The Instigator
TheMoose
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Paecmaker
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

One World Government

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...
Paecmaker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,090 times Debate No: 46345
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

TheMoose

Pro

The world will eventually move into one world government. Within the next five hundred years there will be far fewer countries in the world that there is today. One government is also better for the entire world, eliminating war, hunger, ands severely lowering the amount of poverty in the world.
Paecmaker

Con

Thank you for letting me debating this as Con. I am sorry if I misspell words or have faulty grammar.

"Within the next five hundred years there will be far fewer countries in the world that there is today"

Where does it say so, in the last 50 years the nr of countries has actually risen as larger countries are divided. EU is also deep into massive problems that makes more people wanting to go out and dependable on what happens to Greece, Italy the future of EU might be very dark.

"One government is also better for the entire world, eliminating war, hunger, ands severely lowering the amount of poverty in the world."

I will not lie, there are bad governments that abuse the people. But to have one government in, lets say Berlin would do nothing against many of the problems you mention. People are different around the world and Im sure that many would oppose having a "one world Government" as I would never think that people in USA would ever allow being controlled from Europe(and the same for all different countries) . Also the amount of powerstruggles would be massive as many would want to be the leader of this world.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMoose

Pro

"Where does it say so, in the last 50 years the nr of countries has actually risen as larger countries are divided. EU is also deep into massive problems that makes more people wanting to go out and dependable on what happens to Greece, Italy the future of EU might be very dark."

If you look through out history of the world more and more people have been moving together. Humans started of as nomads then moved into cities, later these cities joined to make countries or empires. There some exceptions of countries braking down and turning into smaller countries however they did not have the communication that we have today. Also I would like to point out that countries like the Roman Empire did not die out because they decided to brake up into smaller countries but because of an outside force causing issues, and communication as advance as it is today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk... The United States Of Europe

As for the EU yes there future could be dark however it also could be great. There are two paths that it brakes down and is destroyed or that it evolves into one county over time. If by chance that they don't collapse then I believe that they will form into one nation. There is even talk of The United States of Europe I"ll leave the link down below. As soon as this happens Unions like this will be common. I think that the U.S the rest of NAFTA will group together and maybe join the EU. After that the economical advantages of this mega country will be clear and South America will become one country. After seeing this Asia will spit in two, Due to the culture differences the muslim states will become one country (this will include some of Africa as well). China and the easter asian countries will unite so they maintain there power in the evolving world.

"I will not lie, there are bad governments that abuse the people. But to have one government in, lets say Berlin would do nothing against many of the problems you mention. People are different around the world and Im sure that many would oppose having a "one world Government" as I would never think that people in USA would ever allow being controlled from Europe(and the same for all different countries) . Also the amount of power struggles would be massive as many would want to be the leader of this world."

Yes the government could abuse the people however any government could. The way that I vision the government working is similar to americas with the exemption that the presidential candidates will be anonymous this way it prevents the countries with the biggest population to monopolize the presidential spot. Another solution is that the house elects the president to try making it more equal. I know that this is far from happening but I strongly believe that if the human race wants to survive this is the direction that the world needs to move in. Thank for joining this debate.
Paecmaker

Con

While it is natural for humans to live together many oppose mega countries as "united states of Europe", the Eurosceptism in Europe is increasing in many of the countries within the union with UK being one of the "nations" with the lowest trust in EU. Which makes it problematic as UK is along with Germany and France the driving members.

"Also I would like to point out that countries like the Roman Empire did not die out because they decided to brake up into smaller countries but because of an outside force causing issues"

That is only a part of the truth, while the Germanian tribes was the final demise for the Roman empire the reason it fell was much deeper than that. Corruption and divided wills helped also to end the empire.

http://www.rome.info...

Trough out the decades empires have risen and fallen, the latest was the soviet union which suffered greatly of corruption and a big unrest throughout the union, and also with an extreme military spending the union crashed.
If you look at many former Soviet countries they got places like "victory square, independence square" and so on which many places came when they were free from Soviet oppression.

This leads us back to EU, it has been shown with the debts and crisis emerging during the latest years that they got some really fundamental problems while the support for the union is steadily decreasing.

http://www.europeanvoice.com...

"China and the easter asian countries will unite so they maintain there power in the evolving world."

Perhaps if we talk in hundreds of years, but I have a hard time thinking China would ever need to join a union to keep up in advancements, they almost got 20% of the world populations, and in short term the only way I see old enemies like Japan and Taiwan to join is to be militarily annexed which of course would start a war with USA.

" The way that I vision the government working is similar to americas with the exemption that the presidential candidates will be anonymous this way it prevents the countries with the biggest population to monopolize the presidential spot."

