One world goverment.

Thanks for letting me do this debate with you! Of course, in concept, a perfect Utopian world sounds like the best and most beneficial change for human kind. Doing research and formatting a debate like this is actually a reminder of what kind of world that we live in. However, denying the truth does not make it any less real. If such a government is supposed to be so obviously beneficial as you claim it to be, then why don't we already have one? That is because there are a multitude of roadblocks preventing such a system, and even then, would not succeed in solving the world's issues. First off, allow me to make a correction onto one of your earlier statements. The EU is not a government or a state. All member-states remain in large part sovereign. Ever wondered why the United Kingdom was legally able to leave the EU? Secondly, if we are only focusing on social contract theory, sure, sustained armed conflicts are less likely to happen inside a functioning government and a sovereign state. But even if that is the case, an effective state"let alone a world state"requires a monopoly of force that can guarantee first and foremost the security of all members. I highly doubt that today"s sovereign states are willing to give-up their arms. Why? Because states (especially nation-states) aim to preserve their citizens" way of life. They aim to protect, say, the freedom of religion, of thought, of speech, etc. So are the customs of the United States. For one (like yourself) who desires to homogenize the world under one belief system (i. e. , veganism and atheism), you"re simply destroying your plan towards a world state. Barely anyone, in reality, will agree to your blueprints. To address your statement about the environment and economy, it quite easy to say that a solution of all environmental issues and having a united currency may well be desirable. Unfortunately, that is way easier said than done. Not all countries can aim towards those goals because they are focused on a higher priority; having power over countries. Power comes from good arms. Good arms come from good economies. Only a world government that guarantees everyone"s securities can solve this issue. But the problem there traces back to paragraphs #3 and #5 Even if we achieve a world utopia of veganism, environmentalism and atheism, we are nevertheless bound to conflict and disagreements that can potentially regress world society back into an anarchic structure (like today). Some are bound to be unsatisfied with the system. And of course, there will be some who will defend it. This is a political fact. Today"s examples can be found in the emergence of civil wars in Syria and Libya a few years back. Many were not happy about their regimes, so they rose-up against them. They simply did not agree with their own regimes. So power vacuums emerged and these two countries have failed states. This is what happens when people no longer consent to the current way of things. In other words, states"let alone a world state that follows your own rigid form of rule"will die when they lose legitimacy. Lastly, I will address the human property that no form of government could remove; human individuality. People are different, and will always have different ideas. People are also willing to defend and debate their ideas to people who disagree. Atheists still disagree and conflict with one another in areas other than religion. Vegans still disagree and conflict with one another in other areas as well. If you think veganism and atheism are beliefs that guarantee a perpetual state of peace in the world, you are simply dead wrong. A world free of religions and of meat-eaters does not rid itself of other beliefs that can harm others. Nor does that kind of world hinder the emergence of new beliefs that might seek to change the current way of doing things. But then we return to paragraph 5. All in all, a one world government is an impossible feat to achieve, and would still fail to remove many issues that we face today. Even in theory, such a system would create more issues than solutions, and it would be more beneficial to work at improving the current systems we already have in place.