CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
26
Yes, bring it on! No, lets keep duking it out!
Debate Score:41
Arguments:25
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, bring it on! (10)
 
 No, lets keep duking it out! (15)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37549) pic



Assuming we determine the best form of government, is one world government desir

One World, One Government, One People!
Bradford, (tinyurl.com)

Yes, bring it on!

Side Score: 15
VS.

No, lets keep duking it out!

Side Score: 26
2 points

I think that having a stronger sense of community and mutual responsibility, even across nations, will always be a good thing. It wouldn't be perfect and there would no doubt be some tinpot dictators declaring independence...the wealthy wouldn't like this either. But as Stephen King wrote, everything's eventual.

Sooner or later it will be proposed, and possibly implemented, most likely after a bloody war or five.

In the end, though, so long as the government is representative and democratic, I believe it would be for the best.

Let's drop the stuff about the Antichrist. That was written by early Christians about a Roman emperor who's been dead for centuries: it's no excuse to hold up human progress or make decisions about world affairs. The Dark Ages are over, let them be over.

Side: Yes, bring it on!
2 points

"Strongest sense of community and mutual responsibility"

Read my argument over there ------->

I'm assuming this is the "concern" that joe mentioned...

"It wouldn't be perfect and there would no doubt be some tinpot dictators declaring independence..."

My answer: Well of coarse things like that would happen. The thing with a Unionized Communist City-State, is that there is no real government... If they are breaking off to become "Independent" what exactly are they freeing themselves from? In a communist nation, everything is split evenly. How can there be "wealthy people"? Also, if you have a "dictator" of a city-state, what bad could he do, and how could he become a dictator if the rest of the world doesn't want him in power of the city-state and places some sort of sanction on him until a decision is made on a federal level and on a city level (The federal level is only there to present a neutral and unbiased viewpoint, as well as bring in the opinions of the surrounding city-states or anyone that is willing to participate.

Side: Yes, bring it on!

OK, Anti-Christ stuff dropped.

Side: Yes, bring it on!
2 points

I think so. Whenever you have a bunch of separate, competing entities without an overall authority, they each tend to behave in a selfish manner which causes a net harm overall. That's why U.S. states ceded a lot of their power to the national government way back. It's why the European Union was formed.

Side: Yes, bring it on!

So it's a good thing that the U.S. states ceded a lot of their power to the Feds? I mean, gay marriage affects all the states because how would a state that bans same sex marriages deal with same sex couples from another state that allows it? Let the Feds decide and the problem goes away.

But the abortion issue could be decided down at the state level and have little impact on the rest of the union. What if the states only cede to the Feds what affects the Union?

As far as the European Union, they seem to be having a little difficulty in trying to please everyone.

Also, does competition between a bunch of separate, entities (without an overall authority) help keep them in line or is it all harmful?

Side: Yes, bring it on!
1 point

"What if the states only cede to the Feds what affects the Union?"

This makes sense to me.

"Also, does competition between a bunch of separate, entities (without an overall authority) help keep them in line or is it all harmful?"

Competition is only good for one thing - forcing the individual entities to become stronger. In some cases, such as business, this can be a good thing, because they're competing to provide more value to the consumer. But this focus on becoming stronger tends to cause them to ignore the side-effects of their actions.

Side: Yes, bring it on!

Once Bradford's results are in (http://tinyurl.com/4mqcko), lets implement it. It would be an interesting experiment ;)

Side: Yes, bring it on!
1 point

I think when we get to the Star Trek dateline and Deep Space 9 then a one government potential is surely appropriate - but along way to go before earthlings have to cope with aliens :-)

Side: Yes, bring it on!
0 points

I'm for self governing. So I suppose it would be nice for everyone in the world to have that freedom.

Side: Yes, bring it on!
2 points

I'm not sure what you mean. Where do you draw the line of self governing? The individual? The family? The city? The state? The country? The Continent? I mean, couldn't we say that we are self governing as a planet / human race?

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
4 points

Government is not a one-size-fits-all entity. There is not, has not, and will not ever be one type of government that works for everyone. And it's not so much about those governed as about those who create the government. The ones who are governed are typically content--when they aren't they help some other group overthrow the current system. But not to put themselves in charge--that's too much work! But to put those who prefer running things a different way in the position of governing them. Every successful empire let local governors run things in a manner comfortable for those governing and tolerable to those governed.

