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

The time has come for a world government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 41368
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




The world's problems today are global problems. Whether the problem is climate change, civil war, social inequality, cultural conflict, religious oppression, Internet (de)regulation, or epidemic, the problem will be tackled best by a world government. It has not only become counterproductive to leave policy-decisions to nations, which attempt to exploit global problems to their national advantage and in this way have undermined solutions of peace and climate control. It has become immoral. To speak with Nobel prize winner Stiglitz, the economic globalisation that makes us all consumers on the one market should go hand in hand with a political globalisation that gives us all equal rights. Only a world government can guarantee that, implementing our rights through proactive policy. The international organisations that exist now such as UN are a mere sum of nations. They have to a large extent been lame ducks, primarily serving the interests of the governments and elites of powerful nations and not the wishes of their populations, let alone the interests of the global population. To know these wishes a global forum such as this one would be ideal. An incredibly high number of votes pro this statement may actually be the beginning of a world government. Voting can start right here.


To start with, I bring the notion that at this time a World Government isn't possible. When you think about it, every nation in the world has political ideologies that differ from one another. These Political Ideologies are meant to place each Government in check, preventing one from obtaining too much power(The balance between Left-wing Governments, and Right-wing Governments.) Subjects to these Ideologies will have major disputes, and conflicts over which type of Government, and it's ideologies shall be used in this "World Government." As such, this'll create even more wars, and further strain relations between Nations. To sum it all up, nations have too much in difference regarding ideas on how Government should work. Creating a World Government would not find a solution for these differences, and that can lead to War.

Secondly, I present the belief that weaker nations would not have as much of a powerful voice in terms of ruling compared to more stronger nations. These stronger nations exert their force against the ideas of weaker nations, creating a Tyrannical Gov. which only appeals to the Powerful.

You say that it requires a World Government in order to take care of climate change, civil war, social inequality, cultural conflict, religious oppression, Internet (de)regulation, epidemic, or other problems, but what purpose does a World Government serve, if Governments have the ability to do this on a National scale? Surely enough, there has been criticism of National Governments not being able/not willing to take care of these problems, but that's because those in power can't and/or won't take care of these problems. The same thing will apply if you put this logic on a World Scale. Only it'll make the situation even worse.

The ability of this "Earth Government"(I'll just call it the Unified Earth States to make it sound more badass) depends on it's ability to mediate differences with Nations regarding Culture, Power, Language, Religion(Beliefs), Political Ideologies/beliefs, and so on and so forth. if the Unified Earth States is unable to take care of this, this leads to a high rick of secession, and war. Which plays ironic to the planned desires of the Unified Earth States
Debate Round No. 1


The contender has presented a number of counter-arguments, which I like to disentangle and refute:
(1) World government (WG) is currently impossible because of conflicting national ideologies. So the time has not come (yet) for a WG.

My answer: No democratic nation has one ideology. Ideologies (such as left/right) crosscut nations and cultures. A true WG can only reflect the ideological and political diversity, with the same checks and balances as in national governments. Thanks to Internet, education and globalization, citizens discover allied minds across national borders. Now the time has come for a government adapted to this historically new situation. So that global debate has global consequences, and democratic decisions can be made about the planet's future.

(2) The national level best captures people's interests and differences.

My answer: The national government can capture some interests well, but as I argued, many of today's problems, which concern us all, cannot be settled at national level. The power of national governments should be limited to certain appropriate tasks, just as municipal and regional authorities are today. National governments should be subdivisions of the WG. A WG does not abolish lower levels of government; it is an essential addition ensuring that the global level problems are tackled decisively too.

(3) a WG would be counterproductive because it turns national conflicts into international conflicts: "those in power can't and/or won't take care of these problems. The same thing will apply if you put this logic on a World Scale. Only it'll make the situation even worse."

My answer: The reason why national governments do not solve the world's problems is that they are only designed to defend national interests. The bigger nations such as US, China and USSR veto each other out on important issues that concern the global population and decide on the future of humanity. But would their citizens actually agree with those vetoes (that may kill thousands) if they were able to debate the issues with individuals across borders? All wars of massive proportion have come from this inequality proper to nation-states. If life can be compared to a game, there are today a few very big teams that ruin the competition. The owners of those teams fool us - captains, forwards, midfielders and defenders of the team or nation - into thinking that we have more in common with them than with the captains, forwards, midfielders and defenders of the other teams. That is the hoax on world-scale ended by a WG.
Of course, captains may at some time want to form a group together, as will defenders etc. But secession is not a logical consequence of that. There exist sufficient other links through which members can ally with others outside their group and form crosscutting allegiances. The problem of national governments being the highest level of power is their purpose of undermining the decision power of these allegiances once they become cross-national. That's why a WG is inevitable. And the time is now.


knockinrockin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


When hearing about a world government (WG), many shiver thinking about 1984 or some other dystopia about a State dictating our lives. Until they discover that the only way to avoid such a super-State is precisely to divide it up and have government at each significant level of society. That includes the missing highest level. The same legal requirements apply there as to the national, regional and municipal levels. World government implies world democracy. This is possible when we make full use of social media and develop these media further to meet the objective of world democracy. When you debate this issue of WG sufficiently you realise it is the only way ahead. Since going back or stagnating is no option in the face of society's challenges today, WG is the way to go. I guess my opponent did not need further debate to be convinced and therefore has forfeited the second round to concede.


knockinrockin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by knockinrockin 3 years ago
Sorry for replying a bit late, but I have a ton of Homework, and not enough free time on my hands to continue this Debate. I personally looked forward to continue this Debate, but due to time management issues, I'm afraid that's not the case. Hopefully, both of us will be able to continue this Debate in the Future.
Posted by koenstroeken 3 years ago
Thanks LikeTheTree. What do you think of the arguments from both sides so far? I wish some more voices could be heard on this issue...
Posted by Likethetree 3 years ago
I think this is a very interesting topic, and I look forward to seeing the new arguments. Good luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits