The Instigator
Aeiouasdf
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jvava
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

one world's one government, and not many governments, in the future.

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 2 votes the winner is...
jvava
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 731 times Debate No: 39840
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Aeiouasdf

Pro

I am not saying the entire world should embrace such a system, starting today. I am referring to a near future where people won't be flying around in space or going on vacations through worm holes, but a future where every nation will have similar socio-economic conditions(or, assuming such will be the state of man kind).

Yes, the topic isn't very urgent and is slightly vague, but we can have fun, can't we?
jvava

Con

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you.

I am against a world-governing body for many reasons. I will explain why in my opening arguments.

Looking forward to a great debate. May the voters ultimately decide who wins this very controversial argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Aeiouasdf

Pro

Thank you for your time and interest.

Let me begin right away by stating some of the benefits of having a single government.

Firstly, it would create an authority capable of arbitrating the issues that have lead to many disastrous consequences such as world wars. There will be an agency to enforce a basic set of laws that will try to inhibit various factions, be it religious, ethnic or ideological, from fighting with each other. As for the sovereignty, it can be a democratically elected government and its legislation can be drafted by a proper representation. State level governance can continue, with a great degree of sovereignty. It may even have its own security agencies, as long as the international military remains stronger.

Secondly, chauvinistic, ultra-nationalistic or racist tendencies can never take the form of a authentic military force (perhaps insurgents, but insurgency by a minority is never a threat).

Thirdly, global economics can function in a better way. As I have previously stated, the state of society is such that economic diversity isn't as vast as it is today. (So, while there will be a disparity, similar to that which exists between Connecticut and Mississippi, no vast regional disparity will exist.) As a result, the global economy can function as one.

This means it will be similar to that of the US. Resources can travel without international red tapes and tariffs. Even employees and entrepreneurs won't have much trouble moving in search of an optimum job. Many other benefits of free trade will be experienced.

Fourthly, international laws pertaining to issues such as human rights can be handled more easily. If any faction wants to marginalize certain demographics ( like by keeping women in Burka, or persecuting homosexuals) or deny other human rights, an authority can respond through the mandate from a representative legislature. This authority will have legal rights to follow the mandates of the global citizens.

I need not mention the nuclear disarmament and lack of constant threat for anybody.
jvava

Con

I am going to start off by stating the disadvantages of having a single government.

First - having a world government will not be effective in pleasing everybody and is not the solution to ending war. Having a single government may eliminate war between other countries, but will not eliminate wars inside the borders. Everybody is different, may I remind you, and we all want different things.

Take Sudan as an example. It could not please both sides of its population - the Islamic north and the Christian south - and, therefore, it split into two distinct nations.

Sudan had a war inside its borders because it could not please everybody. Allowing for a single government to take control will not eliminate war; Sudan had a war within its borders because it was too big and too diverse, religiously and ethnically. This could - and would - occur under a single administration.

Second - there would be little uniqueness under a single administration. Cultural assimilation would take place. This would not only infuriate people but also influence them to rebel. This is an example of a war taking place within a nation's borders.

Third - economic disparity would occur under a single administration.

In the United States, under one government, we are faced with great disparity because of the availability of resources. States with a richer population and better resources and industries are further ahead than those that aren't.

In a world government, the same would occur. The rich would reside in certain areas, and the poor in others: this would cause disparity on a larger scale. Areas like the Mid-East would benefit from oil production, while areas that aren't equipped with good, solid resources would be the poorer areas.

What you are propoposing is a socialist/communist society where no disparity exists. Nobody is rich, and nobody is poor. But it is fair to argue that communism hasn't worked in the past (USSR) and doesn't work now (Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

Fourth - the U.S. can't keep a majority of its people happy, with a population of 300 million people. How would a single government be able to function with so many ideas, so many customs? The US can combat differences on things like abortion, but when you get a legislature made up of Communists, Conservative Muslims, Atheists, Socialists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc. who is the majority? The legislature wouldn't be able to pass anything or satisfy anybody with so many differences and without a clear majority.

Fifth - what if the government turned corrupt? What if something horrible took place and the leader of this single government - the world, keep in mind, became corrupt? Who would be able to force him/her out of power and have the ability to save the people and their rights?

My argument is that a single government allows for cultural assimilation to take place. My argument is that wars can still happen, there will be no clear majority in a world legislature, that the government may turn corrupt and won't be able to be stopped.
Debate Round No. 2
Aeiouasdf

Pro

Let me start by contradicting the opposing speculation of the economy, which states that people in places with more resources, such as the Middle east or Texas, will be richer. Opposite of this will be true.

