The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 926 times Debate No: 37028
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Ok, thought I would thrown this one into the mix, theres a lot of banter being thrown around about the pro's and cons of the planet being run and managed by a single entity. Now from where I stand it sounds like a good idea but there are those who see this as some sort of dictatorship but I feel that the reason we have so many people stating that others will simply not agree and no one solution works for all these different cultures and beleif systems screams to me that because we have all these particular divisions (and our obsession with keeping them seperate) is the fundamental reason we are opposed to a system that works for everyone. While we constantly fight for individual country and culture identity the more we fail to see that following an example of a system that works is the right way forward, using historical evidence against the plan by stating that these kinds of plans have failed before due to greed and corruption only shows that the system was not designed to work for everyone. We live in a divided world only because we choose to, nobody forced us to but if intelligent life ever made its way over here they would wonder why a species that can travel to Mars cannot resolve disputes and differences within its own atmosphere. We are a single species, religion is not a race and race is only defined by imagination not biology, I only dread to think how people would fight against each other when faced with a common enemy. A perfectly organised system that is designed with the interests of everyone and not the individual would certainly be better, a community works better when everyone works together and a government designed by our species for our species would certainly work, its just not easy.....whoever said the right thing would be easy?

I invite someone to argue this point without using imaginary boundries, I would like to know how people think on this one


Mr. Hikarijon, thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. As this is my first debate on, please afford me some leniency on errors.

I believe we need to set the framework for this "one world government". Are we presuming that each country willfully and uniformly abolished sovereignty or each country retains its individuality but accepts political direction from a single authority? Which form of government? (I.E. Republic, Democracy, Communism, etc...) Admittedly we can argue the pros/cons of each system, I can focus my arguments based upon the system of your preference. Are we assuming that all people are free to worship whichever God(s) they choose? Free to marry whomever they wish? Able to choose profession? Country/Area of residence? To sum it up, complete equality.

My understanding of your initial post, is that a single world government will reduce or eliminate war, poverty, social imbalance, etc... I will begin my argument refuting those ideas. In my next post, I will answer Mr. Hikarjion's questions/comments and provide my reasoning against a single world government.

"We live in a divided world only because we choose to..."

While there may be some truth to this statement, I think it wise to consider historical fact. As humans entered the neolithic era, pieces of land were selected primarily for access to food/water/defense. Lack of reliable transportation in the earliest parts of human history explains why mankind is tribal. Clearly our ancestors were unable to fire up a Boeing 787 and fly to California or San Paolo. This sets the framework for "national pride" and perhaps fascism. Fast forward and we have rival or less fortunate individuals/groups using violence to obtain resources they are unable or unwilling to produce for themselves. Therefore I do not believe violence between nations is related to government or nation (or even secular) rather it deals with a person/group who wishes what the other has. This is a very important point; unless this "One World Government" is capable of reversing cultural or ideological behavior any gain from the current system is nominal (in this context).

From your initial statements, I presume resources are divided equally. Oil produced and sold in the middle east benefit school children in Bolivia, likewise the unemployment rate in Kazakhstan will influence the world's tax rate set forth by this government. As you see, this in itself will lead to splits in opinion. In America, political parties debate furiously on tax rates and social programs leading to "hardliners" and possibly resentment.

"A perfectly organized system that is designed with the interests of everyone and not the individual would certainly be better..."

We must consider what is Utopian and what reality is. Consider the USSR. This is a small scale example of your argument. While unemployment was virtually zero (I imagine the disabled/terminally ill/elderly, etc... meant that unemployment could not be zero) not every profession was equal. Imagine a butcher, (s)he sells the same products at the same price dictated by the government, yet this butcher is able to sell meat on the black market, thus increasing his/her utility. The opposite is an assembly line worker, if this worker produces more or less of his/her product, relative gain to the butcher is lower. (I paraphrased from the book, "Naked Economics".) Thus imbalance.

My argument hinges upon the have and have-nots. One world government will not resolve violence nor will it act as a catalyst for division of wealth.

Thanks again for the topic. I look forward to your reply!
Debate Round No. 1


Hi there,

Many thanks to my opponent for your views and thorough argument...however....

