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

One world goverment.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 93708
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




I always thought the united nations was in the middle east. Since it is in a sense the center of the world. Anyways, don't you think it would make more sense to have a one world government? Sorta like the European Union, except for the whole world.

Think about it one currency, one religion atheism of course, together we could even conquer global climate change, oh yeah and everyone would be vegan/strict vegetarian. I just feel that a one world government would be the best for veganism, ending wars, environmentalism, and animal rights.

Or perhaps I've just let my hopes and dreams interfere with my judgement. What do you think good idea/bad idea? Thanks in advance for accepting.


Thanks for letting me do this debate with you! Of course, in concept, a perfect Utopian world sounds like the best and most beneficial change for human kind. Doing research and formatting a debate like this is actually a reminder of what kind of world that we live in. However, denying the truth does not make it any less real. If such a government is supposed to be so obviously beneficial as you claim it to be, then why don't we already have one? That is because there are a multitude of roadblocks preventing such a system, and even then, would not succeed in solving the world's issues.

First off, allow me to make a correction onto one of your earlier statements. The EU is not a government or a state. All member-states remain in large part sovereign. Ever wondered why the United Kingdom was legally able to leave the EU?

Secondly, if we are only focusing on social contract theory, sure, sustained armed conflicts are less likely to happen inside a functioning government and a sovereign state. But even if that is the case, an effective state"let alone a world state"requires a monopoly of force that can guarantee first and foremost the security of all members. I highly doubt that today"s sovereign states are willing to give-up their arms. Why? Because states (especially nation-states) aim to preserve their citizens" way of life. They aim to protect, say, the freedom of religion, of thought, of speech, etc. So are the customs of the United States. For one (like yourself) who desires to homogenize the world under one belief system (i.e., veganism and atheism), you"re simply destroying your plan towards a world state. Barely anyone, in reality, will agree to your blueprints.

To address your statement about the environment and economy, it quite easy to say that a solution of all environmental issues and having a united currency may well be desirable. Unfortunately, that is way easier said than done. Not all countries can aim towards those goals because they are focused on a higher priority; having power over countries. Power comes from good arms. Good arms come from good economies. Only a world government that guarantees everyone"s securities can solve this issue. But the problem there traces back to paragraphs #3 and #5

Even if we achieve a world utopia of veganism, environmentalism and atheism, we are nevertheless bound to conflict and disagreements that can potentially regress world society back into an anarchic structure (like today). Some are bound to be unsatisfied with the system. And of course, there will be some who will defend it. This is a political fact. Today"s examples can be found in the emergence of civil wars in Syria and Libya a few years back. Many were not happy about their regimes, so they rose-up against them. They simply did not agree with their own regimes. So power vacuums emerged and these two countries have failed states. This is what happens when people no longer consent to the current way of things. In other words, states"let alone a world state that follows your own rigid form of rule"will die when they lose legitimacy.

Lastly, I will address the human property that no form of government could remove; human individuality. People are different, and will always have different ideas. People are also willing to defend and debate their ideas to people who disagree. Atheists still disagree and conflict with one another in areas other than religion. Vegans still disagree and conflict with one another in other areas as well. If you think veganism and atheism are beliefs that guarantee a perpetual state of peace in the world, you are simply dead wrong. A world free of religions and of meat-eaters does not rid itself of other beliefs that can harm others. Nor does that kind of world hinder the emergence of new beliefs that might seek to change the current way of doing things. But then we return to paragraph 5.

All in all, a one world government is an impossible feat to achieve, and would still fail to remove many issues that we face today. Even in theory, such a system would create more issues than solutions, and it would be more beneficial to
work at improving the current systems we already have in place. Thanks again for allowing me to accept this debate, and I can't wait to hear back from you
Debate Round No. 1



I. Intro
II. People have different ideas
III. Extinct/near extinct ideas
IV. Conclusion
V. Sources

I. Intro

My opponent made many good points. The main point I realize when reading my opponent's argument is people have drastically different ideas. Yet, ultimately many of these ideas are wrong-headed. There is hope, since many ideas are now extinct.

II. People have different ideas

There are full throttle libertarians, socialists, and a hybrid between the two. Only one of these ideas can be correct. Same goes with government, theocracy, capitalism, and communism. Religion has the basic conflict of ideas, atheism, agnostic, deism, polytheism, and monotheism. Only one of these ideas can be correct in each bracket.

I perceive two main problems with spreading ideas, passive and aggressive. The ideal is assertive. An example of passive is three islands. Each with people with radically different ideas. Yet, neither island interacts with each other. Since only one of the three ideas is correct, the other two islands suffer because of the silence between islands.