Today, all the oil from the middle east goes to entities such as middle-eastern monarchs (for most of the cases). But when we have a single authority, such resources can either be taxed or owned by the state. Most countries do that already. This won't have any negative impact on the economy because unlike other enterprises, mining or petroleum industries do not perform any better when privatized. Finally, the world government could make sure that such resources, which is a product of nature and not of enterprise (excluding the scientific innovations which are few and could be government-funded), is mobilized for common good. Finally, the poor can get their share of such common resources. Actually, USA is quite unique in its "finders keepers" policy which accounts for the inequality; other countries deem that such resources are public property. I must defend myself against a previous claim that I have proposed a socialist/communist society. I have never proposed any communist ideas, and even this is something that many countries to the right of economical spectrum practice.

As for the rich people getting grouped together, it will not be possible as the poor too can resettle in the booming areas. Resources can be mobilized without the hindrance of international borders. Yes, US has its disparity between states, but even European Union has much more disparity, despite leaning heavily to the left.

The argument, pertaining to cultural differences, can be solved through decentralization. Holidays, for instance, can be decided locally. Places that have a majority of Christians can have Christmas as a holiday. In places where they are a minority, they may use their paid vacation quotas to celebrate Christmas. These are trifle issues which may be solved locally. As per the battle within Sudan, or entire Africa at that, such violence are a result of improper administrative divisions or incapable administration. They weren't violent even when exploited as a single colony.

Look at India on the other hand. Conflicts were caused only when people migrated to the other states: from India to Pakistan or vice versa. Various cultural factions inside India did not fight. Now, they are a more tolerant nation and continue to improve. Often, violence are fueled by politicians who want to be the kings of their divided faction, and not by genuine differences.

On the other hand, a single world government could be an authority capable of arbitrating such conflicts. Such a force could provide safety to the minority and intimidate the bullying majority. Proper referendum could be conducted if a significant number want a separate administrative division.

Yes, the world government would have a lot of diversities. From Muslims to Christians. From communists to conservatives. With an exception of few states, this is already true of many smaller states. As for the communism, once everybody votes, I doubt that this ideology can garner much support. Religious factions cannot garner majority, and if they do, they have the mandate and not agreeing with it would be undemocratic. An ideology that is acceptable to the majority will always win. Some dissatisfied minorities cannot blockade the progress.

Various issues such as abortion or gun rights can be left to local governments. People can continue to decided on such issues for their administrative divisions.

Tyranny or imperialism has often tried to conquer and enslave the entire world. Examples of this include Roman empire, British empire and Nazism. Some of those forces have threatened democracy. But if we already have a democratically elected one world government, such undemocratic, segregating entities would never have a majority in the legislature, and hence, would never be a threat.
jvava

Con

"As for the rich people getting grouped together, it will not be possible as the poor too can resettle in the booming areas."

This is a statement that you made. I just want to state that this how it is currently, at least in the US: people can live anywhere they desire, permitting they have enough money.

But, still, we find serious divisions between our separate jurisdictions and neighborhoods. The rich live in one area, and the poor live in another. This is disparity, as you have called it.

I just want to state that a single government would not solve the problem of disparity without socialistic/communist ideals. The poor will settle in one area, and the rich in another. The only way to avoid this would be to spread the wealth and make sure that everybody receives the same amount of payment. And I believe it is fair to say that these ideals haven't worked in the past and neither do they in the present.

"I have never proposed any communist ideas, and even this is something that many countries to the right of economical spectrum practice."

The question was not on the topic of the "finder's keepers" policy. It was on the subject of disparity. And the only way to erase disparity completely is through communist ideals, which do not work at removing the lower and upper classes.

"Yes, US has its disparity between states, but even European Union has much more disparity, despite leaning heavily to the left."

You just exemplified that disparity cannot be erased even in the most "left" - or liberal - of societies. Please explain clearly how one central government can erase disparity.

"As per the battle within Sudan, or entire Africa at that, such violence are a result of improper administrative divisions or incapable administration. They weren't violent even when exploited as a single colony."

The reason Sudan suffered from inadequate administration was because of the conflicting religious and political views in the nation. They were always fighting each other, leading to a heavy focus on war and battle rather than domestic issues.

