The Instigator
wxyz2000
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Delons
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

World Government will Impede the Progress of Humanity

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 2 votes the winner is...
wxyz2000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 61160
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

wxyz2000

Pro

I believe instituting a world government will prove disadvantageous for human society. I will have the burden of proof.

World government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity.

First round is acceptance.

Second round is opening statement

Third round is rebuttal.

Fourth round is rebuttal and concluding argument.

I have debated this before in the past, but my opponent forfeited. I might use some of my arguments in the past.
Delons

Con

Awesome resolve, never thought of that before. This will be fun.
Debate Round No. 1
wxyz2000

Pro

World government will inhibit competition and therefore limit human progress:
The Roman poet Horace once said: "adversity has the effect of eliciting talent which in prosperous circumstances would have lain dormant". While analyzing the conditions under which Western Civilization gave birth to scores of genius minds, renowned professor Niall Ferguson proposed the "six killer apps", of which competition is foremost. He wrote that our high standard of living today was largely in part due to the competition between the European states. The European spice race led to growing markets and innovations. While China, having been closed from the rest of the world by Emperor Qianlong, stagnated.
The launching of satellites, the evolution of the Ethernet to internet, and the advent of the mobile cell has been propelled by the Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union. The emergence from the dark ages into the Italian Renaissance would not have occurred if it was not for the bickering Italian nobles and families, which led to patronage and the accumulation of talent. This is backed by H. Taine in his work on "The Philosophy of Art in Italy". Establish a World Government, and you lower competition and inhibit the human progress.

Bureaucracy:
The world government increases risk of dictatorship/bureaucracy and loss of human rights. Adolf Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor and then later became Fuhrer. Unlike Adolf Hitler though, the usurper would not have opponents in other world leaders such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as this is the world government. All it takes is one fanatic to degenerate the world into darkness and chaos.

Economic Inequality:
Winner of the Nobel Prize in economics Joseph Stieglitz warned America of the dangers of inequality in his book "The Price of Inequality". Dissensions and discord will inevitably arise out of inequality, as they do today in America. Certain people of the Texas state (one of the wealthier states in America) have already spoken about leaving the United States. The schism between the people of the poorer Main Street and the wealthier Wall Street has grown.
What is the implication of third-world countries joining the richest countries in the world? The inequality, as one can imagine, will be unbelievably high. The Economist reported that in America 5% of the share of the national income goes to the top 0.01%. But in America, even many of the lower class citizens can afford to watch television. While in Liberia, most people cannot afford clean drinking water. The citizens of the once third-world country will rally against their much wealthier compatriots if they will not share their wealth. But if the richer citizens will have to take responsibility of the poorer ones, they will grumble and complain and threaten to separate from the world government.

Cultural Barriers:
Cultural barriers will prevent the successful integration of communities in to the world government. People will inevitably be more interested in the affairs of their region, and not the entire world. Schisms between people will inevitably be present and grow as the years progress. Regions will threaten to separate, as Quebec threatens to leave Canada today, or as Tibet threatens to leave China. Different preferences of governance will threaten to divide the people even further. This is demonstrated by Taiwan"s wish to leave Greater China.

The Systems Underlying the World Government will Favour One "Region" Over Another
Just as the United Nations today favours countries, (e.g. the United States) the system underlying the world government will inevitably favour certain regions as well. Richer countries will demand more privileges. Over time these privileges will lead to dissension among different regions, causing division among its people.

Resources:

H. Taine - Philosophy of Art in Italy
Niall Ferguson - Civilization The West and the Rest
Joseph Stieglitz - Freefall
Joseph Stieglitz - The Price of Inequality
Delons

Con

Delons forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
wxyz2000

Pro

I extend my arguments.
Delons

Con

Delons forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
wxyz2000

Pro


In conclusion, a world government will inhibit society’s progress by stifling competition. Power, when amassed into the hands of a few elite, will corrupt and the system of governance may turn into dictatorship. Economic and cultural divisions will separate the people of the world government, and cause internal conflicts.



As my opponent has not provided an argument to how world government will not impede human progress, I urge a Pro vote.


Delons

Con

Delons forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
You guys live in a dream world. There are wars in countries all the time. Even in America their are people killing others for no apparent reason.And why is it that you think it is governments job to control people.That is communism on steroids. The firing sqads would have to be much larger under a one world government to get rid of those who do not think like the collective.Instead of 30,000,000 under stalin it would be 1,000,000,00 under, just for the sake of argument, we will call him the beast.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
And of course, they would probably be corrupt after a while, but that's pretty much a given with any government. What would be different here is that there are no longer any countries going to war against each other. So things could end up just as corrupted, but they would be less violent.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
@cheyennebodie
How would a One World Government be more corrupt than a national government? Sure, the One World Government is bigger, in a sense, but so is the population that it would have to control and take advantage of. Any additional power they might get by being a world government would be negated by the fact that the population they are governing over is much larger, and thus harder to control.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Nope, serious as a heart attack.It took me decades of life experiences to come to my conclusions. And I have never seen anything to make me change.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Please tell me you are just a troll.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Power corrupts. That is only true when that power is used to control other people. Man has been given dominion over all the earth. But was never given over one another. A central command will use that power at the whim of those in power. Look at the federal government today. They have intruded into every aspect of our lives. A one world government would be far greater threat to freedom, just as the bible predicted in revelations.We now have a dictator in power. The only thing hindering him is our constitution. I believe Obama is just too lazy to to implement his vision of making America after his own image. If people want to know what a liberal Obama paradise would be like just look at Detroit.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by browley14 3 years ago
browley14
wxyz2000DelonsTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even make any arguments so obviously Pro wins. Even with that being said Pro made some of the best arguments against a world government that I have ever seen.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
wxyz2000DelonsTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.