World government > present day UN

Note: I will use the American Civil War example a lot in this round because the World Government is supposedly structured as the United States were. 1) Wars. While my opponent claims that political groups would not wage guerrilla or open war because they have representation and state's rights, the seceding states in the American Civil War had representation and state's rights and still fought a civil war. Union doesn't promise peace. Minorities will still fight for safety from whom they perceive to be oppressors. 2) Technology. As already demonstrated, wars will still occur, so the need for military technology will never disappear. In addition, the dissolution of the war technology sector will not necessarily (or likely) lead to more private investment in technology. 3) Cultures. I reiterate that cultures prefer to maintain sovereignty over themselves, and any sort of world governmental assembly will threaten that. History demonstrates (from the first round) that hostile cultures cannot hold active jurisdiction over each other and expect peace. While the UN has no authority to trespass sovereignty, a world government based on the United States federal system would certainly have such trespassing capability, and would therefore lead to unofficial wars and create cultural tensions. To my case: 1) Taxation My opponent has clarified that he envisions a per-person tax to sustain the world government. Such a law may lead to more unethical population control laws (discussed briefly below) in nation states and will no doubt be unfair to poorer and more undeveloped countries, which cannot afford to pay as much per person as the industrialized ones. ==Population Control== It can only be enforced in one or more of the following ways, all of which are widely considered unethical: - Aborting excess fetuses - Forcibly sterilizing women with the allowed children already produced - Infanticide of excess population 2) Civil Wars I concede there is no blatant issue here; however, this is effectively what the United Nations attempts to do. 3) Sovereignty My opponent has stated that a nation is free to secede from this world government. First, such a government would cease to be a world government, but an oversized military alliance. Second, following the United States format, nations are in fact not free to secede [1][2], and such secession results in an act of aggression by the remaining parties [3], perhaps starting because the remaining parties insist on keeping an unwarranted military fort within the seceding country [4], and probably resulting in the total (but unnecessary) destruction of this seceding country and its economy [5], leading to the formation of racist hate groups [6] that will still commit terrorism centuries later [7]. Besides history, no small victimized nation could possibly stand alone against the rest of the world, and so it is more likely that any democratic abuse taken would be chronic. CONCLUSION The World Government proposition has effectively the same role and power as the United Nations, with the exception that it threatens the sovereignty of individual cultures and would probably lead to more conflict than there already is. Therefore, this proposition is not superior to the present day United Nations. Thank you. ==Sources== [1] . http://www.oyez.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://library.thinkquest.org... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://www.pinzler.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...