creating a democratic world government that still respects state sovereignty would be practically impossible, I also want to note that such a government can and would be seceptible to dictatorships. The Third Wave, a social experiment conducted by teacher Ron Jones in a high school class, demonstrates that even democracies are not immune to the appeals of authoritarian ideologies like fascism. There is no reason to believe that massive global turmoil could not lead to a dictator taking control.
With that out of the way, I have disproven the idea world government could be fairly representative of both states and people, as well as the idea that such a government could be immune to dictatorship. I will respond to my opponent's main points in the next round.
First, my opponent gives a full paragraph about why world government cannot exist, and then proceeds to say that he is not arguing on that topic. My question is - Why would you give a entire paragraph on a topic you are not arguing about?
I would ask my opponent to stick to the topic, and not provide arguments for a topic he/she knows is not being debated...
Next, getting to the topic, my opponent says that it would be impossible to give every country adequate representatives - it would either be too much or too less. He then gives an example of China and Nauru. He says that the countries would be either overrated or underrated. This would be true, but could be avoided by this - the country would have a national government, which would take care of the smaller affairs of the country, and there would also be an international government, which would take care of the big issues that affect the world as a whole - like war or the global economy...
That way, even if every country had 5 representatives, no one would be overrepresented or underrepresented... Everyone needs to have an equal say in such big affairs, as they affect everybody. So the size of the country does not matter that much, though if there is a situation that comes up, the decision through which the least lives will be lost will be taken...
Also, there would be no need for a president to be elected - what nationality would he be? How could anyone trust him/her not to be biased?? It would simply not be possible...
Now, I will give a few more points about the advantages of world government -
1) It would help the development of technology in the world, as all countries would share their scientific progresses and collaborate to resolve more and more of the universe's mysteries, which has been the goal of mankind since the beginning of mankind...
2) The probable elimination of the world's terrorists - if all the countries collaborate, many terrorist groups could be disbanded, as they would not be able to hide ANYWHERE... This means less lives lost.
3) My third point is a matter of personal opinion, and the potential government might not want to do it, but I think if the human race is to continue for more than a century, birth control rules need to be established - China has already done it, but it is not that easy in more democratic countries, and the world government would have the ability to put a law in place about birth control, which is definitely required if mankind is going to survive past the next couple of generations...
4) There is also the possibility of removal of 'tax paradises' where the rich place their imaginary firms to avoid taxes - at the cost of the global economy. Because of this tax evasion, people are now having to pay higher taxes. For the benefit of the community at large, tax evasion needs to be removed.
I will first rebut my opponent's arguments in his first arguments, and then his rebuttals in the second round.
My opponent makes three main arguments - that world government would end wars, decrease poverty, and abolish unemployment. None of these are backed by any sources - it is his arguments alone that back them. The first argument, that world government would end wars, is the most likely idea, but it is argued entirely on the basis that all countries are equal, and thus no alliance of nations could take power. That is not the case; most countries have a population of below ten million people. The smaller the country, the easier it is to take over. Further, an alliance of the top ten most populated countries would account for nearly 58% of all of Earth's inhabitants. Even a one-man alliance of just China would still account for 19% of the Earth's population! It is incredibly possible that international disputes - and wars - would arise, be them civil wars or wars between two countries.
Second, he argues such an entity would reduce poverty by taking money from the 'rich' countries and giving it to the 'poor' countries. If history has taught us anything, it is that the United Nations has made little to no impact on global poverty. The problem with those 'poor' countries is many lack actual resources, are in the midst of civil war, or are controlled by dictators. World government would not solve any of those problems.
My opponent's last argument is the most nonsensical - that such a world government would eliminate unemployment entirely. How would it do this? Communism! I simplify a bit there, but saying global government would eliminate unemployment for the 7.1 billion people of Earth - something no single country has actually ever done - is not a good argument.
As to my opponent's rebuttals, he argues that it is not unfair to give each country the same representation, even if one country makes up 19% of the world's population (like China) and the other makes up 0.00013% of the world's population (like Nauru). That makes no sense - my opponent insists such a world government would be democratic. How can your county be 'democratic' when you award 0.00013% of the population the same representation as 19% of the population? Simple answer - it cannot.
My opponent then argues that there would be no need for a president. He fails to argue why there shouldn't be a chief executive of some form, be it prime minister or President, and basically ignores the argument I made that any world election - be it for president or some form of parliament - would face the same issue, being that recounts would be practically impossible, so I assume he cedes this point. He also ignores my argument relating to dictatorships being possible, so I assume he ceded this as well.
To close his argument, my opponent gives several more 'advantages' of world government. Like his other examples, these are not cited by sources and rely entirely on his opinion. The first, second, and fourth arguments are all opinion and fairly harmless, but his third is patently offensive. He argues that the world government should establish birth control laws, and cites China as a sterling example of it. I will assume my opponent is simply ignorant about that policy, because the alternative - that he is fully aware of the policy and still supports it - is something he should say for himself. As demonstrated in my YouTube link, the 'one-child policy' in China has resulted in horrible atrocities against women such as forced abortions and sterilizations, as well as heavy fines and punishment for children who survive it. I would be appalled if my opponent truly supports this - and I hope he doesn't - but I would ask the jury to vote accordingly on this.
To conclude - my opponent has presented a vision for world government. This world government idea would claim to solve almost all of the world's problems, while still being democratic. However, this world government idea is not backed by claims from any independent sources. Further, by my opponent's comments this government would not be democratic, because it would grant 95% of the representatives to only 42% of the population. Additionally, this world government would have a forced birth control policy similar to the one-child policy in china, that has resulted in egregious human rights violations. For that point alone my opponent should lose this debate, but the rest of his arguments are just as shallow - I would also like to note my opponent did not use any sources in the debate. Because this resolution has been entirely discredited as resulting in an undemocratic system (in addition to the whole 'birth control' thing), I would strongly urge a vote for CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Alrighty. A bit of an interesting debate here. RFD: Conduct goes to neither. I was considering giving it to Con. However, I don't think Pro meant to misrepresent Con's arguments from R2. S/G- Nothing too notable. Args- In the end, it just came to down to Pro's desires and ideas of what a world gov would look like vs. Con's. I chose Con's because he more accurately accounted for human nature. Also, a couple of Pro's arguments were a little crazy IMO. (One child policy? Ew...) Sources- Wikipppppeeeeediaaaa. Bleeeeeeh. But Pro didn't source. So I guess this goes to Con. Barely. Cause wikippppppeeeeediaaaa. Bleh.
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.