A World Government is fundamentally not a good idea.

Thanks, Con. It seems my opponent has already argued against and subsequently defeated his own case. "Despite highly extensive differences, people all have that common ground [credo] ... 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." What Con has just described does not at all fit the criteria of a world government. The definition we have established is a single, unified government that everyone in the world is expected to abide by. If people can "opt out" of the government, then not everyone is following the same rules of order. Con pointed out that everyone despite their differences wants to establish laws, so by acknowledging that various communities will establish their own laws, he has repeated exactly what I said in the last round. I pointed out that various governments will inevitably form. Con agrees. As such, this dismantles the notion of a single and unified world government. What Con is describing is the peaceful coexistence of multiple governments, with perhaps a unified system of order that overrides (or should override) them all - say like an institution resembling the United Nations. In this organization, many governments are represented. While each country's power and influence over this organization is certainly not equal, it's naive and idealistic to assume that this would be the case in whatever utopia Con proposes. There will inevitably be a particular group who is more powerful or influential, and that will probably be based on wealth (resources) though there may be other factors. Regardless, the point here is that Con hasn't advocated for an actual world government. He's advocated for the allowance of various groups to form their own governments or opt out of the alleged "world" government. Con asks what would necessarily make a world government oppressive. If people could "opt out" of the government, then of course it wouldn't be oppressive. However, it also wouldn't be a world government! What this sounds like is a variation of anarcho-capitalism -- a system where property rights are acknowledged, but everyone is free to live their life according to their own values/laws within their given territory. Anarcho-capitalism supposes - as my opponent does - the right for people to govern themselves by opting into a system of governance that appeals to their values. On the contrary, a world government would be inherently oppressive because people would have no choice but to follow the singular law of the land. As I said in R2, a government's rules are usually upheld by law enforcement - the police or military. If there was only a singular legitimate authority with a monopoly on force (as a world government implies), then oppression is evident. However that is not what Con proposes. To be sure that my supposition of what qualifies as a world government isn't off base, I'll refer to Wikipedia's definition and my opponent can feel free to challenge it. He can and perhaps should go into more detail about what this government should entail in the next round. After all, saying it should be "strong yet gentle" is still completely vague and ambiguous. "A world government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity. As of 2012, there is no functioning global international military, executive, legislature, judiciary or constitution with jurisdiction over the entire planet" [1]. I'm assuming that in advocating a world government, Con supposes that there should be. However Con concludes his last round by suggesting, "Every country should have a voice, and no country should be forced to participate in a world government." If a world government is optional, there is room for other governments a.k.a. no world government - no singular authority with world jurisdiction. Con has defeated his own argument; a world government is fundamentally not a good idea.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...