My sentiments exactly, thank you for putting them so well. But it has been two and a half thousand years since Socrates. Given another thousand or so, and a few more dire perils affecting all, we should be able to get somewhere. I wonder if it is worth trying to shape up the UN as we nudge toward this ideal, or whether it would be better to scrap it and start again.

The last thing we need is a World Government. The diversity and somehwhat chaotic nature of the world makes it interesting. Tne idea that we operate under the same rules, laws, cultures (governments generally find it very diificult to deal with different cultural approaches) is quite horrific to me.

Take the rose-coloured glasses off and realise that when you have many governments, an issue can be kept alive, when there is only one government, an issue can be ignored far more effectively.It might sound wonderful, but it would create resentment and unrest throughout the world.

We should stop trying to homogenise everything and accept that differences are often positive and that they encourage broadening of thought. Having one government telling us all how it should be is not a positive approach by any means.

Until the deficiencies of the UN are brought into the light no one will trust a world government.
We need to sort out corruption, nepotism and the basic oligarchy concerns.
We are in a full world now. No more escape via conquering new lands/peoples...unless you brand them as inhuman and use the UN to justify invasion of course...
I'd prefer a return to city-states with confederations enforcing freedom of movement.

Whilst an acceptable ideal, the only time a world government would work is when we have communication with others in the universe or colonised the solar system or elsewhere. The ideological human sees themselves as unique, universally important and right. There is no humility, understanding or acceptance that we are not unique, are unimportant and definitely not right. Once we have contact with other life, humans will begin to understand how illusionary are their beliefs. Then we may begin to learn to live together, instead of against each other.

Until then there's no common ground with which to base world government on. The major problem is religiosity, each religious group and their various factions, want laws, morals and approaches according to their belief. We see world wide the results of this approach.

Until humanity evolves beyond ideology, nothing will change unless we have a one world belief. I'm sure everyone would love that and quickly agree as to which one. I nominate the belief in nothing, it's simple, easy to understand, doesn't need defending or explaining and can't be argued against as there's nothing to argue about or disagree with.

I thought the author summed up his understanding of the subject by declaring,

<”While a major step has been achieved by those countries at the G20 summit in overcoming the financial and economic crisis, it nonetheless excludes the remaining 15 per cent of countries which contribute to global trade.”>

Now that's fantasy land in stereo.

Well said stormbay!
We are indeed children in our nursery, and until we learn to stand on our own two feet in space we are just sucking on nature's teat.
We need to learn to live on sunlight (energy) and rock (chemicals, building materials, etc).
This involves creating ecosystems and maintaining them via technology to maintain the balances (Nitrogen, Carbon, Phosphorus, Calcium, temperature, water) and natures own technology, life. (100% "natural" ecosystem, ie. terraforming, is unlikely)
Instead of natures rapists, we need to be it's custodians.
I too believe religion is major hinderance to this by encouraging dispute, discouraging maturity of thought and generally fighting science, which is simply the search for common truth as distinct from the faith version of truth which depends largely on your place and time of birth.
The attack on science in the US and Australia is unforgivable and any religious folk out there concerned with truth and wisdom should be fighting this. Secular folk, of course, should fight the influence of ancient superstitions as part of good sense. We don't allow human sacrifice, why should we allow child abuse in the name of faith? Creationism is schools is the tip of the iceberg. We cannot afford a dark age at this point.
Sadly the future "world government" will be a small group of survivors from the inevitable calamity caused by: nature (comet, volcano, ?), or humans (war, famine, disease, climate) I put disease in the "human" category because disease *should* be largely controllable these days...if it were not for the stupidity promoted through ignorance such as the Pope's condom debarcle.
More science, less religion.
More empowerment, less bullying posing as "leadership", minimal governance.
To ask for a World government at this time is like asking for a massive World Bank...kind of putting all your eggs in one very dodgy basket.

We have a series of big problems we can solve only in International level but our leaders are not mature, responsible enouph for a global government.
When they boycot the human rights conference in Geneva you can imagine what could happen if they had to solve real, hot problems.
Our governments are not much better from the people who elected them!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Stormbay - Once we have contact with other life,humans will begin to understand how illusionary are their beliefs. Then we may begin to live together, instead of against each other.

I hope that is what happens, but the trouble is humans have a long history of not accepting truths they do not want to know about. The aliens may be branded as evil or a plot of the infidel or heretics or the Americans or whatever and killed or imprisoned.

To digress momentarily to the subject of making contact with aliens, the idea worries me.
Unless these aliens are unique and extremely enlightened then they will probably be interested more in the survival of their own species than ours. That is the way of all the life forms on our world including us so it may be a natural universal trait.

I agree with your comments about a global government being nowhere near possible for mankind at this point in our history. We are just not capable of it.

Sharkfin, it would be sad if reasoning universal life were all like us. I would think if they were more advanced, they'd have evolved beyond primitive fear and superstition. I doubt we will have physical contact with lesser beings before having recognisable communications first. Once that happens we may grow up a bit, I'm more inclined to think ideological approaches will have to evolve out of us for sanity to prevail.

The UN, is just another name for big business in control and it's completely useless. The UN will collapse soon and we'll probably see more and more states separating themselves from others in an attempt to survive. To have a world government is to have control by a dictatorship and will fail under every current circumstance, just like global markets and corporate controls, doomed because the human race is to individual and emotionally fractured for a sane combined existence.

Ozandy, I think you'll find we'll be forced into changes and if not prepared personally, will suffer. Those in power are all under the control of illusionary ideologies, they are not mature people. If you have to believe in something which can't be shown to have positive credibility in it's outcomes, beyond mental and theoretical hope, then you are not a rational and sanely functioning psychological human being. As all in control of the world are ideologists of varying persuasions, we can all see the outcomes of their beliefs, not nice at all.

The United Nations - which is a possible platform for world government - is unlikely to be reformed, since the five Permanent Members of the Security Council will simply not countenance it.

There are many people who are very sceptical of the possibility of a World Govermnment, not least because they envisage the worst form of governments existing today, - with over-regulation galore, if not worse.

Yet, the global economy, pollution, and basic human rights (the right to education, water, and freedom from exploitation) has to be sorted out without the constant implication of armed conflict, or the major powers lording it over everyone else. Only a world government can do achieve these things.

Governments are elected to represent the interests of the people they are supposed to serve.

Global government would serve no one. It will have stretched the direct line of relationship between the elector and the elected too far to work for the benefit of the voting electorate.

It might work for those bureaucrats who see their future in a fat and unaccountable public service, geographically removed from the anger of tax payers.

It might work for the internationalists, who are still smarting from the absolute failure of the “communist international” .

But it will not work for those folk who are expected to pay for the services some here-today-dead-tomorrow political spin doctor would see us sold down the drain for, by counting the local Aussie vote as equal to the votes of the ignorant (and politically maliable) masses in third world countries.

If you want accountability you need to make the chain of command shorter, not longer. Stronger local government and no central government. Keep politicians accountable to the people who elect them and whose taxes they like to play lady bountiful with.

If you want to avoid GFC let lenders set the rates and the terms they lend money on, rather than some shonky politician dreaming up unaccountability for the sake of a political campaign and corrupting the system of regulation so some socialist minded political charlatan/bank robber can drive a getaway car through the loopholes.

In simple terms, the GFC would not have happened if lenders were able to control who they lent to.