You state "believe we need to set the framework for this "one world government". Are we presuming that each country willfully and uniformly abolished sovereignty or each country retains its individuality but accepts political direction from a single authority?"

Well, here we have a problem...."willingly abolish"....."authority"...."direction"

This is the problem, even creating a simple sentence already shows a defensive or negative approach assuming that there is going to be a totalitarian dictatorship or somehow people are going to lose something or have to do without something.

You stated later in your argument (forgive me for not doing this in order) that people did ot have the technology that we have now and this is what led people to be tribal....I absolutely agree but!!! It really is time to move on, if we had the internet all those years ago then we would simply be aware much earlier that we share the same rock and are only seperated by the time it takes to get from one place to another. I know we are tribal, I know we hang on to our history like some sort of comfort blanket but really, we are capable of so much yet we really don't want to let go of the past...the past has proven just how stupid human beings are but at the same time it shows how we can overcome (in small numbers maybe) our outdated and frankly rediculous superstitions and practices to embrace progress and this is where we need to stop being little children and grow the hell up! So if someone does not want change to embrace something that works and would rather struggle because that is the way they were raised? Take a look at the North of Engand and the absolute pathetic way they hang on to their hard and turbulent past as if it was some sort of right of passage that they must adhere to otherwise they will lose their identity.....the problem with that is the whole country seems to want to ignore anthing that works in favour of its individuality....we dont need that same individuality because we are a global nation now....we have cell phones, the is no need for this seperation...I stated this in my last argument...a community that works together works! expand that community to a whole area, a country, a get the idea.

Less fortunate groups exist because there is greed, someone allways wins but remove the incentive....stay with me on this one...the incentive exists because we have allowed ourselves to seperate into groups therefor a group can be manipulated....if resources are managed correctly and people are given access to the very basics (equally) water, food and energy (and I am not quoting from Jaques Fresco...this is entirely possible and not some hippy pipedream) then the incentive changes....we create the incentive in our minds...change the goal and you change the outcome. Maybe the word "government" is the wrong conjours up all sorts of issues in the mind so how about a Unified World Plan, a group of people elected by a global community based on a framework that wors for everyone, if you have a loophole that ca be exploited then that needs to be eliminated before you finish the framework...scientists, engineers and planners...that is what is required.. religion takes a back seat and stays out of excuses and no leeway, if it cannot be proven it stays out of policy...if it works keep it, if it doesnt work...find out why and fix it....or keep screwing up and we keep the world the way it is.


Mr. Hikarijon, thank you for your reply. As promised I will respond to your argument and layout my thought process for separate governments.

"This is the problem, even creating a simple sentence already shows a defensive or negative approach assuming that there is going to be a totalitarian dictatorship or somehow people are going to lose something or have to do without something."

I suppose it's not really important to specify a government model. All forms of government are flawed (albeit some are more successful than others). I agree with my opponent, if everyone is treated equally and individual needs are met perhaps the world will be at peace. This however, is a very unlikely scenario. Consider the following article... (Not exactly a scholarly source, I imagine there is about 80 % accuracy)

It is important to debate, not on how things "should" be (Utopian) but rather based on how humans have existed in the past. I'm re-stating my first round argument. Humans are tribal and will war for resources. This is important as it will cause the collapse of a "one world government". We may wish all humans were like Mother Teresa, the fact remains there are plenty of the opposite.

My opponent also mentioned "Religion takes a back seat and stays out of politics..."

This statement is very problematic. States exist within our world that demand/desire Islamic law as the foundation and only law allowable. (See: Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc...) While I prefer separation of Church and State we immediately have conflict with this one world government.

Now I will layout my thoughts for division.

War is tragedy but war has also spurred developments in aeronautics, space flight, fusion, medical treatment and human dignity (treatment of POWs via Geneva Convention). While one might argue advancement in these areas may or will occur without war I submit, governments spent countless resources in advancement of these areas particularly because of the threat of war or to increase their first strike capability. (I.E. Space race between USA and USSR.)

While this may be considered speculation, I believe we can generally agree that people will do what"s best for themselves. If we raise this to the international level using political action, we can assume governments will do what"s best for the country (and the people of that country) they represent. With this we have forced compromise at the international level. (Certainly countries with higher GDP/military strength have a stronger voice but this is the way of the world.)

