Sorry Fred- I HAVE thought about the implications of a global democracy and have already stated my reasons why it is detrimental compared to multiple smaller (highly) democratic states. But for everyone's convenience I will restate them because I'm just so NICE.
-Smaller nations can cater more precisely to the correct needs of the populace- so long as the country's borders are formed around like-minded people and not by annexation- a global democracy would see governance weighed substantially by multiple conflicting morals and ideals creating a detrimental compromise to each group (eg secularism, shariah, bible-belt, liberalism, conservatism, free-market capitalism, socialism)- all ideologies clearly preferred by persons in very specific parts of the world today. And again, the UN's official policies (by member votes) include many policies outright abhorrent to large parts of the world but supported by most of the world in general (religious defamation laws pushed by Islamic states, opposed by every western democracy now UN law).
-The 'evolution-of-tribes-to-federated-states' concept is also total rubbish- as the states of today are largely SMALLER than those of 100 years ago- despite being more advanced and less warmongering now. And most of the empires (all minus the British one) over the past 700 years were SMALLER than the Mongolian Empire of the middle ages.

I believe much of this discussion is based on something Lyndon didn't say and that is not defended by any cosmopolitan thinker I am aware of, i.e. transforming the world into a single country with a single government resembling our current national ones. I defend the development of forms of global governance that are democratic and accountable to the people and not just to governments, but they should be embodied with limited, restricted powers, as all governments should. This is the statement I use in my world citizen activism. You may disagree with it, but not because it aims at creating a uniform world or a totalitarian world government:

We, world citizens, hereby demand the establishment of executive, legislative and judiciary institutions of global governance that are democratically elected, transparently monitored, and accountable to all citizens of the world, that protect people's basic rights and interests, and that are consistent with the principles of subsidiarity, human legitimacy and political equality.

Democratic global governance: The network of executive, legislative and judiciary institutions of global governance that are democratically elected, transparently monitored, and accountable to all citizens of the world.

Subsidiarity: The principle that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that a global (or higher) level of government should perform only those essential tasks that (for reasons of scale, capacity or need for exclusive power) cannot be effectively undertaken at lower levels of administrative decision-making.

Human legitimacy: The principle that global policies must be consistent with all of humanity having an equal opportunity to benefit and must promote freedom of conscience and expression, democracy, access to education and knowledge, sustainable development, and environmental preservation.

Political equality: The principle that global institutions must promote equal access to the decision-making process, facilitate genuine participation by the vulnerable, provide effective enforcement mechanisms available to all, and ensure that institutions are accountable and operate in a transparent fashion.

jllortega,
I hereby second your motion and further demand that the constitution of your newly proposed tri-partite system of global governance be written in Esperanto so that all the citizens of the world can read it.

I'd like to ask something- what exactly does the global government DO?
That being, what affairs does it actually have authority upon that would actually make it a government of any sort?

And again, "Human legitimacy: The principle that global policies must be consistent with all of humanity" falls on the highly inconsistent attitudes of people across the world- a quick rundown of UN motions, bills etc and who voted for/against tends to get very dissonant (religion- again).
Which is why a world government will never happen- all countries (the most democratic more than any) are aware of the implications of having their own policies compromised for many an incompatible principle.

Also, on the note of the environment- what if the world government's green policy isn't quite Sweden but more USA, Australia, or even China?
The UN could easily get the green policies because the countries knew it was all talk- but when it comes to walking the walk, the whole world may be weighed down by countries that realize they seriously aren't going to like the growing pains.

I liked this article. Impossibly unrealistic perhaps, but it doesn't hurt to express ideals.

Strangely enough, those ideals don't seem to me to be all that distant from those expressed by the annual Christmas ritual that most of us are celebrating.

Unfortunately, the function of Christmas in Australia seems to be to provide one day out of 365 where normally hateful people bury their enmities for the sake of a feast, piss-up and orgy of material consumption.

Such a shame that they can't practise 'peace on earth and goodwill to all' for the rest of the year.

Even Christmas is not complete for CJ Grogan without him pointing out that it is the one day that the haters stop hating for a day because they are too busy in an orgy of self-indulgence.
I've had a hat full of CJ Grogan's hate-filled accusations of hateful, hate-mongering haters.
I find his hypocritical hatred hateful.
Can't he restrain himself from expressing his bile towards others,
even for one day at Christmas?