World government

Thanks, Pro, for challenging me to this debate.I'll begin by responding to some of my opponent's claims (which I will highlight in bold) in the order in which he presents them. Then I will present my arguments against a single world government.[[ REBUTTAL ]]Re: Mankind's goal of a single unified World Government. Through World Government there would be no wars among Man we would finally have the strength and unity to achieve goals we at our current state could not achieve...First, it is a bare assertion to say that a world government is mankind's goal. Mankind as a collective cannot have a single goal; goals are unique to the individual. My position in this debate will be to establish that not only is a world government impractical, but also immoral. Pro hasn't explained how a world government would lead to no war. A single government domain can most certainly create war/conflict. For example, the American Civil War was carried out among people unified under the domain of the United States federal government.Re: There are no resource differnces, cultural diffrences and national differnces to support or even justifiy conflicts.While I agree that we are all human beings with the fundamental right to life and the pursuit of happiness, it is simply untrue that we are not separated by unique cultural differences that may lead to a conflict in values. Nationalism is not the only thing that separates people or dictates culture. Each person's right to recognize their own religious beliefs, place a different weight on certain ethical standards, have their own subjective preferences, and an entirely different life experience based on factors like race, class, etc. (which would not be eliminated even under a single government) indicate that differences and thus conflict is inevitable. Re: Of course such World government would A: literally the weight of the World on there shoulders. B: fear of the people that the power is missused by the few in charge... A world government would quickliy lead to the tought that with some much bureaucracy World Government would not be capeable to function correctliy... My opponent brings up a good point about power being insulated in the hands of a small, bureaucratic minority and indeed I believe that would be a disastrous (and immoral), probably inevitable facet of world government. I will talk more about this in my Arguments section. I agree that like whatever my opponent is referencing here (his grammar made it very hard to understand what exactly he is referring to), this would be a negative and harmful result of any attempt at a world government. Re: Nations would be remain like they are but are now like states like texas for example, who belong to a continet and each continent would sent representivtes to form a senate.I will talk more about this in the Arguments section, but this suggestion seems to complicate if not negate Pro's argument. Having multiple governments within a "single" government seems contradictory. [[ ARGUMENTS ]]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.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, 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.There are a few ways in which governments 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 have completely different values. Even people who come from similar backgrounds and cultures 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 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 dictate how another population lives or governs their lives, tension, hostility, resentment and other animosity would inevitably ensue. History shows us how populations react to this kind of conflict: 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. In choosing what values to put into law, due to differences in opinion, a significant amount of people are going to be 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., Republicans 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 about their political agenda and fight to change it. Expecting everyone 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 should be forcefully influential in dictating laws that govern people from a completely different culture.I'm curious as to what type of government my opponent intends would be successful (or moral) anyhow. There are 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 incredibly problematic. 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.