One world government may be possible but I believe only when humans are forced to compromise do we have peace. Without the need for compromise slavery begins.
Debate Round No. 2


Hi there, great points and thanks for bringing them up but there is still a major flaw are still thinking within the existing framework.. what I am talking about is removing the framework, remove the actual boundaries and then you remove the conflict. Nobody is saying to abolish religion but it is because of this imagined separation that we have the problems in the first place.

There is no reason to tribally protect ones resources if you remove the seperation, how far do you have to move from one village to be considered outside the imagined boundary? distance has no issue anymore, religion is simply a waste of time as its basis in reality is just was there to explain things that once could not be explained..the only thing holding back this more efficient and shared way of living is the people wonder governments must be lughing at us all and corruption surely follows as it is simply exploiting the flaws within the existing framework. remove the invisible imagined boundaries and there will be no need to fight for what is readily available...I dont know why people cannot see this simple point?


Mr. Hikarijon, thank you for your reply.

"you are still thinking within the existing framework.. what I am talking about is removing the framework, remove the actual boundaries and then you remove the conflict."

It is for this reason I am apprehensive of a one world government. Removing the framework of modern government will not alter human behavior, at least not initially. It appears your opinion is that all humans treat one another with dignity while striving to ensure everyone has access to clean water, food, medicine, social services. I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment. Unfortunately not everyone is willing to set aside personal desire for the good of the whole leading to imbalance. I sum it up like this...

I SHOULD be able to walk down the most dangerous streets of Detroit without fear of being robbed.
The reality is I'm likely to robbed.

Now I presume my opponent will say "if the world were equal this will not happen." While that is true, what is also true is that such a world cannot exist. Thus the One World Government will be flawed and without a series of checks and balances the potential for corruption increases. History has shown, governments are very effective at using military force to subdue protestors/revolutions. Outside nations provide assistance to revolutions they deem favorable allowing such activity to continue.

Again, I'd like to point out we must argue based on human behavior. While the idea of a Utopian one world government is the IDEAL situation it is not achievable by current standards. It requires Cultural Revolution that may or may not be attainable.
Debate Round No. 3


Hi there,

Hm, I agree with what you are saying but I am notreally talking about the framework of Government that exists at the moment, I am talking about a shift in thinking to remove imaginary boundaries.

It is not a physical revolution that is required but a waking up of the seeping masses (not in a conspiracy theorist Zeitgeist kind of way but more of a realisation that certain things are just not real) to the fact that these only exist in the mind, we have become so accustomed to thinking a certain way about anything outside our comfort zone that we take it as fact when someone tells us what to do. You may have to worry about walking down a street in Detroit but that is a hell of a lot easier than simply surviving on your own in somewhere like England where thedaily struggle just to eat and keep a roof over your head is a much greater worry.

The problem I have is that I get labelled along with those other nutters ... like Jaques Fresco who have this romantic ideal which is nice on paper and nice to dream about but provide no intervention or struture for the plan required...change the way we think and the rest will follow without violence or upheaval....we only do what we do because we as a people allow it. A government can only exist as long as the people go along with it, politicians go with what the masses (sorry I mean voters) want...or are told to imagine if the majority all changed the way they think? the politicians would have to at least follow that train of thought and provide something that is going to get them this on a global scale alng with some careful planning or resources and he works....its so simple...yet I have that label stuck on my back that makes me a whako!


Mr. Hikarijon, some interesting ideas. I apologize for my absence, I came down with some sort of stomach bug.

I don't really have much to add beyond what I've previously laid out. I still stand mankind is not ready for a one world government and may not ever be. Beyond space aliens uniting mankind against a single enemy or a civilization taking control of the world, no peaceful process will ever reprogram humans to forgo personal desires.

I will add (off topic) generally speaking, anyone who insults you for personal beliefs are probably not the brightest of individuals. Healthy debate is one thing, insulting is childish.
Debate Round No. 4


hikarijon forfeited this round.


As my opponent forfeited the round, I will end by thanking Mr. Hikarijon for the opportunity to debate.

Additionally, informative feedback regarding my posts/debating will be appreciated.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.