one world's one government, and not many governments, in the future.

"I said that the disparity would never shore up to a very high level, where first and third world resemblance reappears."There would be no first and third world resemblance - because we would all be one nation. But economic disparity would continue to exist. Even in a single government - the US - disparity continues to thrive. I just think this an interesting chart. It depicts that even in the United States disparity exists. A single government would not get rid of disparity - it would just be on a much bigger, global scale. You have attributed that a single government would rid the world of disparity - or at least lessen the burden - due to a number of reasons: the "finder's keeper" policy, etc. You also noted that "It is a well-established economic theory, and one of the objectives or globalization." You did not provide a source for this theory. A single government would not lessen economic disparity in any way. It would simply be on a much larger, global scale. "China isn't a communist nation because the Chinese people support the system with their votes."Communism is an economic policy. The Chinese vote for this policy."...it is very unlikely that the Communist party will receive a majority if they go to an election."My argument is not that the Communist party will gain a majority, but rather that there will be no clear majority in a world legislature. There are so many opinions, parties, floating around in the world, that this Global Congress will have so many ideologies that they will never be able to pass anything. "When did Russian, Cuban or North Korean communist party get a majority of vote in an election? Never."http://en.wikipedia.org...I realize that this is from WikiPedia, but it is still very factual and true.It describes the North Korean election of 2009 - where the Communist party (aka Worker's Party) received a huge majority of votes. And you can argue that these people aren't truly voting for these candidates, that they are forced to. But this relates to another one my arguments - what happens if someone corrupt gets into office, like North Korea? Even if small or large groups support this corrupt leadership doesn't matter - the fact is that they are able to get into public office and dictate everybody life. Whether small or large groups support the corruption is besides the point. "What you are proposing is a communist confederation." This is a statement I made. In a way, yes you are. You want to spread the wealth around to "lighten the burden of disparity" and you want separate states to decide what is best for them in terms of policy issues and holidays. In a way, you do support a communist confederation. "As for the rich people getting grouped together, it will not be possible as the poor too can resettle in the booming areas. Resources can be mobilized without the hindrance of international borders. Yes, US has its disparity between states, but even European Union has much more disparity, despite leaning heavily to the left."You wanted the voters to read this entire paragraph. I am providing it now.What I want to say is that, currently, in the US the poor have these opportunities as well. The poor can settle in booming areas - such as cities. The problem is that rich tend to settle in more affluent areas and the poor in poorer areas. This is a trend that cannot be erased even in under a single government.I don't get why this is so impressive, in your eyes. Yes, there are no borders to block resources - but there are other ways of solving this issue between nations. Free trade, for example. And even under one government, there would still be an inequality. "What I am saying is that people from the poor parts can migrate to the places with job, while enterprise or capital can go to places with more resources and cheaper labor."We have the ability to do that now, and large disparity still occurs. The poorer citizens live in cities, where jobs are available. Enterprise and capital go to places with cheaper labor and resources - areas such as East Asia. I don't understand your argument pertaining to this issue. It doesn't make sense - one nation cannot lighten the burden of disparity, period. "The only claim I made was that national borders won't hinder such transfers anymore."Free trade without all the issues, plain and simple. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like to sum my stance to the voters. A single government would not lighten the burden of great disparity, as my opponent suggested; it would simply be on a much larger scale. In the US, we have naturally rich areas, and naturally poor areas. It is just the way things are - but, a single government could not solve these issues any better. My opponent claims that borders are the problem, that if we erase borders then we can transport things easier. One - there's a less-controversial alternative to this problem: free trade. Second - it seems as if my opponent is completely anti-border, yet he supports individual states making their own decisions on policy issues and holidays. He is stating here that the world is too diverse to government under a single government, that local governments can govern themselves, and supports a confederacy. This form of government has not proved successful in the past. My opponent said that a World Legislature can vote on issues. The problem with that is: the world is too full of ideas that there would not be a majority in this Congress. There would be Communists (which could garner significant support from areas such as China), Conservatives, Liberals, Islamists, Socialists, etc. There would no majority, and nothing would get passed by this legislature.A single government comes with too many problems to be a success, is my argument. I hope that the voters will think it through and vote for the debater that made the more logical argument.My the better debater win.