A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all

(Ignore the YouTube video for now) My opponent's contention is that a one-world government would be good because: A) No nation could declare war on another B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language. I shall proceed in order with my responses to these contentions. A) No nation could declare war on another Response: What would stop them? In current society, we say "you can't steal," meaning it's illegal, but in reality, I am fully capable of stealing if I so please. There will only be consequences if I do. In a one-world government, nothing could stop one nation from declaring war on another. The world government could only declare consequences of waging war, such as being attacked, or having trade cut off. In the former case, war would be more destructive than ever for the nation which had declared war initially, and for its citizens, because the entire world would be attacking a single nation. In the latter case, the world government would have to declare that no nation may trade with that nation, which would, first, be an infringement on the rights of free trade, and, secondly, if any nation violated this embargo, what would the consequences be? It could become quite chaotic. B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world How does voting decide what is fair? If the majority of world leaders arrange the distribution plan, and one nation doesn't like their part of the bargain, then you would have problems, possibly even wars of rebellion against the world government, or at least, much bickering and slow-moving government. However, that is rather speculative, so let us assume that it would work out, and such a plan could be put into effect: You are now infringing on the rights of everyone on Earth by declaring where each product shall be shipped and who shall get it. I contend that it is unjust to try and dictate to a nation of people how much they are permitted to have (because that is what you would be doing, because it would be necessary to take away a portion of what is produced in that nation and ship it to other nations). A good example is scare resources. The more scarce a resource is, the less each individual person can have - such as gold. By extension, the more widely distributed that gold is from one source, the less each individual can have, also. So, in a one-world government, any resource would be overall spread more thinly to everyone, because every source of any resource (it just gets more noticeable if it is a scare resource) is being forced to distribute to a much wider range of people than it previously did. By contrast, on a smaller scale, such as with individual nations working for their own good, that nation's water supply is only servicing that nation, so everyone there benefits more. If a nation which has very little water wishes to obtain water from another nation, then they can trade with them, in which case the water-rich nation receives direct compensation for the water they are giving up. It is their choice what they choose to receive as compensation, as opposed to being forced to give up a larger percentage of their water (because they're helping to service the whole world as opposed to just a single nation they actively chose to trade with) and being compensated, not by what they choose for themselves as adequate compensation, but by some resources chosen by the world government in which that particular nation has only one vote. C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language I disagree. Cross-cultural differences would continue to dominate, just as they always have. Observe, for example, "White flight," where White people regularly leave the cities and relocate to the country: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Also observe how different cultures treat life: (see YouTube video at upper right)http://www.youtube.com... And how we differ drastically on important issues: http://www.squidoo.com... To the Chinese, eating dogs is perfectly normal, but to most Americans, it is an act worthy of a shotgun blast to the head for the perpetrator (to which I agree; my one emotional "outburst" for the debate). Hence why we are two separate cultures and countries and why we will never live together and be the same. Also, if a person truly appreciates the variations in cultures of the world, how can they support multiculturalism? By mixing all the cultures together, you will only produce conflict, and, if you succeed in mixing all the cultures completely, you will end up with one world culture, or close to it, in which case you've lost "diversity." My contentions: C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species C2) Separate nations facilitate competition - Therefore, separate nations are a healthy practice C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species This is basic science. Without competition, a species will die out. For example: http://www.huppi.com... Competition is used to ensure that the best and most intelligent survive to reproduce, thus strengthening the species. Humans have divided themselves into nations based on similarity of race, appearance, religion, culture etc., because, being such a diverse species, we find that cooperation with every human would fly quite in the face of Nature. For an example from the animal kingdom, take the various species capable of interbreeding that do not do so. A tiger and a lion *can* interbreed to produce a "liger," but they do not. Why? Because they are different. Observe: http://animals.about.com... And: http://answers.yahoo.com... To summarize, all animals, including humans, gravitate towards those who are most similar to them and combine forces with them to successfully compete in Nature. Since Natural law is the supreme law, attempts at a one-world government would fail because it contradicts Nature's demands for separation of distinct groups. The only reason America exists as a nation is because of forced (1) multiculturalism, and we see that racial tensions are still high even here in America (2). I thank my opponent for his opening arguments, and await his rebuttals. (1) http://t3.gstatic.com... - Soldiers forcing high school pupils to attend a racially integrated school in Little Rock, Arkansas (2) http://www.blackpressusa.com...