The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

One Earth Republic

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
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
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




One Earth Republic
Nations of the Earth under the One Republic

What I will argue for:
Technocratic, Confederation, Representative One Earth Republic.

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.



"One Earth Republic"

Great idea in principle. But completely unworkable in reality.

Let's see how Pro intends to move this discussion forwards.

Debate Round No. 1


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.

1. How should we achieve OER?
In reality, It does not matter. You could achieve it via compulsory world domination or through peaceful means. I don’t want to debate the morality here, But whoever says that war is bad is just wrong. The technological achievements are fruits of 10, 000 years old wars. And the first hammer was not crafted to do work, Rather it was crafted by the first psychopath to hit and smash some heads.

2. How should the borders be drawn?
After conquering the whole planet, The most rational thing to do is divide Earth into regions based on national and cultural identity. This means dividing some big countries or combining some small countries. I would suggest that the smaller the regions are, The better it is to rule over them. And some lands can be procured by the federal government of OER, Such as Sahara, Amazon, And Antarctic. Each region should have its parliament and governor. The division should be done in such a manner that the area and population of each region are nearly equal.

3. Parliament

    1. Lower House – consisting of elected officials, One or two per region. Lower House has the right to access budget, Of inquiry, Question the members of the government, And to introduce the motions, To amend bills and of the initiative.
    2. Upper House – members are selected based on their experience in a certain field. It is non-democratic and technocratic organization. It has the same rights as Lower House, In addition, It can oversee the Lower House and can dismiss the government.

4. Government
Government members are selected from technocrats. Head of government is Prime Minister. Its structure is similar to the German and UK government.

5. Office of President
President is elected by Lower House. Presidents role is similar to German President or Japanese Emperor.

6. Currency
The very first job of OER is get rid of the fiat money for better economic stability. Having dual or triple currency models is more reasonable. Such as gold standard, E-currency and etc.

7. Opposition
Most of the opposition to the new system will come from conservatives and ultra-right wings. The easiest way to deal with such oppositions is to get rid of them with any means possible and as soon as possible. It is the most rational choice for newborn states and systems. By doing so, OER will drastically lower the risk of civil uprise and civil war.

8. Population reduction
Each state should reduce its population. Candidates should be chosen randomly. The candidates must be older than 36 months and pregnant women are exempt from the population reduction program. Given the population of State A is x% of the total population of Earth, Then State A should reduce its population by x%. It is only a one-time program. And the unemployment rate will drop drastically.

9. Conclusion
I dived into structural and organizational matters in this round, And also solutions for certain problems. I will discuss politics and economics in more details in the next 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.
Debate Round No. 2


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.
Debate Round No. 3


tahirimanov forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SDOT 3 years ago
This is definitely not a sensible idea because if we were to all shun our existing national identities and unite to form this one earth republic it would be a huge mess. Although we are all humans we differ in our individual ways, So do nations, Each nation has its own unique identity and a specific type of people who have developed an ideology that is unique to that country and also the needs of people across the world differ and such things would be a mammoth task to take into account if we have a single leadership, Then arises the conflict of ideologies and religion may come into play as well here up to a certain extent. Let us say we agree to all become a single nation so do India and Pakistan. Now since we are all one you would naturally think that there would be no conflict between them but since these are 2 countries that were pitted against each other since their creation the people living in the respective nations have developed a certain way of thinking which would not let them live in harmony. Last point of mine is the law and order situation it would be crazy to think that the number of crimes would not increase if such a thing took place, The good thing though would be criminals would not be able to escape their countries and hide in a corner of the world. On paper this idea seems pretty reasonable but in reality its not feasible.
Posted by Lionstar 3 years ago
He means like one country in control of all.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
How would this be different than the United Nations?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.