One World Government

As my opponent forfeited his last round I will continue with what I missed in the last round. "Companions would be strictly regulated to prevent the situation that our government is in now." Yet again, good intentions but how is this going to be implemented? The companies got lots of power as we speak and this is something that must be voted, and I don't think the representatives want to bite the hands that feeds them. Also what type of laws were you thinking? "Also new laws that would but more restrictions on the relationships between the news, companies and, government." What do you actually mean with that. If its a free country media are free to pick a side. There should always be independent media but you cant force private media companies to only post "approved" news? " I would like to touch on this bit for it is slightly inaccurate. It is argumentative that the reason for the collapse is the fact the U.S. caused a great amount of stress on the Union, to keep spending to stay ahead in the arms race in one government this would not be a problem. Mikhail Gorbachev was a reformist who though that the Union needed become more economically flexible. He also thought that the eastern states should be able to govern them selves, which then lead to a domino effect in Russia leading to the collapse of the soviet union." Its true that the US caused a lot of stress to the soviet economy. However people had up until the breakdown been controlled by Soviet puppet leaders and the big army, not until the grip was loosened a bit people actually dared to rebell. However the hungarian people actually revolted already in 1956, which ended in a soviet slaughter where thousands of people were killed by Soviet tanks. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... ""That means they will choose the president that is best for everyone and not for themselves. And sadly there will always be power hungry humans."" "Can you please rephrase this because this supports my side." Yes of course, I'm sorry, it's supposed to be like this. (That means they will choose the president that is best for themselves and not for everyone. And sadly there will always be power hungry humans.) "We cant do that by killing each over religion or skin color." Forcing people into one country will not stop people from doing that, what we must do is to understand each over, which can be done as well with individual countries ,perhaps even better than as a single country. "Under one world it would significant improvement in technology and overall human life. With the world working together and not against each other many of the world problems would be solved. The total elimination of poverty would be impossible however, the poverty of not having access to clean water or food could be eliminated." Truth be told I think it would be even worse as we got thousands of different opinions and types that all are supposed to fit into the same mall which doesn't make sense, its like in the toy where you have different geometric shapes and holes they can fit in, only you try to fit all pieces into a single hole which is only made for one piece(hope you understand what I mean). Many of these things could be achieved even today but let's face it, the larger the country the harder it is to deal with problems like large local unemployment and corruption. I dont think that your "utopian" one world government will work, either it wont exist at all or it will be a totalitarian government. My vision is instead that smaller countries work together in unions, not super nations but semi loose unions(almost like the european union with a few exceptions). This way no country will have total power and you dont get "uber powerful" super powers. Trade should be international and the countries' economies should be close together, however each nation still uses their own currency(but they might use a "trade currency" in trade between borders) Thank you and good luck.