BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A world government would foster a constructive cosmopolitanism

International relations specialists have long concluded that for a successful political amalgamation to take place, the people of the various regional components of that amalgamation must have a great deal in common. The history of nation-states demonstrates, for example, that a common language is a strong unifying force. But there must be other strong commonalities aside from language. There cannot be extreme differences in economic conditions among the regions, or extreme differences in political beliefs and ideologies, or extreme differences in cultural attitudes and social mores. When we look at the world of nations today, we cannot avoid acknowledging the existence of extreme differences in all of these areas. Aside from economics and political ideologies, the most obvious factors are the multiplicity of languages and religions. We are forced to conclude that a successful political amalgamation among such a wide assortment of dramatically diverse nations is virtually impossible.
There is no popular support for such a body

Although post-World War II world government proposals were mostly for an unlimited world government descriptively designated the “omnipotent world state,” there has been considerable evolution in world federalist thought since the immediate post-war period. More recent proposals envision a limited federal world government subject to significant restraints that would effectively eliminate the danger of global tyranny. Among these are proposals that discontented member nations may withdraw peacefully, at their unilateral discretion, from the federation, and that member nations are allowed to retain independent control over armed forces. In addition to these provisions, a sensible voting scheme in the world legislature would preclude the poor countries enforcing their preferences on the rich countries, and vice versa. In any case, excessive emphasis on the heterogeneity of  nations tends to obscure the fact that in reality—despite the obvious differences in language, race, religion and culture—a considerable amount of consensus has already been achieved among the global human population on some critical elements of ethical behavior and social organization. The existence of a federal world government would facilitate further development of the friendly, cooperative and mutually supportive impulses within people.
A world government would add another, laborious level of bureaucracy

Although it is a popular form of entertainment to malign generic bureaucracies, professional sociologists define a bureaucracy in neutral terms as any large-scale, hierarchical organization that practices specialization and division of labor in its operations. According to this definition, such organizations as armies, navies, business corporations, the International Red Cross, and numerous others, are classified as bureaucracies no less than national tax collection agencies—the archetypical target of “bureaucracy haters.” It is important to understand that bureaucracies do not arise from nowhere, but are a tangible consequence of perceived needs and shared purposes. With that in mind, it can further be argued that a world government would not necessarily increase the total bureaucratic burden on the human population of the world. Some functions currently handled by separate national government bureaucracies might more cost effectively be handled by an analogous world government bureaucracy.
There is no feasible transition path to a world government model

The fact that some international relations authorities do not have the imagination required to perceive a feasible transition path to world government is not necessarily strong evidence that such a path does not exist. The principal reason why the idea of world government is not being pursued vigorously at the present time is that it is assumed by the large majority that world government could only be realized in the form of the omnipotent world state. But if a sufficient amount (a “critical mass,” so to speak) of awareness of the limited world govern­ment option is achieved, the situation could change dramatically within a short period of time. If there was sufficiently widespread and strong support for world government, it could be established by the same sort of international conference that established the United Nations. As for world government coming about through nuclear world war, no sane and sensible world federalist gives this any credence.
Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization

Economic interaction among the nations of the world, in the form of trade, investment and migration, has reached such a point today that it is meaningful to think of “the world economy.”  Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization in the form of a world government. Following the seminal work of John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression of the 1930s, it has become widely accepted within the economics profession that a certain amount of interventionist national government policy is essential to maintaining a proper balance between the twin economic evils of unemployment and inflation. Just as judicious national anticyclical policy is beneficial to national economies, so too a judicious world anticyclical policy, as implemented by a functioning world government, would be beneficial to the world economy. A world government would also improve the overall functioning of the global economy by means of regularizing various circumstances of international economic interaction (for example, in the area of patents and copyrights), and by working to reduce various trade impediments (such as tariffs and quotas) imposed by national governments.
A world government would foster a constructive cosmopolitanism