"As for the communism, once everybody votes, I doubt that this ideology can garner much support."

The nation of China, with the biggest population in the world, is a communist society. This party would receive more votes than you think.

"But if we already have a democratically elected one world government, such undemocratic, segregating entities would never have a majority in the legislature, and hence, would never be a threat."

Communist nations, such as North Korea, USSR, and Cuba came about because of public support. It is impossible to say that they would never possess a majority in legislature.

What you are proposing is a communist confederation, one where everyone is equal - no "disparity" and states decide on policy issues. Both of these governments have failed. You propose a government that is very controlling to migitate battles between different ethic groups.

The issue of a single government is too complicated. The world is different, filled with unique and interesting cultures that clash when put together. Forcing such nations to merge into one and agreeing on issues will only result in nothing being passed by legislature and continued disputes between ethnic groups.



Debate Round No. 3
Aeiouasdf

Pro

"I just want to state that a single government would not solve the problem of disparity without socialistic/communist ideals."

I said that the disparity would never shore up to a very high level, where first and third world resemblance reappears. This is because of the inevitability of a simple and accepted economic premise where resources aren't barred from reaching one place from another. As for the theoretical extreme, which is bereft of any disparity, such a situation has never occurred, not even in USSR. Also, I never claimed that the one world government will make everyone equally rich but said that vast disparity that we see today will not reappear. It is a well-established economic theory, and one of the objectives or globalization.

"And the only way to erase disparity completely is through communist ideals, which do not work at removing the lower and upper classes."

I never said that complete elimination of disparity is a goal or effect of one world government. This point is irrelevant.

"You just exemplified that disparity cannot be erased even in the most "left" - or liberal - of societies. Please explain clearly how one central government can erase disparity."

Again, I never talked about "erasing disparity". I only talked about disparity being lessened.

"The nation of China, with the biggest population in the world, is a communist society. This party would receive more votes than you think. "

China isn't a communist nation because the Chinese people support the system with their votes. It is an imposition, and it is very unlikely that the Communist party will receive a majority if they go to an election. Anyways, China is vast, but nowhere close to having a majority of global citizens.

"Communist nations, such as North Korea, USSR, and Cuba came about because of public support. It is impossible to say that they would never possess a majority in legislature."

Small groups support many unpopular ideologies. Ku Klux clan, neonazis, they all have some support. When did Russian, Cuban or North Korean communist party get a majority of vote in an election? Never. So while a possibility exists, it is not a probable outcome. As for possibility, it could even happen in the US, but let us refrain from improbable possibilities.

"What you are proposing is a communist confederation,"

No. I have never implied anything like that. I have even refrained from implying Kenyesianism or welfare state.

""As for the rich people getting grouped together, it will not be possible as the poor too can resettle in the booming areas."
This is a statement that you made. I just want to state that this how it is currently, at least in the US: people can live anywhere they desire, permitting they have enough money.
But, still, we find serious divisions between our separate jurisdictions and neighborhoods. The rich live in one area, and the poor live in another. This is disparity, as you have called it. "

I said that in context of the world (if entire paragraph is read instead of a sentence, this should become obvious). I am not challenging the imperatives of capitalism. What I am saying is that people from the poor parts can migrate to the places with job, while enterprise or capital can go to places with more resources and cheaper labor. The only claim I made was that national borders won't hinder such transfers anymore.
jvava

Con

"I said that the disparity would never shore up to a very high level, where first and third world resemblance reappears."

There would be no first and third world resemblance - because we would all be one nation. But economic disparity would continue to exist. Even in a single government - the US - disparity continues to thrive.



I just think this an interesting chart. It depicts that even in the United States disparity exists.

A single government would not get rid of disparity - it would just be on a much bigger, global scale. You have attributed that a single government would rid the world of disparity - or at least lessen the burden - due to a number of reasons: the "finder's keeper" policy, etc.

You also noted that "It is a well-established economic theory, and one of the objectives or globalization." You did not provide a source for this theory.

A single government would not lessen economic disparity in any way. It would simply be on a much larger, global scale.

"China isn't a communist nation because the Chinese people support the system with their votes."

Communism is an economic policy. The Chinese vote for this policy.

"...it is very unlikely that the Communist party will receive a majority if they go to an election."

My argument is not that the Communist party will gain a majority, but rather that there will be no clear majority in a world legislature. There are so many opinions, parties, floating around in the world, that this Global Congress will have so many ideologies that they will never be able to pass anything.

