We should have a world government

I do like you argument, sir. I enjoy how you think outside the box and challenge the rules of society. All I ask for is an engaging argument and a fun time. Here we go. While a world government would probably stop war forever, it would also have some major flaws. It would destroy the diversity of the world which people cherish. It would make the world much less interesting. And if the entire world is controlled by only one power, that power would have an unlimited ability to control its people without any foreign powers stepping in. Imagine if the entire world was controlled by Nazi Germany, or some kind of twisted dictatorship like that. That would probably be awful. It would definitely be awful. That's how things are in George Orwell's book 1984. Besides, this thing wouldn't last long, because people have different interests and opinions. It would break up into smaller countries, and the whole thing would start over again. If one, or two world governments were created, then everybody on the planet would have to learn one official language, and all media would be spoken in that language. All traditions and cultures would be destroyed. You wouldn't live in Japan, China, Russia, or wherever you live. You would only be one part of a giant empire that stretched onward forever. People who were used to living in their own country would have to adapt to new laws and new regulations, and the diversity of certain regions could result in riots and catastrophes. Two world governments would bring about the largest catastrophe of all time, the end of democracy and race. Unity is not always a good thing, sir. Of course, your simple mind considers unity as the greatest thing a world like ours could achieve, but you must understand that every historical change, especially an enormous one such as this, would have a massive effect on the people who inhabit our fragile planet. We have to work up small steps to reach an absolute utopia, gradually. If we unified all at once, the world would go berserk and people would be very upset. I agree that we should stop war forever. But I think that there are alternatives. For instance, instead of unifying, why not just stop war, and keep the countries how they are? My strategy is as follows: If two countries (For instance, the U.S. and North Korea) want to fight and refuse to compromise, then they can argue before a committee of three or so countries, all of which are very diverse, to prevent bias. For instance, let's say Germany, China, and Russia. It wouldn't necessarily be those three, it's just an example. before these three countries, the two fighting countries must state, in turn, their reasons for hating the other country, how they run their country, and how they would run the other country if they took it over. After a few weeks of retiring to decide, the three council countries come back and choose which country presented a more valid argument. For instance, if one country is more restrictive on its citizens, or the government has more power, then that country loses and the winning country either decides to take over the losing country or allow it to keep running in exchange for more just laws and no more arguments. If the losing country is invaded, and after three years, the citizens do not like their new government, then the old government is restored. It's simple, and it's easy. We do not need war anymore, because we are civilized people and we can handle everything, even international relations, in a civilized manner. The key is not to avoid war, but rather, to accept that it is a natural process and the fact that it can be handled without killing anyone. This system makes much more sense than uniting all the countries in the world just to stop war. This is ridiculous. I also notice that you point out how corrupt the government of today is, but you don't change the government at all in your new utopia. You only have five or so people per hemisphere! That's insane! You understand that each hemisphere contains about 3.5 billion people, don't you? Five people to 3.5 billion is a much more unfair ratio than, say, the current U.S. ratio, which is 323 million people to about fifty people, including all three branches of our government. In your new utopia, it would be much harder to get elected for even the smallest position, because you would be competing against many more people. Your Utopian government sounds much more corrupt than our government now. In the next round, I will propose what I think is the best method of government. I await your next argument. Good luck.