A world government would give people a higher focus for their political loyalties than their respective nation-states, and thus facilitate the development of a higher degree of cosmopolitanism than is possible under the sovereign nation-state system. This would benefit the practical operations and effectiveness of the world government. The greater the sense of community among the citizens of a polity, the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, and the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, the greater the sense of community among its citizens. This suggests an interactive, snowballing relationship over time between the sense of community of the citizens of the world federation, and the efficiency and effectiveness of its practical operations. From relatively low sense of community and low effectiveness in its early stages, over many years of gradual evolution, the world federation would eventually achieve a very high level of community spirit and practical effectiveness.
There is no popular support for such a body

There is too much economic, political and cultural heterogeneity in the contemporary world to permit the establishment of a democratically organized, authoritative and effective—yet benign—world govern­ment. This was especially the case during the Cold War era with its virulent opposition between communist and non-communist economic, political and social ideologies. But it is still the case. For example, if a democratic world government were established, it would likely want to create a global welfare state, but this would be unacceptable to citizens of the rich countries because of the excessive taxation necessary to provide welfare benefits to the citizens of the poor nations. Another possibility is that the world government would be effectively controlled by the rich nations (despite appearances of democracy), and thus it would implement policies of uncontrolled trade and investment. These would be unacceptable to the poor nations because they would be regarded as a return to the exploitative con­ditions of the colonial era. Thus a serious effort to establish a world government in the real world would almost certainly lead to widespread armed resistance, and this might well escalate into the very nuclear world war that the world government was supposed to prevent. That would be the ultimate irony.
A world government would add another, laborious level of bureaucracy

A world government would add another layer of bureaucracy to a world which is already laboring under a heavy burden of bureaucracy. Were a world government bureaucracy to be added to what already exists at the national, regional and local levels, it would be accurate to describe the situation as “bureaucratic suffocation” or “bureaucratic strangulation.” Of their nature, bureaucracies stifle creative thought and innovation. A world government would be subject to so many conflicting viewpoints and attitudes that its bureaucracy would necessarily have to impose an overwhelming deluge of requirements, restrictions, forms and reports on the citizens. The citizens would be effectively hamstrung, and be (figuratively speaking) more or less trussed up in straitjackets. So even if—by some remote chance—the world state did not immediately degenerate into a brutal police state, its massive bureaucracy would in some ways constitute a virtual police state. The problem of bureaucracy alone argues against a world state.
A world government would reduce the probability of a catastrophic nuclear world war

A world government is not needed to prevent nuclear world war, because such a war would be so catastrophic that the common sense of humanity will prevent it from ever happening. From the earliest days of the nuclear arms race, and especially after intercontinental ballistic missiles were perfected in the 1960s as the principal means of delivery of nuclear bombs, a delivery system for which no plausible defense could be devised, it was recognized that all-out world war was no longer a viable option in the contemporary world, simply because such a war would almost inevitably entail Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Not only would the immediate death and destruction be overwhelming, but the long-term effects from radiation and possible nuclear winter could be even worse. In the MAD world, the populations of all nations, especially those of the major powers, are held hostage in a sort of perpetual “Mexican standoff.” As paradoxical as it may seem, the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic delivery systems has created the most effective deterrent to unrestricted warfare ever seen in the history of the human race. The inescapable horrors of a nuclear war guarantee that such a war will never happen.
It is unethical to force a ‘volunteer’ to take the chance of being randomised onto the placebo arm of a trial

Under the status quo, someone with a terminal illness is offered two choices: death, or to join a trial (where such trials exist). However, when they join a trial they face the possibility that they will be given a placebo, not the drug. Whilst this is probably in the best interest of future patients (a good clinical trial will determine the efficacy of the new treatment), it rides roughshod over the rights of the current patients (not to be sacrificed for future generations) and the duty of physicians to act in the best interests of their present patients. There are two consequences here: the first is that it is morally dubious to use the present patients as mere means to an end, rather than acting in their own best interests, especially where, if randomized to the placebo arm the outcome of death is a certainty. The second consequence is a practical one: compliance with the trial is lessened at the point at which patients can take alternative measures to increase their chance of survival. This was best documented during the early stages of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, where there was evidence of ‘cheating’ during the trials1. People lied or bribed their way into clinical studies; and shared drugs to dilute the ‘risk’ of being on placebo. This has the obvious impact of casting doubt on the scientific results of the trials: you can no longer be sure who has taken what, and what other conditions they may have. 1 Schüklenk, Udo, and Lowry, Christopher, ‘Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments’, British Medical Bulletin, Vol.89, 2009, pp.7-22, http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/1/7.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=Ip64J5FUXThKvP0
Disastrous impact on medical trials

