Should all the countries unite for a world nation?
Debate Rounds (5)
Many thanks to my opponent for this debate.
I'll begin by responding to Pro's entire argument which I will highlight in bold. Then I will present my arguments.
[ REBUTTAL ]
We are one species, but yet we fight with each other over resources, ideologies and etc. Let's instead united and create a new socio-economic system where every human being's daily needs like dwelling, food, clothes, technology is provided.
Just because we are one species is not a good argument in favor of a single world government.
Pro does not explain why we should take care of everyone, let alone if it's even possible. I contest that it's not.
Our technology let's us do it now, but instead we selfishly use the earth's resources. If all countries unite, and understand that resource is no ones actually, the land, the borders are meaningless. We as a species are only 100,000-200,000 years on earth, and think we own it. The moment we declare that no nation owns no land, that there is no border anymore, there will be no wars over land, no conflicts that we see.
Pro has not proven that his suggestion is possible. Moreover, the vast majority of people and governments in the world accept borders and property rights. This means resources (natural and man made) can both be legitimate owned, despite Pro's fallacious bare assertion claiming otherwise. Moreover, Pro cannot legitimately claim there would be no war even if there were no nations or borders. We have absolutely no reason to believe that. People have fought each other even before official nations and established borders.
But in order to reach to that position first, every human being and nations should understand what it mean to unite. Moreover, there should be mass development in underdeveloped regions in order to provide dwellings and other life necessities to every person, before we unite.
I will argue that we should not attempt to unite, and that it's an incredibly problematic proposal. Pro has not told us how these underdeveloped nations can be developed and why.
During the process of development, new generations would understand what it means and education is of course the best tool. Uniting the world is the best choice humanity has, it will bring prosperity, happiness and healthy planet overall.
This has nothing to do with supporting a world government.
[ ARGUMENTS ]
The globe is populated with more than 6 billion people. These people come from vastly different cultures and have completely different values. Even people who come from similar backgrounds often have completely different values (see: some Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.). If the purpose of government is to establish laws that protect important social values, how can we expect so many people to agree about what rules we should use to govern? Such a possibility seems absurd and would inevitably create conflict. For example, in Africa they practice female circumcision; in the Middle East they stone adulterers. Are those customs that people in the West would appreciate or even tolerate? Of course not.
In trying to dictate how another population lives, animosity inevitably ensues. History shows us how populations react to this kind of conflict: with the formation of a small militia type group that fights to protect their values within a community. This has happened since the beginning of mankind. With a multitude of groups doing that, you ultimately have the formation and creation of various law enfrocement groups and thus governments. As such, a single world government is completely unlikely of ever being possible or successful.
In choosing what values to put into law, due to differences in opinion, a significant amount of people are going to be upset if they are forced to abide by a specific value they disagree with which would inevitably be the case. For instance, consider how in the U.S., Republicans threatened to leave the country or revolt of Obama were re-elected. Of course Americans are too lazy/distracted/apathetic to ever actually fight back... and are ridiculed when doing so, eg. Occupy Wall Street... but that is not the case in other parts of the world where people have nothing better to do than care about their political agenda and fight to change it. Expecting everyone to accept unwanted laws is unrealistic. Clearly there would be a significant backlash against the authorities, which would be completely disruptive and expensive both in terms of resources and human capital. Productivity will be stifled and people would lose their lives fighting for freedom from the oppression of global tyranny. It is not moral to suggest that people from one culture should be forcefully influential in dictating laws that govern people from a completely different culture.
I'm curious as to what type of government my opponent intends would be successful (or moral) anyhow. There are dangers of a single authoritative state. Essentially every citizen of the world would be a slave unable to escape an aggressive and tyrannical government. That is inherently oppressive in the truest sense of the word oppression. The ruling class (politicians) and those that protect it (the military) would hold indisputable power over everyone else. That is incredibly problematic. The extent of unpopularity would create perpetual dissonance under such a system.
