World Government will Impede the Progress of Humanity
I know that I have debated this topic before twice. But both times my opponents forfeited and I was never able to get past my opening arguments.
World government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity. Burden of Proof will be on the side of Pro.
First round is acceptance.
Second round is opening arguments.
Third round is rebuttals.
Fourth round is conclusion.
I will accept this debate!
May my opponent be aware of rich text and not make me scroll past pages after pages of blank lines.
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.
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.
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 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.
The Stakes are High:
Humans are not perfect. Many of the paths we tread, the policies we choose are new. Every country is essentially its own social experiment - a social experiment that is doomed to end in failure, as history has proven to itself over and over. The world should “diversify its portfolio”. If the world government turns out to be a sour experiment, or a policy the world government chooses has disastrous consequences, the population of the entire world is affected. With more nations, it becomes faster for us to right these consequences.
H. Taine - Philosophy of Art in Italy
Niall Ferguson - Civilization The West and the Rest
Joseph Stieglitz - Freefall
Joseph Stieglitz - The Price of Inequality
IronCurx forfeited this round.
I will forfeit too. No one vote please.
IronCurx forfeited this round.
|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:||4||0|