One Earth Republic
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 1/30/2019 | Category: | Politics | ||
Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 405 times | Debate No: | 120094 |
One Earth Republic Nations of the Earth under the One Republic What I will argue for: Technocratic, Confederation, Representative One Earth Republic. Definitions: 1. Technocracy is a proposed system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in their areas of responsibility, Particularly scientific knowledge. 2. A confederation (also known as a confederacy or league) is a union of sovereign states, United for purposes of common action often in relation to other states. 3. Representative - the principle of elected officials representing a group of people. 4. A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, Not the private concern or property of the rulers. First round is for acceptance, Introduction and definitions.
Hello. "One Earth Republic" Great idea in principle. But completely unworkable in reality. Let's see how Pro intends to move this discussion forwards. Regards. |
![]() |
I thank Sonofchari for accepting the debate. I intend to debate this topic in sections. I intend to debate this topic in sections, Reason being I cannot cover everything from geopolitics to economy in one round.
Well! Interesting stuff. 1) I would suggest that peaceful compulsory world domination is a contradiction in terms. Programmes of global re-education and conditioning could possibly achieve this, But how would such schemes be implemented without the use of initial force anyway? 2) Who is going to be doing the conquering and dominating? Pro has not yet made this clear. I would suggest that this could only be achieved with super-power co-operation and I cannot see this happening anytime soon. Unless Pro is aware of a secret ongoing conspiracy. 3) Enforced compulsory domination means what it says. Oppression and subjugation. In other words a militarily controlled system probably autocratically lead. The imposition of regions and elections and independent governance would simply be enforced pseudo-liberalism. Window dressing in simple terms. 4) Independent regional government would be largely irrelevant and could only serve as an administrative body rather than a decision making one. 5) State control would already be in place. Therefore Presidential Elections would also be irrelevant. Autocrats are what autocrats do and autocrats are either replaced by force or death. 6) A one state system could in theory function without money, As a single system would have control over all resources. In a one state utopia resources would be free and fairly allocated. In Pro's single state dystopia I doubt that free and fair would be the order of the day. And economic stability would be a meaningless concept, Because there would be no comparative. 7) Opposition in a one state system would come from just about everyone other than those pointing the guns and I think that it's fair to suggest that the ones pointing the guns initially are going to be the conservatives and the ultra-right wingers. 8) Enforced random population reduction (another contradiction in terms). I think that Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot to name but three, All came up with this idea at one time. Enforced contraception and sterilization would be the slightly more civilised approach but it appears that civility is not necessarily the watchword in Pro's one state vision. 9) Conclusion: I would suggest that Pro dived in without due consideration for the hidden rocks that lay just beneath the surface. |
![]() |
tahirimanov forfeited this round.
Come on tahirimanov. For some reason I was expecting a better than average response from you. Sadly you appear to be fizzling out like most others do. |
![]() |
tahirimanov forfeited this round.
Ok. |
![]() |


