The time has come for a world government
Debate Rounds (3)
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
(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.
knockinrockin forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits
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.