It's Dangerous to Have a Single Government Over Mankind
Debate Rounds (3)
For my argument, I will use a fictional example. Imagine that WWIII begins in 2045, and it ends in 2050. The allied nations end up occupying all the nations on the other side, a large percentage of the world's land. Two years later, the "World Republic" is established. The World Republic is Earth's only nation.
The World Republic is established by wise people who make the system almost perfect. Every inhabited region of the Earth has representation through senators and representatives in the World Republic. After all, as the name states, it is a republic. The World Republic Constitution guarantees all the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the former US's constitution, and maybe a few new ones for the modern day, concerning things like the internet and communications technology. Anyhow, the system is perfect.
However, let's say that eventually a group of people who oppose basic freedoms take hold of the World Republic. They are Fascists/Communists (which one doesn't matter), and they have control of the world's military. A few people with shotguns (or even several million people with shotguns) could not stand up to the ultra-modern, high-tech, disciplined World Republic Army. If the rebels try hiding in the woods, the high-tech equipment will find them instantly. In fact, the group's leader would be dead in less than a day because of a government drone strike. This army is just too powerful for a group of rebels to defeat.
So, if such a thing happens, what then? Think about it this way. In the real world, if there's persecution of a group in some country, it's likely the people being persecuted will flee to another country. They'll cross the border to the nearest country or something, whether it's legal or not. But if a single government rules the entire world, where will a targeted people flee to? Outer Space? If the global government outlaws religion, religious people will be helpless. They won't be able to flee to another country. If a certain race is targeted (let's say Arab people or Jews), where will these people go to escape?
Therefore, I would only advocate a global government if other alien species that humans could reach were discovered. By reach, I mean take a trip on a space vehicle and fly over to the planet where the aliens are. Then again, I doubt this will happen any time soon, if ever.
That is my starting argument. I await a response.
2) Why? As the Pro had stated, the World Republic is established by wise people who make the system almost perfect. Therefore, if they are wise enough to gain victory in WWIII, they would definitely be wise enough to rule and control the World Republic.
3) Due to the risk of civilians with guns rebelling/protesting against the World Republic that the Pro had stated, wouldn't the government be wise enough to even think of the slightest possibility of that ever happen? If so, the government would definitely hire a group of civilians as spies. If there are any people who discuss about rebelling and decide to do so, the civilian spies will inform the government. Giving the government an upper hand to act before the rebels.
4) As the Pro stated, if the rebels try to hide in the woods, they would definitely be hunted down by the World Republic Army, but that doesn't mean they have to be killed. The World Republic Army can use tasers' to tase the rebels, preventing rebel deaths. By doing so, innocent civilians will see the World Republic as a merciful government. And of course, the World Republic will definitely have a Plan B if the rebels can't be defeated: the World Republic will use the same tactic used in the Malayan Emergency-giving large sums of money to rebels who decide to change sides as a reward and also give bounties to rebels who kill their leaders.
5) That is all from me, I await your next argument.
About what you said concerning the wise people who established this nation, think of the American Founding Fathers. They were quite wise, and the system they created was almost perfect. But flash forward several centuries to the modern day. The US Government is doing all sorts of crazy stuff, and I believe it will get worse in the following decades. I argue that even the most perfect government can and will, given enough time, perhaps in several decades or even several centuries, grow corrupt and despotic.
As for what I stated about the rebels, the rebels were not antagonistic in my scenario. The rebels mentioned are the good guys (though there would most certainly be antagonistic rebel groups that are even worse than the government). These good rebels who want to bring back freedom and liberty would be fighting against a government that has turned despotic, a government that decides to outlaw religion or something like that. According to your profile you have a religion, so I don't think you could argue this is a good thing. We've both admitted that rebels could not win against this ultra-powerful government.
And also, whether or not the rebels are killed or imprisoned for life is not the issue. Either way the despotic government is not overthrown.
2) By the year 2050, things would definitely have changed, a lot of things. It only takes breakthroughs or inventions by people, and everything changes. Example: Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter, Instagram and so on. The possibilities are endless in our universe. As I was saying, civilians in the future may respect and obey the government, they may also become disobedient and rebellious, as you said, or they may just suck up to the government: we simply do not know, no one knows.
3) I await further arguments from you.
And I don't see how new technology affects anything. Would this new technology somehow end corruption in government? Would the global government be ruled by computers? If that were the case, we'd have good reason to be worried because a computer cannot have compassion. A computer may think religion is a liability and it'd wipe out religion. A computer may think a certain ethnic group that causes the most trouble is a liability and it'd order a genocide. If it was a "humane computer," somebody could hack it or it could develop glitches over time.
As I stated before, a rebellious populace would be attempting to overthrow a despotic global regime. Granted, there would be rebels with evil intentions during the time that the government is still wise. The point is, that if the government ever needed to be overthrown, it would be well nigh impossible for anyone to do so. The tyrannical government would rule for pretty much forever, and if any politician who entered the scene with the intent of bringing reform, the corrupt government would do stuff to eliminate him or her. There would be election rigging or something like that.
My overall point in this debate is that once you get a global government with a military strong enough to put down any rebellion, you're stuck with this government, whether it's good or bad. If this government stays good, the whole world will be living like the United States or like people in Western Europe or Japan. But, even the best governments can corrupt with time, and when the government gets dictatorial, (and I guarantee you it will eventually) you're stuck with it forever and ever, perhaps for thousands of years, or even eternity.
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.