While that is a good vision it's still just a vision. Money corrupts and money wins elections, and guess who got the money. If we look at USA the candidates and parties spend billions of dollars for their campaigns, something a majority of people won't afford. I also think you underestimate the differences of people that live in different countries, nothing say a law that people love in one province is loved in other provinces as well. Just look at North Ireland, there were decades of bombings and shootings because people had different opinions and believes(simplified).

" Another solution is that the house elects the president to try making it more equal. I know that this is far from happening but I strongly believe that if the human race wants to survive this is the direction that the world needs to move in."

That means they will choose the president that is best for everyone and not for themselves. And sadly there will always be power hungry humans.

Taken from your link

"I am sure people will say no to this centralist fanaticism."
Mrs Reding's comments illustrate the growing gulf between a Europe committed to "ever closer union" and Britain, which is pushing to reduce the EU's powers."
"We assume Britain's leaving the EU so we don't even bother thinking about British sensitivities at the moment," said an official."

(The "check your spelling" didn't work so Im again sorry for spelling errors and other things)
Good luck
Debate Round No. 2
TheMoose

Pro

We humans are our own worst enemy. We have to unite under one flag or parish from our own self destruction. This is the sad truth of the human race.

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and humanity and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
Albert Einstein

One world government is the best option for the continuation of the human people. It will not happen for a long time. The first thing that we have to do learn that we are human and we are in this together so we need to start acting like it.



"While it is natural for humans to live together many oppose mega countries as "united states of Europe", the Eurosceptism in Europe is increasing in many of the countries within the union with UK being one of the "nations" with the lowest trust in EU. Which makes it problematic as UK is along with Germany and France the driving members."

Many might oppose mega countries, however at one point many people opposed desegregation. I know this is comparing apple and oranges put the point is that peoples opinion change over time. The world is always changing, and if it depends on the survival of the human kind (which it might )then people will change there minds.


“Trough out the decades empires have risen and fallen, the latest was the soviet union which suffered greatly of corruption and a big unrest throughout the union, and also with an extreme military spending the union crashed.
If you look at many former Soviet countries they got places like "victory square, independence square" and so on which many places came when they were free from Soviet oppression.”

Yes the Soviet Union is a great example of a bigger country falling apart into a smaller country. However this government was communistic and did not truly care about the interest of the people. The world government that I am thinking of is basically a copy of the United States. With the exception that the candidates would be anonymous, to prevent bias voting. Companions would be strictly regulated to prevent the situation that our government is in now. Also new laws that would but more restrictions on the relationships between the news, companies and, government. Also if you look at these countries right now they aren’t doing well. Ukraine almost fell into a civil war. If they were given the chance to go back to the union then I believe that they would.

“soviet union which suffered greatly of corruption and a big unrest throughout the union, and also with an extreme military spending the union crashed.”

I would like to touch on this bit for it is slightly inaccurate. It is argumentative that the reason for the collapse is the fact the U.S. caused a great amount of stress on the Union, to keep spending to stay ahead in the arms race in one government this would not be a problem. Mikhail Gorbachev was a reformist who though that the Union needed become more economically flexible. He also thought that the eastern states should be able to govern them selves, which then lead to a domino effect in Russia leading to the collapse of the soviet union.

“That means they will choose the president that is best for everyone and not for themselves. And sadly there will always be power hungry humans.”

Can you please rephrase this because this supports my side.

“Perhaps if we talk in hundreds of years, but I have a hard time thinking China would ever need to join a union to keep up in advancements, they almost got 20% of the world populations, and in short term the only way I see old enemies like Japan and Taiwan to join is to be militarily annexed which of course would start a war with USA.”

Yes this is correct. I don’t believe that this will happen soon. The unification will take hundreds of years to complete. My argument is that eventually the world will unite it might take hundreds or even thousands of years but it will happen.

Technological Advancement and end to poverty

Under one world it would significant improvement in technology and overall human life. With the world working together and not against each other many of the world problems would be solved. The total elimination of poverty would be impossible however, the poverty of not having access to clean water or food could be eliminated.


The world will not be here forever.

The world will not be here forever so why do we act like it will. The future of mankind is either through joining together or we can parish through the death of this planet. Humans need to stop seeing each other as black, white, gay, tall, english, french, or whatever you can think of. We need to see ourselves as human, it wont happen for a long long time but it will happen eventually if not then we will parish. Are place in the universe is to explore and learn form it. We cant do that by killing each over religion or skin color.


We are part of the earth, and we need to start acting like it. My fear is that we kill each other before we are off this planet.