Additionally, the larger the governing organization, the greater the threat of in-fighting and fragmentation. There is a stabilizing point at which a government is capable of maintaining its various parts. Too small and they are absorbed by another entity. Too large and they collapse. European countries are an example of the former... they are now reconfiguring as the EU which claims to be non-governmental, but its more like the early US. The latter type is China which is suffering from political bloat. Sooner or later China will regurgitate smaller governments and eventually explode into independent units (which then may be absorbed by other governments).

The US is somewhere in the middle, leaning towards the bloating phase. The technocultural revolutions of the 20th and 21st centuries are hastening it's demise. The governmental system was not built to endure the types of changes in recent and current generations.

Finally, someone may determine the "best" form of government in an ideological respect, but human nature, culture, and economics will find any ideal to be unsustainable in the real world.

Side: Reality check

One up vote for you. I too believe that one world government is unsustainable without someone wanting to bring it down thus creating a crisis that would force the government's survival instincts to kick in and to clamp down. This would, of course, make matters worse.

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
4 points

If you just look back at what we've had up until now, I think it's pretty obvious. Governments grow larger and larger as communication and transportation gets cheaper, easier, faster, and more reliable.

There's no way to stop it because it's obviously human nature to do this sort of thing.

I think that having a world government would be great for a lot of reasons and possibly necessary... but there are different ways to do this.

When last I described my journey into creating a new "more perfect" government, I didn't say much about what I did. I just said it was like a math problem, which is inaccurate.

I started with one question, and that was "What is government's main function?". I found through simple thought that it must be to secure domestic peace. Governments have many other functions, but to the people of the government, that is the most necessary (according to my train of thought).

So I started by selecting the easiest socio-ecological model that I could work with, and it was a city-state. The reason I chose a city-state is so that you could have many sovereign states within reach of each other, like miniature states or nations but not too complex from an individual standpoint.

This is very important to me, to be able to have sovereignty, and simplicity, in a democracy (which was the model I was assuming I would find when I came out of the thought exercise). Well, I then started working on the government by setting up a stand-alone "de-facto" governmental operating system, that would ensure for one, that there would be domestic peace, and two, a fail safe for the citizens, so that the government if susceptible to corruption, can seek federal aid in correcting the issue (which would ultimately handled by other City-States under federal jurisdiction).

This "operating system" was like a universally acceptable base of laws and principles that could be implemented or standardized via federal law and contested fairly easy by a sovereign city state if justifiable. The reason the laws are there, is to stabilize the city-state until they recreate the laws themselves or alter them and then enact them. So, there is a sort of starter kit for new city-states, but they are flexible so that they can meet the needs of the city. This way laws feel more familiar and are respected more by the citizens.

All government control will be decided by the public, as will essentially everything else. People will be appointed by the public, and the education system will in all city-states be required to teach philosophy, under federal law. Again, there is no punishment for not teaching philosophy for whatever reason, so long as there is in fact a reason.

Philosophy, I think is very important for demonstrating the power of the mind, and opening the doors to curiosity and the feeling of true freedom. Logic and reason will be some of the courses taught because they help remedy the ignorance of bias.

The city-state under federal law, would allow people to be transported from one city-state to another based on skill, and belief or just to move. This would mean that in one city, you would see so many Christians, and in another, so many Catholics, and with that demographic, you would see a lot of rules changed to better suit their belief system, but it would still be governed by the federal level government. In that case, if there's something going on in one city-state that isn't acceptable to most of the other city-states under federal jurisdiction, then the federal government can reset the operating system for say, 15 years as a penalty, and if the city-state still feels the need to, they can re-enact the laws that were reset... try, try again.

Oh man, typing this all out is going to take FOREVER. Everything flows so much faster when it's just a thought...

ANYHOW, I think this is what the world government should be like. Break down Nations into sovereign City-States with a number of hierarchical systems of governance that control blocks of area, that is essentially neutral and plays no role in governance but communication and universal operating systems by which all City-States must obey if they step out of line... and if they don't, settle it the old fashioned way, war.

So in short, the people control the city, the cities report to a higher state (which for now I'll just call a meta-state), which could just be based on geography or population, the 'meta-state' is neutral, but communicates with other city-states on city-state issues according to the federal governmental operating system, and then to the federal level that overlooks all geographically sectioned meta-states and then to the city-states. This way the people are always in control...

Er, If you have a question ask, I'll answer it.

Side: Unionized Communist City-States
2 points

I don't believe the city-state is a viable option as the dominant form of government anymore.