We need medical trials. It is important to have large groups of recruits, which can often be very difficult: a problem with the speed at which new treatments for rare diseases is the rate of recruitment (and therefore the length of time taken to complete the trial)1. If you pass this motion, trials will face large problems with recruitment, an area where there are already sometimes shortages2: if people can get access to the drug without a) the possibility of being placed in the placebo arm or b) inconveniences of being part of a trial, there is a reduced chance of them choosing to enter the trial. Consequently, the sample size in trials will be decreased. This will have a couple of outcomes: First trials will take a longer time to be completed as a result of fewer volunteers and this is bad for patients currently taking the new drug as well as for future patients. This is because it will take longer to determine the safety of the drug meaning if it is dangerous those taking the drug will be taking it for longer before the danger is fully appreciated and if safe then the drug will have taken longer to get to the market than it could have. The longer the trials take to complete, the more people are forced to decide whether to take the drug in the absence of reliable information. This means that, at such a stressful time, people are effectively forced to gamble the quality of their remaining years with the hope of gaining a few more (new drugs are unlikely to be ‘miracle cures’. Rather, they are likely to extend life by driving the disease into remission).   It is important to remember that, at this stage, it has yet to be determined whether new drugs are more effective than old ones, and second, that the sorts of drugs used to treat terminal illnesses tend to come with substantial side effects. As a consequence, if many people are using a new treatment before trialling has been completed, they may be using something that is not effective and has side-effects that significantly impact the quality of the last years of their life. Finally, the longer trials are delayed, the greater the chance that future trials will be biased by media hype ad speculation. It is both easy and profitable for media outlets to exaggerate early successes of a drug with claims and headlines such as “wonder drug”. This is problematic because of the tendency towards confirmation bias on the part of researchers: the greater their expectation of a positive result, the more likely they are to alter data to receive that result. Note that this is not as a result of deliberate fraud or deception, but rather, the result of any number of small decisions that, cumulatively, create a large result. 1 Jenkins, John, ‘Considerations for Clinical Trial Designs’, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/files/Jenkins.pdf 2 ‘Volunteer for research at UNClinicalStudies.org’, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, http://www.cancer.med.umich.edu/living/clinical-trials.html
This gives people false hope

If these drugs are made available, you risk giving many people false hope in the last days of their lives. People, particularly when in desperate situations, tend to overestimate a treatment’s efficacy. Given that these treatments are still undergoing the trial process, it is possible that they are ineffective, or have side-effects that outweigh any benefits. Thus, to allow such drugs and treatments to be handed out during the testing process, there is a great risk of giving people false hope. This is especially the case given the compromised role of the physician in this scenario: ordinarily, if a patient wants an experimental drug, they can have a discussion with their physician that stresses the ‘in trial’ nature of the drug, and thus the uncertainty of it working. Subsequent experiences (the inconveniences of trials; filling in forms and receiving expenses) reinforce the idea that these drugs were experimental, and that the bulk of the benefit from the trial accrues for future patients. Consequently, in that scenario it is easier for the physician to help the patient to come to terms with the end of life; to deal with this and to realise that any trial drugs give only a slim chance of improvement. In the scenario envisaged by this proposition, experimental drugs can be acquired as easily as licensed ones, and therefore there is no longer that clear distinction for the patient between ‘doing all you can’ in the ordinary sense, (trying every treatment that is known to be effective) and trying ‘one more (experimental) drug’. Therefore, the patient is less likely to be able to come to terms with their own condition, and therefore less likely to be able to deal with the emotional trauma inflicted not only upon them, but on close family and loved ones.
This reduces the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to complete the testing process