“I think therefor I am” Rene Descartes

This is what I base my beliefs in. My question is does this apply to the universe as well. If no one is around to learn, to love and, to understand the universe does it still exist? Why should it? It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or not we are here for a reason and its not to fight, and destroy each other.

My question to you is not if it is possible but, do you think that it would be a bad idea for one world government? Also where is the world going if not one government? Will it be content by sitting on this planet and leaving the fate of humanity up to chance.


Sources:



Emmanuel Kant

Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitanism

http://plato.stanford.edu...
Paecmaker

Con

My question to you is not if it is possible but, do you think that it would be a bad idea for one world government? Also where is the world going if not one government? Will it be content by sitting on this planet and leaving the fate of humanity up to chance."
I think its bad with a one world government, so much land with so few leaders cannot be good, to much power at hand. I think we should do with smaller independent nations that actually work together for the greater good(in unions), with unions I don't mean that countries go together into mega countries but just work together for a common goal, we are all different, use it as an advantage.
Just showing your Einstein quote again, and I think it would still matter even with only one government.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and humanity and human stupidity, and I"m not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

If mega countries would emerge as you mentioned earlier(Basically as the foundation for a one world government) I don't think there would be peace and freedom that win. Superpowers works like big joints, they need something between the joints or they are going to grind against each over until something happens. This is what we saw in Europe during the cold war, misunderstandings almost started ww3 several times. Deeply rooted Cultural differences doesn't just go away over the years and is afraid that instead of peace we would see a cold war *2.

But let's say a one world government existed, here are some of the problems(I go by one world government to be a single massive world country, otherwise it's just mega countries).
1 The highest leaders have no clue about your more local condition, they might have advisers but the people who make the final decision have probably no clue about the region.

2 People are different in different parts of the world.
What makes people in one place happy might start the other group to rage. A few examples, the school works almost differently in every country, changing the way people learn in the entire world would be a hard task. Not asking what way is the right way as the way Chinese students and Western students have two totally different way of learning.

3 Open borders.
As its just one country and people are free to travel in their own country allows poor people will mass leave to better places where the jobs are, which creates massive problems.

http://rt.com...

Also open borders would open up for really simple smuggling, with no border controls worth speaking of, drugs and weapons smuggling would turn into a massive problem.
This is something which is very apparent in the EU, Eu members are free to move into other eu countries(or at least its easier) which makes poor people move into richer countries/regions. Also apparent in EU is the smuggling, with open borders into almost all countries its almost possible to load a truck full of guns and just drive past the border.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

4 Who should pay for what.
In the dawn of the "one world government" there are many poor countries and even pure conflict zones. For them to become something else than economic black holes an enormous amount of money and work must be made into these countries, something that will come at the cost of already developed countries which got a chance to backfire as people in those countries get mad because they feel they must pay money for something they have nothing to do with(not saying it's right, but people are sadly that way).
Yet again this can be seen in EU, when the finance crisis came some countries were harder struck than others. Billions and billions of Euros were pumped into these countries just to prevent them to go bankrupt, this even put a strain on the better faring countries. Remember these were still developed countries, the cost for third world countries would be even higher.

5 Maintaining control.
Just to make things clear, the world is a big place. Now we must have the entire world to follow the same laws, use the same currency, the same "everything". As I often have pointed out, people are not same all over the world, there will be poorer places where the corruption is running rampant, these places will be uncontrollable with weapons just flooding through the open borders. And even if you say opinion changes some people will always want to remain independent, this is something we have seen for hundreds/thousands of years and it will not change. People that have the same heritage will more often than not want to have an independent rule(aka their own country). And one thing people will oppose is when someone from the other side of the world tries to control the place your people call home.
"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" Gerald Seymour.
Also if we unite into one country everyone would want their system to be the ruling one which can be a bit problematic.

"We humans are our own worst enemy. We have to unite under one flag or parish from our own self destruction. This is the sad truth of the human race.

One world government is the best option for the continuation of the human people. It will not happen for a long time. The first thing that we have to do learn that we are human and we are in this together so we need to start acting like it."

We are way too many to be controlled as one country, even today people with different culture have a hard time working together, just look at Shia and Sunni Muslims(and these are differences that are hundreds/thousands years old). Sadly you are not wrong that we are our own worst enemy but even if I think we should unite, forcing people into a single mold is wrong. Instead I feel we should embrace our similarities AND differences. Understand them and use them as an advantage. As individual countries working for the greater good, none with too much power.

