CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
5
Diversity Advantages Homogeneity Advantages
Debate Score:12
Arguments:17
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Diversity Advantages (7)
 
 Homogeneity Advantages (3)

Debate Creator

WinstonC(1226) pic



World Government - Diversity of Governance vs Homogeneity of Governance

World government means uniformity of governance; everywhere would be ruled by a single government. This removes the ability for diversity of governance; different methods of rule under different leadership can not exist simultaneously. Both homogeneity of governance and diversity of governance have their advantages and disadvantages, which do you think is preferable and why?

Diversity Advantages

Side Score: 7
VS.

Homogeneity Advantages

Side Score: 5
1 point

A one world government and the homogeneity of governance that necessarily follows is a terrible idea for a myriad of reasons. While it seems a laudable goal, this perception is the product of shallow, optimistic analysis. The main reason people think it is a good idea is because it would, in theory, mean that wars were not possible. Obviously, however, this isn't the case. Civil wars and insurgencies have the same results as wars between nations: death and destruction.

In addition, imagine if the world government became malevolent. As it stands, if our nation of residence is becoming oppressive we can flee elsewhere. Under a one world government, however, where could one flee to escape it's totalitarian clutches? Further, what force could oppose a malevolent world government? When Adolf Hitler set his sights on world domination it was only other nations that could stop him. Those within his empire had no such ability and even the French resistance required outside aid. The French resistance also only existed due to the fact that the French army wasn't entirely militarily crushed because they were conquered so quickly by the German Blitzkrieg. If there is a malevolent one world government, there will be no force that can oppose it and emerge victorious.

Further, one must think of the manner in which we have progressed as societies in the past. Different nations try different methods of rule and we can compare these to inform our manner of governance. One might find, for example, that giving one's citizenry greater freedoms results in greater productivity. This is a big reason why nations grant freedoms to it's citizens; in the interests of what is pragmatic, rather than in the interests of morality. Different nations and empires each found different methods of progression at different times and intentionally or unintentionally shared these. For one example, the renaissance is at least partially creditable to the manner in which the Medici ruled Florence, including their patronage of artists, inventors and other polymaths.

Finally, one must think about the ability to be represented by one's government and it's accountability to it's citizens. When one is governed on a smaller scale, one can be greater represented by their government. This is both because one makes up a larger percentage of the voting population and because different issues have different importance to people living in different areas. This is demonstrated by, for example, the cities of the U.S. being more left leaning while the countryside is more right leaning (Source 1). These contrasts are magnified when one considers the political and ideological differences between nations. Moreover, under diversity of governance, one may be able to choose between several available options which government they prefer. It is also an immediately apparent fact that a government is more accountable to it's citizens when it is more local. A multinational government based in Brussels, for example, has less reason to be afraid of unrest in London than unrest in Brussels. Moreover, it is easily demonstrated that at larger numbers accountability and representation is reduced. If one has 100 citizens and one ruler, it merely takes ten outspoken citizens for a problem or concern to be made apparent. If one has one million citizens, however, it takes one hundred thousand protestors to have the same effect.

Sources:

(1) http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/political landscape

Side: Diversity Advantages
1 point

First of all a global government might still have a degree of diversity because the government might be compartmentalized into different sectors and sub-sectors similar to how the US is made up of smaller states.

And just because we have separate and sovereign nations doesn't mean we don't already have a small group of elites who control most of the world. 90% of the wealth in the world is owned by a handful of banks and multinational corporations.

Governments will not exist in the future, governments are illogical. Humans shouldn't be making decisions, humans should be arriving at them by determining what is the most logical course of action. No human should have "authority" over another. Reason and methodology should be what governs society.

Side: Diversity Advantages
WinstonC(1226) Clarified
1 point

"First of all a global government might still have a degree of diversity because the government might be compartmentalized into different sectors and sub-sectors similar to how the US is made up of smaller states."

I appreciate your point, but I wouldn't call this diversity of governance because the states can only be as divergent from federal law as the federal government permits. We saw this last decade, for example, with medical marijuana dispensaries being regularly raided by federal agents despite it being legal on the state level.

"Humans shouldn't be making decisions, humans should be arriving at them by determining what is the most logical course of action. No human should have "authority" over another. Reason and methodology should be what governs society."

The difference between making decisions and determining the most logical course of action is that the latter requires a perfect, flawless human with no bias. I'm yet to meet one of those.

Side: Diversity Advantages
1 point

We need different governments so that libs can make empty threats about leaving if they don't get their way ;)

Side: Diversity Advantages
1 point

A one world government would presumably necessitate the eradication of geographical borders. With that, we would see an end to nationalism, a brainwashing tool Albert Einstein once described as, "the measles of mankind".

When "us and them" becomes "us and us", war becomes an anomaly instead of a normality.

Side: Homogeneity Advantages
PeterJoseph(77) Disputed
1 point

Albert Einstein was a zionist shill.

Go back to Israel and suck Jacob de Rothschild's little jalepenis poppers.

Side: Diversity Advantages
NumberOne(445) Disputed
1 point

Albert Einstein was a zionist shill.

He was the exact opposite of a Zionist shill. He was politically opposed to the state of Israel and refused a teaching post at its top university.

The type of Zionism Einstein believed in was socialist Zionism. He would be thoroughly horrified to see Israelis distorting Wikipedia pages and gassing Palestinians.

Side: Homogeneity Advantages
WinstonC(1226) Clarified
1 point

"When "us and them" becomes "us and us", war becomes an anomaly instead of a normality."

"Us and them" dichotomies exist within nations, not just between them. Take, for example, the us vs them divide between Republicans and Democrats.

Side: Diversity Advantages
NumberOne(445) Disputed
1 point

"Us and them" dichotomies exist within nations

Yes, but this does not mean eradicating international states would not bring about a reduction in overall conflict. Under the present system, nationalism is used with great effect to promote international state violence. We saw it with Nazi Germany and Hirohito's Japan, and we have seen it more recently with America, Russia and even China.

Rational people don't throw the entire jar of magic ointment away if they find a fly in it. You talk of dichotomies, but is it not true that you are trying to manufacture a false dichotomy between no improvement and perfection? Nobody has suggested there will be perpetual peace without state borders, only that it will bring us closer to that goal.

Side: Diversity Advantages