The Instigator
FinickyRealist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

World Governance

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
WillRiley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 65217
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

FinickyRealist

Pro

Should we make decisions for ourselves about our planet and it's inhabitants through an open platform, or should we let money and borders and hierarchies continue to influence our world ? I say we should implement a system...er.. an open organization whereby anyone can directly contribute and apply there knowledge and skills and slowly take control of the resources and responsibility for the people on this planet independently of our current systems.
WillRiley

Con

While I am all for democracy, what you are talking about it simply not feasible. The other problem is that with a world government, the small countries would be under represented. For example, if all the people in the world are voting on something, then whatever choice is most favored by China and India is going to win. However, somewhere like Ireland, which has completely different values and culture than China and India, is going to be subjected to the choice of the larger countries. This is why we should keep the system of of sovereignty like we have now.
Debate Round No. 1
FinickyRealist

Pro

I'm going to try to go into this with as much depth as I have time for, something I probably should have done in my previous argument, but i'll still be very brief since I really am just assuming a lot of things. First I will describe the finished product, but keep in mind that the shift would not occur instantly, gradual steps would need to be taken, meaning the system itself would operate differently along the way, but in the end, it must start somewhere.

So we all "own" the planet equally, then let's establish our priorities and who is going to do what. As you would imagine, our basic needs come first: food, water, shelter for everyone. The way we do this, is pretty obvious. The same way we will be acquiring or using most of our goods and services, through a global resource sharing and management system, just keep in mind, no one will be deciding what you eat, simply THAT you eat....whatever and whenever you want (of course taking into consideration the sustainability aspects). Ok so how are goods produced and transported? Mostly by machines as they are today but the work that is required would be distributed equally among people but no particular work would be forced upon anyone unless it is ever necessary....and now...if you haven't already realized, our workload to provide for our basic needs once all the major infrastructure is in place would be something like " a minimum of 20% of the population must work 20 hours each per week at any given time" , obviously this is just a guess but you get the idea. Right now were trying to get most of the population working 40+ hours a week which is not only unattainable, it's not expected to achieve a desired outcome because we are all doing it to survive independently.

Ok so now we are all just living, we all have food, shelter and what not....what else do we do when we have everything we need?.....It's not the end of the road yet....we can do whatever we want after that...through the same types of systems, working together and sharing, creating etc...

So how do we get there???

Well folks, get ready because the road ahead is going to be a rough one.... we must all simultaneously wear masks and take our money out of the banks so that....no no no.....i'm kidding, this isn't the way to go.

This is how we do it, it's quite simple actually.... it starts off with a small group of people and a website very similar to this one and our goal is to grow our numbers, of people but also of property and slowly but surely, we take back what is ours, one factory at a time by using this existing system, eventually, everyone on earth will "own" the planet. hahahaha....what do you think?? We have the numbers....let's play monopoly!
WillRiley

Con

So, just to clairify, you are suggesting a corporate takeover turned socialist one world government? Do you realize that has no chance of working?

Also, I would like to remind the voters that Pro holds the BOP, and if He/She doesn't prove that we should have the aforementioned Socialist/Corporate/Authoritarian/Commune/NWO/Government thing, I shall win the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
FinickyRealist

Pro

Instead of calling it a world government, I think it's closer to something like an open world management system. In Commonwealth English, a government narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time, the concept I am presenting gives this power to all people, who would make their decisions based on all the information they have at their disposal delivered through an online platform, this website is a decent example. Public choice theory suggests that when the benefits of political action (e.g., lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity, you see I think that the reason we are all aware of the problems we face and yet fail to do anything about it is because we have no platform that would make it easy for us to contribute.

Furthermore, it would not be a corporate takeover it would be a nonhierarchic, non profit group of people, the organizational structure would only be determined based on what gives us the most benefits etc.... You see, if you look to my analogy about monopoly, you realize that when observing this game that eventually someone always ends up with everything in the end...which is what has happened, few people own everything, all I am suggesting is that we turn that around and go from there but in a scientifically arranged and systematic way.

Socialism is a good way of looking at it but it's not bound by archaic or arbitrary rules, what I mean is that society would be organised in such a way that is determined by information through people.... until today we've never had the internet to educate us on anything we want.

And by the way, how about we let the voters decide their own terms.
WillRiley

Con

Socialism
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Essentially, what you are describing is a world wide socialist state, but with a form of very direct democracy.

Now, in theory, this sounds pretty good. However, there is no way it could work. For one, it would have to be supported by every person in the world, unless you wanted some people to be oppressed. Sure, they would have a voice in government, but what if their voice in government is that they should change the government?
Socialism has never worked on a large scale, because, fact is, people like to have their own stuff, and provide for themselves, not for other people they don't even know.

Even on DDO, 63% of us are against redistribution of wealth, and 58% are against socialism. That means a majority of JUST THIS SITE would be against you. How would it be non-hierarchical? At some level, you would have to have someone in charge of other people. Someone would have to decide where food is needed, and who is to say they won't send better food and items to their own town or family? Who will investigate corruption? How can you possible think that everyone in the world could eat whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it?

There is one sentence I find particularly concerning about your utopia-
"work that is required would be distributed equally among people but no particular work would be forced upon anyone unless it is ever necessary"
Now, In a society where everyone basically has all of their hearts desires at their fingertips, that would obviously be necessary ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME. And say someone says, "Hey, I don't want to work on loading food shipments because I am tired of doing that and I hate it!", then what? Due to your word choice of "forced upon" I assume there will be some sort of "Laziness Police" that will go around, apparently forcing people to do work if the don't want to because, for your society to function, everyone must live for everyone else, not just themselves, or they will be punished.

Now, obviously, Pro's Utopia is far from ideal and also it is impossible to achieve such a thing. If people just stop working for the government, then what? Does it work like Soviet Russia? Are they carted off to gulags?

For all of the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to vote Con!

Thank you to both Pro and to the Voters.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
No problem, I enjoyed it.
Posted by FinickyRealist 2 years ago
FinickyRealist
I'd like to thank you con for the opportunity to do this, this is one of my first debates but definitely not my last! I feel this was incomplete so I look forward to doing it again with more rounds. Thanks again.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The only money we have influence over is what we have in our possession.Now where that came from and how we got it makes a difference.Money has no life of its own. It goes where we tell it to.
Posted by Ariesx 2 years ago
Ariesx
I'd debate you if I knew where you stood on this issue.
Posted by CaptainDogma 2 years ago
CaptainDogma
I'm not sure what this is asking exactly...
Posted by WildWasteland 2 years ago
WildWasteland
I do not understand where you're going with this. Rephrasing the question would help.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
FinickyRealistWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dominates overall.
Vote Placed by QTAY21 2 years ago
QTAY21
FinickyRealistWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although it sounds nice to get what you want when you want it, the plan that Pro presented just has too many things that could go wrong, and Con did a nice job pointing those out. It also seems wrong to force people to work a certain amount each week.
Vote Placed by Kylar 2 years ago
Kylar
FinickyRealistWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Good arguments on both sides, Pro defended his case well, as did Con. But I award the victory to Con.