A World Government is fundamentally not a good idea.

To answer my opponent's first statement that is really addressed to me, regarding what is the purpose of government, there's no need to worry about a damning conflict; we seem to be quite agreed.A Motley GroupMy opponent certainly has a very fair point, that around the world, there are so many different values, that they can hardly seem compatible. There are some societies based off of petty political bickering, some based off of religious fanaticism, and some that have become so entangled in fights for freedom that they have lost other aspects of their culture. I think, however, that what can be said to be common between all of these people is credo, or the felt necessity for documentation or otherwise insurance that they will receive certain laws. Whether it's a shepherd, living in a desert, or an international oil tycoon, everyone feels the need to have something that prescribes what they get out of life. In the case of some societies, this is an extensive legal document, or series of documents, enumerating exactly what they can and cannot do, to what they are and are not entitled. In the case of others, this may be a holy book, written millenia ago. In the case of some, it may be both. Whatever the case, despite highly extensive differences, people all have that common ground (so I think; I'd not object to correction).I'm very glad that my opponent brought up the example of the United States, for it is, in some instances, a very good example. Before becoming 'united,' the United States were a group of loosely affiliated, neighboring countries, akin to the European Union, and before that, they were a group of unaffiliated colonies, with no ties not geographical. But look at them now--a proud, albeit too proud, united, though not always, country, for the most part civil and peaceful in respect to each other. The concept behind United States government was a revolution in the device of government. Not without its flaws, to be sure, but a very good example of how different nations with different values and different cultures can band together and form one nation which, while retaining the cultural values and interests of each individual component, holds common interests and values. Could not a world government act in a similar manner?A Pragmatic and Completely Optional World GovernmentI think it would be prudent to clarify what sort of government I'm talking about, to provide my opponent with something a little more material to critique (I apologize for the ambiguity of a 'moderate world government'). I advocate a world government which is strong, and prudently federalized, yet gentle, in that any country may opt out of it. If such and such a country does not like the law of the land, they're free to either leave the law or leave the land (my specific ideology is socialistic representative democracy). Ideally speaking, all countries are to be fairly represented. Whether that is by parliament, congress, council, or soothsayer is up to those who wish to decide how such a government would work (I have designed such a government; if it is deemed prudent, I will discuss it here, otherwise, private message for details).As tacky as it may sound, I think that space travel will be the gateway to a unified planet; when humans discover that they are not alone in the universe, when they realize how very small they are, they will realize that their petty bickering amongst each other is futile and childish, and unite. That may be centuries away, but it is an ideal that I hold. When I say 'world government,' I don't mean an oppressive and militantly enforced dictatorship, or policy that represses cultures, or a blending and squelching of the individuality that we hold so important. By all means, individual cultures and identities are to be preserved. The squelching of culture and individual, and the oppressive enforcement of government are the dark and overstated form of globalization. Such forms of globalization have been made famous by tyrants such as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. It should be noted that globalization is not entirely represented by such people! The ideals of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are by no means those of globalization (it may not be necessary to emphasize this so, but in the past, I have encountered such a misconception as it seems necessary, perhaps, to clarify as to what sort of globalization I refer). Globalization is more ideally the peaceful and equal cooperation of all nations. One way or another, globalization, I think, shall not be stopped, but I'm straying off topic, so it's time for a new paragraph.My Opponent's View, and My ViewYou've expressed the potentially amoral aspects of world government, as is your role in the debate. I'm curious, however, what provides the presupposition that a world government would be aggressive and oppressive? I'm certainly not holding ideal anything aggressive or oppressive. We almost seem to be debating two totally different concepts; you've described world government as one nation or one group of nations militantly controlling others, dictating policies of slavery and servitude of the people to the government. My ideal is far from this! Every country should have a voice, and no country should be forced to participate in a world government. To use a sandbox analogy, each country may be viewed as a child in a sandbox that is the world, and a world government as several children choosing to play together; no child is obligated to play with the others, and is free to avoid the others in the sandbox.Conclusion, or rather, Response to My Opponent's ConclusionI agree with you; people should not be forced to abide by values with which they don't agree. I also agree that trying to force people to abide by values to which they're opposed would result in violent opposition. I further agree that the ensuing war would infringe upon all toward which such a government would hopefully be striving. In fact, my opponent and I seem to be agreed, for the most part, and trying to argue against different ideals. Suppression, repression, and/or oppression of any one culture or individual by another, labelled 'world government,' would indeed be a fundamentally bad idea.Over to Pro.