City-states are extremely susceptible to the economic development and climate of their region (and the world). Nowadays, to be prosperous, a city, town, or outland requires the productivity of a nation to survive (in the modern sense). We can talk about how interconnected nations are when it comes to resources and trade; far more interconnected are the cities within a given nation.

Allow me to give you an example: If the state of Montana were to secede (or be kicked out), especially if all of its towns and cities seceded to become independent, the people would find themselves living in the third-world. Because of how interdependent and complicated the economy has become; because individuals, towns, counties, states, and even nations no longer have the capacity to produce what they need and want internally; no city or state can stand alone without being knocked back a few pegs on the standard of living scale.

Montana, other states, regions, and classes all depend on Federal aid and development; assistance they would not get were they to be individual city-states.

To put it bluntly, millions to billions of people rely on large governments combining the productive capacity of all of the cities under it and using that capacity to redistribute money and manpower to more equally benefit the population.

What people don't recognize is that while we do, in fact, tax the rich to give to the poor we also tax the rich cities and states to give to the poorer cities and states.

Without this we would see all of the rich creating or moving to their own city-state and leaving the poor to flounder.

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!

Yes, I have a question. Can you please address Sysiphuslove's concern about community?

BTW, Aren't you on the wrong side? I mean, I thought you were arguing for one world government but you're on the no column?

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
1 point

Done, and I am on the side that says "No, let's keep duking it out" because my argument implies no single government, but MORE governments that belong to smaller groups of people. The Federal level "government" is not a government at all, it's more of a neutral entity without the governments that the governments use to settle disputes, but ultimately, it would be up to the city-states to act... they would not be forced to act by the fed.

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
2 points

A one-world government sounds a bit sketchy. It's hard to imagine democracy working well when power is so centralized. Then again, it depends on how it's structured and how much power is doled out to the leaders.

The Anti-Christ bit was a nice touch. Something about that seems so very Christian, as soon as there is world peace and unity across the globe we're all fucked.

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!

Yes, the different governments keep each other off balance so that no one government can implement everything they desire. A one world government has the potential of becoming authoritative and taking it to a new level never before seen on the planet. And it could all be done under the pretext of betterment for all.

All current governments have some level of corruption. How would a world government police itself if the people that make up that government make alliances for their own benefit?

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
2 points

One world government allows for exploitation of people and one-size-fits-all legal systems. Multiple governments allow people to naturalize to countries that suit their needs. The fewer the governments the fewer the choices for happiness.

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
1 point

A single world government would eliminate some of the most important checks & balances required for freedom. There must be competition to ensure freedom, that includes competition between world leaders & governments.

On an aside, have you ever read about the Bilderberg Group? From Wikipedia:

"Daniel Estulin, writing in Nexus magazine, claims the long-term purpose of Bilderberg is to "Build a One-World Empire." He states the group "is not the end but the means to a future One World Government". Radio host Alex Jones claims the group intends to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States and other countries into a supra-national structure similar to the European Union."

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!

I tend to agree with you that "the group intends to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States and other countries into a supra-national structure similar to the European Union." I don't think this is necessarily a good thing but something that we have to go through/experience before passing judgment.

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
1 point

That would be placing too much power in one group of hands.

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
0 points

Don't you guys agree that more is better? More government(s)?

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
1 point

That is my point. I think if we were to expand one government, it would have to govern the governments because there can be no single form of government that everyone can completely agree on.

You would have one government and many many many many MANY unhappy nations struggling to keep certain traditions that others wouldn't want available in their nations...

A lot of the problem stems from culture, and as anyone who has left their home will know, culture varies a lot from city to city. Even within a city there is a lot going on, on a cultural level, but they are all bound by geography...

If we could all agree on what I am talking about up there, and were to test it out, because it's a union of communist states, you could consolidate all of one culture in one city... What I mean by that is, provide free fair, and a home to live in, with like-people. This would be good for the culture, and great for the people living in the city because they could express themselves within the culture that might be oppressed in another.

I could see some issues with that though, but it would only be an issue between city-states and that could be settled by other city-states.

Side: No, lets keep duking it out!
jolie(9804) Disputed
2 points

But the UN is structured like what you are describing (unless I misunderstood) and it doesn't seem to work. Could it be that the UN doesn't work because there are members that are much stronger than the UN? For example, the U.S.. Should American power be neutralized? What are the dangers/risks of neutralizing the U.S.? For example, what if our next president unilaterally reduces the U.S. military and nuclear arsenal? I kind of like nukes. They're so powerful and....phallic. ;)

Side: Yes, bring it on!