On the flip side is aggressive, this nation rather than trying to rationally convince or appeal to the empathy and mercy of others, uses brute force. Often, brute force is the worst possible algorithm. You may get people to agree when threatened, only to continue the wrong-headed idea behind your back.

The best solution is assertive. Push your ideas somewhat, but never with violence nor dishonesty.

Impact, in summary, the many nations and people of the world have too different ideas to accept a world government today. Therefore, using appeals to logic and empathy we must first convince them to let go of the worst ideas, while asserting the best ideas. After there is more uniformity of good ideas, a world government would be that much easier to achieve and maintain.

III. Extinct/near extinct ideas

Ideas are difficult to exterminate, yet not impossible. How many people still worship the Norse Gods [1] or Egyptian Gods? How about monarchy? In medicine there are many medical practices that are extinct now including blood letting. [2] Yes, wrong headed ideas are difficult to extinguish, but it is possible. I don't think a violent revolution was needed to end blood letting. That being said, if consistently and assertively pushed by enough people, an idea can become extinct.

IV. Conclusion

The main roadblock to a one world government is radically different ideas. Many of these ideas are wrong headed. If we press assertively in an open and honest way the best ideas while criticizing the worst ideas we can get rid of some of the worst ideas humanity has ever imagined. With these terrible ideas out of the way, a world government would be much easier to forge and maintain. Note such an algorithm may take quite some time, but neverthless seems worthwhile. Thanks for reading and thanks to my opponent for continuing the debate.

V. Sources



Thanks for your reply! Now to continue on to round 2.

One of my main arguments was that ideas will indeed die, but new ideas will be born. At the same time, human imperfections never change, as these are part of our nature. And these, I believe, are crucial contributors to conflict, even with the existence of a world government. It is rather unfortunate that my opponent has not sufficiently addressed these issues.

Let me begin with a note that it is very difficult"if not unrealistic"for one idea to be "correct" in its universality. For instance, there will be times when a more libertarian approach can be more appropriate than a socialist one"and vice-versa. The fact that a polity remains stubborn to remain in one ideological path is a cause of conflict, as it does not care to consider the difficulties by other people who do not benefit from the system. This is because an ideology simply does not cover all of the issues posed by the complexity that is the world.

Next, the best solution may well be "assertive" in one's point of view, but, as I have said, there will be new ideas and unheard experiences which tell people to act aggressively"especially ideas which provides people with a scapegoat.

Furthermore, a notion of a "uniformity of good ideas" is unrealistic, as this fails to recognize the differences of all people"be it their beliefs, identities, or experiences. I also say this not only because new ideas emerge over time, but also because removing "bad" ideas may be perceived as a method of thought-policing. People become more aggressive if their ideas are not considered. And even if we win a debate through pure reason alone, there is no guarantee that the opponent will follow suit.

Atheism alone will not guarantee world peace. Atheists can very well go against other atheists in areas other than religion. One atheist can be a libertarian. Another can be a socialist. Another can be a feminist. So on and so forth. Such ideologies have the potential to tell one who is an enemy and who isn't, because almost every ideology has a unique reading of threat.

What complicates things is the personal interpretation of these ideologies. A libertarian can take arms against the government. A socialist can start a revolution. A feminist can call for the sustained negligence of men's issues or anyone who disagrees with the ideology. Yet other libertarians, socialists and feminists will say that said "radicals" are not "true" to their creed. And that has potential for further divide, just like in the Sunni/Shi'a and Catholic/Protestant divides.

Science may also well be a path to improving lives. It is true that blood-letting is no longer a legitimate medical practice, thanks to the scientific method. However, it can also be a path to danger, as shown in more complex weapons that could decimate the lives of many. Give a WMD to a non-state ideologue, and the entire human race is in trouble"even with the existence of a world government. (Because face it, there will be non-state actors in any form of system.)

Monarchy may well be dead, but tyranny/autocracy (or at least perceptions of it) can come in many different forms. For example, an overpowered royalty or government is an old form of tyranny (or "monarchy")"yet we have the Social Justice Warriors thinking that the majority is some sort of tyranny. Meanwhile, reactionaries see that these SJWs are a minority that is trying to control the masses. So a "monarchy" may well be dead, but the fact remains that people still see terrible things about other people or the system. This revisionist sentiment has never changed since the dawn of humankind. That is why politics, I believe is eternal. And so long as it is eternal, the danger of armed conflict lurks, even if we are all under a world government.

May I strongly recommend my opponent to read "Scientific Man vs Power Politics" by Hans J. Mogenthau to get a closer look at the argument posed by political realists. I thank her for continuing the stimulating debate as well.
Debate Round No. 2


New ideas will be born. Some of these ideas will be great and others the polar opposite. Yet, in order to create and maintain a world government, we only need to uproot the terrible ideas and promote the best ideas, which is a good idea anyways. There will always be gray areas. Especially when two ideologies are very close to each others.