[ CONCLUSION ]
In conclusion, the fact that people shouldn't be forced to abide by values they don't agree with on such a massive scale; the fact that expecting that to happen (despite such vast difference in values) would inevitably result in violent conflict -- as demonstrated throughout history; the fact that such conflict would infringe on people's right to live freely, as well as create war and inhibit prosperity; and the inevitable futility of trying to implement and sustain such a system -- in addition to all consideration on a cost-benefit analysis - proves why a world government is fundamentally not a good idea.
The resolution has been negated.
1. Today we have the technology to feed all the world population of 7 + billion plus. According to The Hunger Project (www.thp.org) 795 million people today do not have enough to eat every day, in the world where trillions of dollars are spend on development and production of military equipment which needs far more expensive materials to build.
2. It won't happen in a day, where the next day we start to feed all the world population. First there should be an agreed 30-40 year plan, where they outline how all the governments will corporate to build all the necessary infrastructures (roads, dwellings, hospitals, factories, education and entertainment complexes and etc.) in a green way. Also during this period, new generations of people will be educated to understand why all these is happening. There should be no over consumption of earths resources like now. We should use as much as we need and at the same time help the planet to recover.
3. In the new susso-economic system we will have no money, because every thing is provided. You can get everything for free. Why would anyone rob if everything is provided? I think even policing the society will reduce to something minimal. If there are no borders, no armies, who will fight? Yes, of course there still will be some arguments between people, not between governments. Because there will be minimal governance by people. When there are self driving cars around, there will also be self producing robot factories which can itself plan and harvest whatever needed. Or we might even have molecular assemblers which can create anything we want: be it banana or a car.
4. When there are no armies, all those people car relax or pursue his/her interests.
I completely believe that such a society is possible where every person needs a provided, and all he or she needs to do is to relax and pursue interests. Today is the day when we start this process, so at least our grand children can live in such a society. Or with the help of new medicine and science even our generation can live many more years than average people.
[ REBUTTAL ]
1 and 2. Pro says we have enough food to feed the entire world. He has not explained how uniting the world into a single world government would alleviate hunger. Even the richest countries in the world still have starving and homeless populations.
3. Pro says a united world government would not have currency (or presumably fiat). So now Pro is not only arguing for a single world state, but significantly inhibited trade. Pro wants to go back to the barter system which would not make it any easier to eliminate poverty and hunger.
4. Pro says no government = no armies. He fails to explain how law enforcement works in this society. Pro says he "believes that such a society is possible where every person needs a provided, and all he or she needs to do is to relax and pursue interests." Again Pro has not explained how this society can come to fruition. On the other hand, I've outlined very specific reasons why a single world government is not necessarily moral even if it were possible... but it's probably not possible.
[ MY ARGUMENTS ]
I will repeat them for clarity.
If the purpose of government is to establish laws that protect important social values, how can we expect so many people to agree about what rules we should use to govern the entire planet? With a multitude of groups from various cultures, you ultimately have the formation and creation of numerous law enfrocement groups (armies) and thus governments.
It's immoral to expect one standard to govern such a large and diverse group. Backlash against this kind of tyranny means productivity will be stifled, and people would lose their lives fighting for freedom (war) from this oppressive standard.
In addition, this would lead to a loss of cultural identity and thus diversity. That means the degradation of unique languages; imposing homogenous standards of freedoms, intellect and the arts; a decrease in perceived autonomy; and domination of smaller groups by larger ones into forced assimilation.
So far Pro has failed to not only prove a single world government is possible, but why it would be a good thing. He suggests it would eliminate world hunger and allow for "total relaxation," but fails to explain how/why this would be the case. On the other hand, I've explained why a single world government is not only unlikely to the point of impossibility, but problematic and arguably immoral.
honourSagan forfeited this round.
honourSagan forfeited this round.
honourSagan forfeited this round.
Please extend my arguments. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
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.