Testing new drugs is a very expensive process, in 2000 the average cost was estimated at around 86 million for the large scale phase III tests1 however this is contested and it could be much higher it represents 40% of pharmaceutical companies R&D expenditures, which since a recent estimated the development cost of a drug can be up to $5.8billion (due to including failures) the cost of trials would in some cases then be $2billion,2 which is currently funded by pharmaceutical companies. They fund these tests because it is either impossible, very difficult or very risky to access large markets before testing has been completed (e.g. in the USA companies are only allowed to sell new drugs “off-study”, i.e. during trials, at cost3) If you allow all terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs, you reduce the incentive for companies to continue testing their products: they will have access to a large market prior to the completion of testing, and will therefore have no incentive to complete trials, which are expensive and risk finding the product ineffective. 1 DiMasi, Joseph A. et al., ‘The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs’, Journal of Health Economics, Vol.22, 2003, pp.151-185, p.162 http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/pub/LawNetSoc/BahradSokhansanjFirstPaper/22JHealthEcon151_drug_development_costs_2003.pdf 2 Roy, Avik S. A., ‘Stifling New Cures: The True Cost of Lengthy Clinical Drug Trials’, Project FDA Report, No. 5, April 2012, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm 3 Schüklenk, Udo, and Lowry, Christopher, ‘Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments’, British Medical Bulletin, Vol.89, 2009, pp.7-22, http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/1/7.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=Ip64J5FUXThKvP0
This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine

By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription. 1 Harris, Gwyn, ‘Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour’, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70, http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/169.full
It is cruel to deny people the last hope

It is not cruel if it can be shown that this restriction is in the patient’s own interest. The status quo prevents patients from living out their last days on a stream of experimental drugs. We prevent drug companies from using them as risk-free testing (under your policy drug companies would presumably be able to shrug off any responsibility for adverse consequences by saying that it was the patient’s choice to try an experimental drug), and allow them instead to receive the appropriate support for someone at the end of their life, and come to terms with that. Further, it is important to remember that drugs at this stage are not necessarily miracle cures! If someone is refused access to a trial this is normally to reduce the risk of adverse consequences: it is wrong to give someone an experimental drug that could negatively impact the quality of their final days.
It is unethical to force a ‘volunteer’ to take the chance of being randomised onto the placebo arm of a trial

First, note that the reason for the existence of the placebo arm is to determine if the drug is more effective than placebo, so in some cases the drug will not be, and nothing will have been lost! Second, for this point to stand, it has to be shown why the present generation should be prioritised above all future ones: the consequences of giving the present patients a slightly increased chance of survival is to negatively impact patients in the future in a myriad ways (see opposition arguments). Third, there are a number of reasons to doubt that this is, in fact in the present patient’s best interest: it is not the case that terminally ill people have ‘nothing to lose’ and can therefore be used as human guinea pigs (providing there is an, as yet unspecified, probability of survival). The large-scale provision of un-trialled drugs may well result in side-effects denigrating the quality of the patient’s remaining years. Finally, the practical consequence considered can be sidestepped through a) better supervision of trials and b) improved doctor-patient relationships (a particular problem during the AIDS crisis). Further, note that the case of AIDS is something of an anomalous one: AIDS patients were more numerous and politicised than any other group before or since, thus enabling this sort of trial-breaking behaviour.
Disastrous impact on medical trials

First, this may well be overridden by the individual rights of present patients (see proposition arguments). Second, the greater time taken to recruit is one that may be offset by greater numbers: whilst the trial will be of a lower quality (no control group, etc.) there will nevertheless be a greater number of people willing to take the drug (people who wouldn’t have wanted to be part of a trial, but are willing to try the new treatment). Consequently, it may well be possible to compensate for the other problems with the trial. Further, alternative trialling models can be employed, for example using patients who choose not to take the drug as the control group. Whilst you lose the benefit here of having a double-blind trial (as under the status quo), you gain in terms of the benefits to current patients.