Think two different forms of capitalism, one with slightly less government control than the other. They will conflict, yet there a good chance that neither are horrible ideas, therefore both can stay. Just as different states in America have slightly different rules. One state could be more capitalistic than another. Then, there is local government, which could be slightly less capitalistic or more socialist. Yet, who cares about the minor differences so long as nobody gets hurt.

Yet, in both scenarios perhaps a world government is the best way to deal with the worst ideas humanity has and will create. I bet almost everyone is against thought police when it comes to the trivial. Yet, how about if suddenly a terrible autocracy regime came back to life? Wouldn't we want to quell that regime as soon as possible? A world government is the best way to swiftly nip the problem of a ruthless new or old autocracy regime in the bud.

As for weapons of mass destruction, perhaps this is the best case for a world government. As a species the odds of us surviving to colonize another planet are looking increasingly low. Between global climate change, weapons of mass destruction, resource shortfalls, and unforeseen apocalyptic events like meteors falling or the sun becoming unstable humanity surviving for another 500 years is low.

Yet, we can't just give up. We have to try. It is probably too late for the Earth now due to global climate change. Yet, there is other options to preserve humanity.


I would like to highlight the argument of moral relativism, complicates things, especially for those whose experiences make them believe in ideas that are radically different from ours. What is good for one may not be good for the other. And if ideas are polar opposites, some people, with their own interpretations for certain ideas, might be hell-bent on destroying other people who believe differently. We have never seen a time in history when all of mankind has believed the same ideology for a century. With so much new ideas"more than ever"can we expect to even reach that "sweet spot". I find that impossible.
For sure, pure reason could not entirely solve this issue. In Scientific Man vs Power Politics, Hans Morgenthau observes that the Germans embraced Nazism and abandoned liberalism (which I presume is the better ideology) because it provided them a scapegoat for their sufferings. Did people learn from this in the future? Not necessarily. After all, it could be argued that new postmodern ideas have emerged as a challenge to liberalism. As a result, people in the West now hate themselves for things that others have done in the past.

Can we expect liberalism to win this fight again? Yes. But can we expect it to be challenged in the future? Yes. Can anyone guarantee the safe exchange of ideas? Not even a world government can do that, unless it is one that is as controlling as the current North Korean regime.

Structural realists would concede that a world government could sharply decrease armed conflict. However, the type of government is another thing that is worth mentioning. Immanuel Kant, a liberal, would have disagreed with the idea of a world government. He (correctly) thought that any regime could possibly turn into a tyranny. That is why other sovereign countries must exist in order to save the other country, or at least serve at other bastions of freedom. Liberals, therefore, argue that world peace can be attained without a world government.

Classical realists argue differently. They think that institutions, norms and cultures"let alone governments"do not seriously change the likelihood of conduct because it never changed human nature and its imperfections. And as such, while things are "better" today, there is always no guarantee for it to last of improve. The best approach to peace, therefore, is through guided action. That means prudence and moderation in both action and belief. It is, however, unrealistic to expect others to follow suit. So that unfortunately means that others can pose a danger or at least a serious liability to society. We must, therefore, have the the willingness to fight and the knowledge when to do so. A world utopia, on the other hand, already eradicates the need to fight. But given human nature, I fail to see how that is a possibility.

Of course, there is no reason to give up. That is one thing that you and I share. That is why we are discussing such a matter. Nevertheless, our means to a better society are rather different. You place more emphasis on institutions and "the right" forms of beliefs. I, on the other hand, think that people and leaders have thought that their own beliefs were always the right ones. Yet the likelihood of armed conflict has barely changed throughout the ages. They think about the implementation of ideas and institutions. Yet they failed on acknowledging the eternal, non-changeable elements of political life, particularly human nature.

"Politics is the art of the possible." - Bismarck
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by The_vulcan_klingon 2 years ago
I thought of the star trek world too. Although in Star Trek it took a world war and aliens to make it work so good luck with that.
Posted by Stupidape 2 years ago
I forget to respond to this.

"Vegans still disagree and conflict with one another in other areas as well."

Yes, this is true, yet I don't the conflict escalating to physical blows.
Posted by Stupidape 2 years ago
"So technically you want a "supreme dictator" do you?"

What makes you think that? There is some appeal "A multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king." [1]

Posted by MissLuLu 2 years ago
I read the title and immediately thought United Federation, from Star Trek.
Posted by HeavenlyPanda 2 years ago
So technically you want a "supreme dictator" do you?
No votes have been placed for this debate.