"Many might oppose mega countries, however at one point many people opposed desegregation. I know this is comparing apple and oranges put the point is that peoples opinion change over time. The world is always changing, and if it depends on the survival of the human kind (which it might )then people will change there minds."
Yes, people changed their opinions about segregation, however it's like you say not the same as letting the inhabitants of one geographic region to keep control of their own region.
Also the last part take it for granted that everyone thinks a one world government is the only way, which I don't think they will do.

"The world government that I am thinking of is basically a copy of the United States. With the exception that the candidates would be anonymous, to prevent bias voting."
You got good intentions with this, however having the candidates anonymous would perhaps do more harm than good. While it would prevent bias voting not seeing the candidates would make it harder to get the facts. Seeing the candidates is almost as important as their politics, I mean we can see if someone looks trustworthy in matter of seconds, the first impression is important.
Also this means a candidate could be anyone, as long as he speaks good and got the right people behind him he might seem like the perfect candidate but when he goes out into the public he is shown to be completely different.
"Companions would be strictly regulated to prevent the situation that our government is in now."
Yet again, good intentions but how is this going to be implemented? The companies got lots of power as we speak and this is something that must be voted, and I d
Debate Round No. 3
TheMoose

Pro

TheMoose forfeited this round.
Paecmaker

Con

As my opponent forfeited his last round I will continue with what I missed in the last round.

"Companions would be strictly regulated to prevent the situation that our government is in now."

Yet again, good intentions but how is this going to be implemented? The companies got lots of power as we speak and this is something that must be voted, and I don't think the representatives want to bite the hands that feeds them. Also what type of laws were you thinking?

"Also new laws that would but more restrictions on the relationships between the news, companies and, government."

What do you actually mean with that. If its a free country media are free to pick a side. There should always be independent media but you cant force private media companies to only post "approved" news?

" I would like to touch on this bit for it is slightly inaccurate. It is argumentative that the reason for the collapse is the fact the U.S. caused a great amount of stress on the Union, to keep spending to stay ahead in the arms race in one government this would not be a problem. Mikhail Gorbachev was a reformist who though that the Union needed become more economically flexible. He also thought that the eastern states should be able to govern them selves, which then lead to a domino effect in Russia leading to the collapse of the soviet union."

Its true that the US caused a lot of stress to the soviet economy. However people had up until the breakdown been controlled by Soviet puppet leaders and the big army, not until the grip was loosened a bit people actually dared to rebell. However the hungarian people actually revolted already in 1956, which ended in a soviet slaughter where thousands of people were killed by Soviet tanks.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

""That means they will choose the president that is best for everyone and not for themselves. And sadly there will always be power hungry humans.""

"Can you please rephrase this because this supports my side."

Yes of course, I'm sorry, it's supposed to be like this.

(That means they will choose the president that is best for themselves and not for everyone. And sadly there will always be power hungry humans.)

"We cant do that by killing each over religion or skin color."

Forcing people into one country will not stop people from doing that, what we must do is to understand each over, which can be done as well with individual countries ,perhaps even better than as a single country.

"Under one world it would significant improvement in technology and overall human life. With the world working together and not against each other many of the world problems would be solved. The total elimination of poverty would be impossible however, the poverty of not having access to clean water or food could be eliminated."

Truth be told I think it would be even worse as we got thousands of different opinions and types that all are supposed to fit into the same mall which doesn't make sense, its like in the toy where you have different geometric shapes and holes they can fit in, only you try to fit all pieces into a single hole which is only made for one piece(hope you understand what I mean).

Many of these things could be achieved even today but let's face it, the larger the country the harder it is to deal with problems like large local unemployment and corruption.

I dont think that your "utopian" one world government will work, either it wont exist at all or it will be a totalitarian government.

My vision is instead that smaller countries work together in unions, not super nations but semi loose unions(almost like the european union with a few exceptions). This way no country will have total power and you dont get "uber powerful" super powers. Trade should be international and the countries' economies should be close together, however each nation still uses their own currency(but they might use a "trade currency" in trade between borders)

Thank you and good luck.
Debate Round No. 4
TheMoose

Pro

TheMoose forfeited this round.
Paecmaker

Con

Well, as TheMoose forfeited these last rounds I guess I cant do much more.

The sources I have used during the debate.

http://www.rome.info... (the fall of rome)

http://www.europeanvoice.com... (support for EU is at an all time low)

http://rt.com... (the problem with open borders)

http://www.independent.co.uk... (even more problems with open borders)

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... (Hungarian massacre)

I like to thank my opponent for allowing me to do this debate even if he couldn't finish it.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Paecmaker 2 years ago
Paecmaker
Bloody hell, I didnt notice parts of my last debate wasnt copyed over from the word file.*facepalm*

Il post the rest of it in my next turn.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
TheMoosePaecmakerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF