World government

Thanks, Conquerer. Pro says that a world government could be structured like a federal republic, where there is a division of powers between the national ("federal") government, and the government of the individual subdivisions. First, there would still be a widespread division regarding the size and scope of the federal government. Views would differ on what issues should be of sub-divisional governmental structures, and whether or not the the subdivisions also have sovereignty in some matters where the federal government does not have jurisdiction. Widespread conflict would still inevitable, so please extend all of my arguments regarding that problematic concern. Pro says that this suggestion is not problematic because it works in the United States. Let's consider the fact that the U.S. is theoretically in a 50/50 split between the two major parties: Democrats and Republicans, which often have starkly contrasting views on how the government should function. After each presidential election, roughly half of all voters are disgruntled, though the reality is that many people either don't vote (on purpose, like Voluntaryists) or don't vote D/R, so there is even more division than meets the eye. Pro says that a unified government would be premised on the concept of human rights, ignoring that what is considered a "human right" is still largely disputed. People argue about human, legal and governmental rights all the time. He is throwing around catch phrases with no basis in reality of how those rights are viewed or determined - not only across the country, but all over the world. My opponent says that we cannot expect a world (or any) government to be perfect and I would agree. He then asked if I believed the federal government should be dismantled into 50 smaller governments run by each state. Yes, I do think state governments are a better idea than a federal government, but that's neither here nor there. The rest of my opponent's case rests on the concept of "humanity" and in favor of human rights which I've already addressed. I'll repeat and number the arguments of mine that I don't believe were adequately addressed: 1. If people can't even agree on what the purpose of government is or should be, then how can we suppose that people can agree on the principles that should be established for a united, single world government? Even in a federal republic type structure, people would still have to agree on the rights and responsibilities of the federal (single) authoritative power. 2. That's another thing - Pro says that a world government wouldn't necessarily be authoritative in nature because of the federal republic type structure, but that ignores the reality that the "federal" government would still have complete and utter jurisdiction over all disputes, as well as the power to override the smaller governments. 3. How can we expect everyone or even most people to agree on the rights a single world government ought to uphold? 4. Regardless of the structure, the law of the land - any law in any land - is upheld through law enforcement, typically police and/or a military. Having a single militaristic power seems dangerous and problematic (tyrannical). It also wouldn't prevent conflict or "war" between separate smaller governments. See: The Civil War in the U.S. My previous conclusion is upheld.