A World Government is fundamentally not a good idea.

"The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed." - Thomas Jefferson Ah, if only it were that simple: government exists to provide people with safety, happiness, and to protect their interests... but what happens when what makes one group happy, greatly angers another? What happens when what is in the best interest for one group, is not in the best interest of another? This is not an improbable hypothetical, but in fact the blatant reality governments of every nation continuously struggle with and have throughout history. If my opponent suggests that this is NOT the purpose of government, then right away we have a damning conflict. 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? Such a proposition seems absurd. Perhaps a more pragmatic explanation of the role of government is to provide a system in which individuals give a portion of their freedom in order to create a system of governance that allows for peace and prosperity. Governments are supposed to protect the rights of its people by holding them accountable to certain social standards a.k.a. laws. Laws are supposed to reflect human rights. Of course outside of the right to life (which seems to be universally regarded with only some deviations), rights are little more than arbitrary opinions. We know that based on the evolution of rights throughout history. For example, abortion was once not a legal right in America, and now it is. Regarding the implementation and protection of government, there are a few ways in which they are established and upheld. Some governments are authoritarian, and some are democratic. Some are a combination of the two. 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. With that said, it seems obvious that creating a world government is implausible, impractical, and even immoral. As such, it is fundamentally not a good idea. First, let's consider the fact that the globe is populated with more than 6 billion people. These people come from vastly different backgrounds and live incredibly different lives. Their culture and lifestyle shape their values. Even people who come from similar backgrounds and cultures and lead similar lives often have completely different values (see: some Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.). If the purpose of government is to establish laws that protect important social values, how can we expect so many people coming to a consensus about what rules we should use to govern? Such a possibility quite frankly seems absurd and would inevitably create conflict. For example, in Africa they practice female circumcision; in the Middle East they stone adulterers. Are those customs that people in the West would appreciate or even tolerate? Of course not. In trying to infringe on how another population lives or governs their lives, tension, hostility, resentment and other animosity would inevitably ensue. History shows us how populations react to those kinds of conflict. What winds up happening is the formation of a small militia type group that fights (literally - violently) to protect their values within a community. This has happened since the beginning of mankind. With a multitude of groups doing that, you ultimately have the formation and creation of various governments. As such, a single world government is completely unlikely of ever being possible or successful. It is impractical and improbable, to say the least. In choosing what values to put into law, due to differences in opinion, a significant amount of people are going to be incredibly upset if they are forced to abide by a specific value they disagree with which would inevitably be the case. For instance, consider how in the U.S., Republican citizens all threatened to leave the country or revolt of Obama were re-elected. Of course Americans are too lazy/distracted/apathetic to ever actually fight back... and are ridiculed when doing so, eg. Occupy Wall Street... but that is not the case in other parts of the world where people have nothing better to do than care or worry about their political agenda and fight to change it. Expecting such a number of people to accept unwanted laws is unrealistic. Clearly there would be a significant backlash against the authorities, which would be completely disruptive and expensive both in terms of resources and human capital. Productivity will be stifled and people would lose their lives fighting for freedom from the oppression of global tyranny. It is not moral to suggest that people from one culture in America should be forcefully influential in dictating laws that govern people from a completely different culture in Timbuktu. I'm curious as to what type of government my opponent intends would be successful (or moral) anyhow. He's mentioned that he wants a "moderate" government, though of course that is completely ambiguous. He also ignores the dangers of a single authoritative state. Essentially every citizen of the world would be a slave unable to escape an aggressive government. That is inherently oppressive in the truest sense of the word oppression. The ruling class (politicians) and those that protect it (the military) would hold indisputable power over everyone else. That is more than a little problematic. I contend that the extent of unpopularity would create perpetual dissonance under such a system. In conclusion, the fact that people shouldn't be forced to abide by values they don't agree with on such a massive scale; the fact that expecting that to happen despite such vast difference in values would inevitably result in violent conflict as demonstrated through history; the fact that such conflict would infringe on people's right to live freely, as well as create war and inhibit prosperity; and the inevitable futility of trying to implement and sustain such a system in addition to all consideration on a cost-benefit analysis proves why a world government is fundamentally not a good idea. Back to you, Con.