"When did Russian, Cuban or North Korean communist party get a majority of vote in an election? Never."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I realize that this is from WikiPedia, but it is still very factual and true.

It describes the North Korean election of 2009 - where the Communist party (aka Worker's Party) received a huge majority of votes.

And you can argue that these people aren't truly voting for these candidates, that they are forced to. But this relates to another one my arguments - what happens if someone corrupt gets into office, like North Korea? Even if small or large groups support this corrupt leadership doesn't matter - the fact is that they are able to get into public office and dictate everybody life. Whether small or large groups support the corruption is besides the point.


"What you are proposing is a communist confederation."


This is a statement I made. In a way, yes you are. You want to spread the wealth around to "lighten the burden of disparity" and you want separate states to decide what is best for them in terms of policy issues and holidays. In a way, you do support a communist confederation.

"As for the rich people getting grouped together, it will not be possible as the poor too can resettle in the booming areas. Resources can be mobilized without the hindrance of international borders. Yes, US has its disparity between states, but even European Union has much more disparity, despite leaning heavily to the left."

You wanted the voters to read this entire paragraph. I am providing it now.

What I want to say is that, currently, in the US the poor have these opportunities as well. The poor can settle in booming areas - such as cities. The problem is that rich tend to settle in more affluent areas and the poor in poorer areas. This is a trend that cannot be erased even in under a single government.

I don't get why this is so impressive, in your eyes. Yes, there are no borders to block resources - but there are other ways of solving this issue between nations. Free trade, for example. And even under one government, there would still be an inequality.

"What I am saying is that people from the poor parts can migrate to the places with job, while enterprise or capital can go to places with more resources and cheaper labor."

We have the ability to do that now, and large disparity still occurs. The poorer citizens live in cities, where jobs are available. Enterprise and capital go to places with cheaper labor and resources - areas such as East Asia.

I don't understand your argument pertaining to this issue. It doesn't make sense - one nation cannot lighten the burden of disparity, period.

"The only claim I made was that national borders won't hinder such transfers anymore."

Free trade without all the issues, plain and simple.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to sum my stance to the voters.

A single government would not lighten the burden of great disparity, as my opponent suggested; it would simply be on a much larger scale. In the US, we have naturally rich areas, and naturally poor areas. It is just the way things are - but, a single government could not solve these issues any better. My opponent claims that borders are the problem, that if we erase borders then we can transport things easier. One - there's a less-controversial alternative to this problem: free trade. Second - it seems as if my opponent is completely anti-border, yet he supports individual states making their own decisions on policy issues and holidays. He is stating here that the world is too diverse to government under a single government, that local governments can govern themselves, and supports a confederacy. This form of government has not proved successful in the past.

My opponent said that a World Legislature can vote on issues. The problem with that is: the world is too full of ideas that there would not be a majority in this Congress. There would be Communists (which could garner significant support from areas such as China), Conservatives, Liberals, Islamists, Socialists, etc. There would no majority, and nothing would get passed by this legislature.

A single government comes with too many problems to be a success, is my argument. I hope that the voters will think it through and vote for the debater that made the more logical argument.

My the better debater win.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Aeiouasdf 3 years ago
Aeiouasdf
@WyattEarp19:

Yes, it is next to impossible for such a government to be formed starting tomorrow. In today's polarized world, majority are not going to embrace the idea because of various factors including patriotism and religion. However, this does not mean that the idea is irrational or even bad. This debate was meant to answer a moral, although hypothetical, question rather than to solve an immediate and urgent issue.
Posted by WyattEarp19 3 years ago
WyattEarp19
I like this idea of a one nation society and how it could benefit us all but it is a little vague considering many conflicting nations would oppose the idea. However if this was pushed how would this idea spread and work?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
AeiouasdfjvavaTied
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: Pro needed to make two points: (1) that in a one-world government enlightened "philosopher kings" would rule, and (2) a one-world government would be effective in accomplishing all things Pro claims. When Con challenged these two points, Pro's responses were along the lines of "I didn't say it would be perfect." That's not adequate to meet the burden of proof that the world would be better if a one-world government were attempted. The possibility of corruption alone is fatal to the idea; with one government there is no opposing place to provide an escape. Con's examples of rigged elections under corrupt regimes show mechanisms by which corruption can be maintained.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
AeiouasdfjvavaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: It's hard to say though both gave very convincing arguments and used good sources to back it up.