Login/Sign Up




The possibilities of world governance
Politics

gdf
Jul 24, 2007
5 votes
5 debaters
4
1


+ Add Argument

3
that world governance is possible and is a cause that can be justified


dirtpatch
Jul 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

well, i guess you mean by journalistic, the company that was funding and pushing the failed coup attempt, and by economic, i guess you mean that he nationalized the oil industry, pushing out british petroleum and other foreign oil intrests in favor of having the oil benefit the people instead of corporations.

 
dirtpatch
Jul 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

no hes not a tyrant.
hes an elected official.
and no , he wouldnt take part in a one world government, just as i wouldnt take part in a one world government,, and just like no sovereign nation should.

 
dirtpatch
Jul 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

well we fought militarily against a repressive government also.
he didnt re-write their constitution, their version of the legislative branch formed a constitution, and in it it states that a person can only serve as president twice,, they wrote that into law during his first term , he has been elected twice since then, in elections that even bushco have to admit were fair and that he won with an overwhelming majority.

they did nationalize media,, the media was owned and controlled by the rich, who hated his support of the downtrodden, and they continually called for mass strikes, violent overthrow of a democratically elected leader,, etc.

as far as gun deaths go,, i cant find that stat, and you provided no link , but a quick google search provided me with a plethora of studies that show America has the highest percentage of gun deaths with The U.S.at 14.24 gun deaths per 100000 people.

as far as amnesty international,, heres a excerpt of their report
Amnesty International believes that the Venezuela government had a clear duty to guarantee public order in the face of frequently violent protests - which included the use of firearms by some protestors. However, there is strong evidence that the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and batons was frequently indiscriminate and disproportionate and significantly contributed to a week of spiralling violence rather than preventing it.

hmmn rubber bullets and tear gas,, sounds like the treatment new york gives NON-VIOLENT protestors.
but note,, the protestors,, which were opposition party(anti-chavez) were incited by the big-oil controlled media into actual violence, with fire arms,, and chavez responded to that,, but with rubber bullets and tear gas.

in short, he may not be the best of leaders,, but hes far from a tyrant.


 
dirtpatch
Jul 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

right, elections that were watched by national and international watchdog groups, including delegates of our own democrat and republican party, and the carter institute for democracy and all found to be fair,, actually werent, because you say so.

the people who only voted for him out of fear,, rebelled by the millions(including the army) in support of him in 2002 causing the attempted coup against him to fail.
yeah,, they did that because they are afraid of him,, not because of the fact that there are about 5 million of them that can read now, that couldnt before he was in power,, because they couldnt afford to go to school. or because he gave them the land that special interests sold out from under them in previous governments.

 
gogopoet
Jul 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I think that is an inevitability. The real question is; what form will that government take?

 
dirtpatch
Jul 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

please elaborate on chavez.

 
dirtpatch
Jul 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jjc Show

i dont get it,,
first i cant find the economist article -
second -
the amnesty international article is about police brutality, when a cop kills some one here,, do you blame bush and call him a tyrant?
third:
the chicago article is about street crime,, again do you blame bush for americas high rate of violent crime?

both articles, the amnesty one and chicago one call for Chavez to be more active in curtailing the problem,, they dont blame him.

 
gogopoet
Jul 26, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

My "form of mental out of touchness" is called deductive reasoning. We now have a global economy, such that when a bee farts in Singapore some kids get honey on a bun in Iowa. The company that makes the bee fart sells the honey. and ships it using oil that was conglomerated from all over the world. The company that conglomerated the oil and refined it is a multinational corporation just like the honey maker and seller. When the majority of corporations become multinationals, national governments will have little or no authority to regulate them. If the national governments don't join forces to govern globally, then the multinationals will do so by default. I can't see a bunch of politicians letting that happen.

 
+ Add Argument

2
world governance is an impossibility which would be unbeneficial


jjc
Jul 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Will it work like the UN? That runs so well and is not corrupt at all.

Why would the strongest nations submit to a world government when it seems clear from UN actions of the past, Kyoto, etc... that a goal of many countries is economic equalization. Some countries have highly developed economies, infrastructures, and educational systems. Some countries are controlled by despots who have no regard for their own people or institutions. Hugo Chavez is a great example of the latter. Do you think Chavez or Castro would peacefully submit to world government. Do you think China, the worlds largest country, would submit to world government. You are dreaming.

 
jjc
Jul 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

He has destroyed economic and journalistic institutions within his own country that disagree with his policies.

 
jjc
Jul 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

Are you claiming that Chavez is not a tyrant? Do you think he would accept world government? He rules by whim. He rules by power and not law. How could someone like that co-exist with a world government?

 
jjc
Jul 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

Lets not range too far off the subject matter but-
He attempted a military coup in '92. He was, and is, popular with the poor so he was eventually pardoned. He was elected in '98. He promptly re-wrote the constitution to essentially allow him to be president for life. Such conservatively biased organizations as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have expressed serious concerns about human rights within his country. The International Press Institute, Inter-American Press Association and (again) Human Rights Watch have said that his administration has continously interfered with the press. He also pushed laws through the puppet legislature which nationalized radio and television. The Economist says that Venezula has the highest (per capita) gun death rate in the world!

Can you seriously defend that!! Give me a frickin break. I have to seriously question anyone's judgement who finds Chavez to be a fair, temperate, logical, or legal leader.

 
donmega
Jul 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

Saddam was an elected official too... 100% of the vote EVERY election... Gee, when the choice is vote for the bastard or get your whole family killed, most vote for the bastard, go figure...

 
cbart95
Jul 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

Evdence of national governance failures abound. Global governance is a naive childish notion that has never and can never work. You may "think" its an inevitablility but you may also believe in the easter Bunny too. The real question is what form you take? Describe your form of mental out of touchness.

 
jjc
Jul 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

The following are just a few of the many articles and studies documenting the Chavez regime's abuses of his own people. Further, although Jimmy "I never met a dictator I didn't like" Carter certified the election, many other organizations found clear indications of fraud. That doesn't mean that it happened, but the guy did attempt an armed coup so it is not much of a stretch to think that it may have happened. As in many cases- Cuba, Iran, El Salvador- a corrupt government allows a tyrant to come in and take over. Seems to be a recurring historical theme. It doesn't really matter to my overall point, however, that world government is a dream of guys who look like Tommy Chong, drive VW microbusses, and only eat Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream.

The Economist, (April 20, 2006), "Venezuela: Crimes and misdemeanours". The Economist. Accessed 26 June 2006.

Amnesty International (2006). "AI Report 2006: Venezuela". Accessed 22 June 2006.

Chicago Tribune (June 12, 2006), "In Venezuela, crime runs 'absolutely out of control' ". Accessed 22 June 2006.

It always amazes me how those on the left of the political spectrum are so quick to believe any speculative theory regarding political intrigue on the right, while being willing to overlook evidence of the same on the left. When I think about it I have to admit that all politicos, regardless of orientation, are guilty of this flaw. I supose the determiation of tyrant depends on your definition. I went to dictionary.com and took the first entry to come up-

1. a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.
2. any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.

From my point of view he meets this definition.


 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong