Thanks Pericles, you've helped me clarify a point on my blog.

5. The need for a global parliament grows as new regional unions form

The global south has had a sad history of resource pillaging and mismanagement under colonial rule. Also tragic has been the political instability since throwing off the shackles of colonialism and succumbing to civil war and local disputes instead. However, recent moves towards new continent wide unions may stabilise these troubled regions. Whether realistic or not, timetables for political and market unity have at least been drawn up for Africa and South American Unions. Africa is even dreaming of an integrated national Federation. While I support these Unions as a means of encouraging stability and development, I do worry that in a world of declining resources these new super-powers may also form the basis for as yet inconceivable future cold wars and tensions.

Consolidated political blocks controlling vast natural resources may prove a threat to world peace. Today’s fragmented African nations are easy targets for aggressive Chinese buyers. But tomorrow’s ‘United States of Africa’ may demand higher prices, or even refuse to sell at all — especially their last drops of oil. I am concerned that the hopes of Federation might turn into hyper-nationalism. Only a truly global democracy can prevent such scenarios.

http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/reform-global-government/

Einstein is entitled to his opinion too, Eclipse Now.

>>Pericles said... Einstein said... Enough said.<<

But don't forget the circumstances in which he voiced his views.

It was 1946, just after the end of a conflict that finally ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Events for which our favourite physicist probably felt a nagging feeling of guilt, given his contribution to the science involved.

Faced with processing the impact of such a catastrophic event, it is unsurprising that he defaulted to the most simplistic of "if only" scenarios.

"If only" we could all live under one rule of law. "If only" people and nations wouldn't be so different, in their needs and aspirations. "If only..." usw.

There's an interesting article on World Government in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/

It introduces man's age-old contemplation of the issue as follows:

"Some are motivated negatively and see world government as the definitive solution to old and new human problems such as war and the development of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty and inequality, and environmental degradation. More positively, some have advocated world government as a proper reflection of the unity of the cosmos, under reason or God."

It overviews the history of your quest through the ages - Dante, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant - do give it a read.

Incidentally Eclipse Now, I'm not sure I quite follow your logic here:

>>Consolidated political blocks controlling vast natural resources may prove a threat to world peace. Today’s fragmented African nations are easy targets for aggressive Chinese buyers. But tomorrow’s ‘United States of Africa’ may demand higher prices, or even refuse to sell at all — especially their last drops of oil. I am concerned that the hopes of Federation might turn into hyper-nationalism. Only a truly global democracy can prevent such scenarios<<

Considering that you contemplate the formation of the African regional bloc as a precursor to World Government, is not the above somewhat contradictory? Or circular, I guess.

If you encourage regional "activism" - especially in the realm of scarce resources - will this not militate against the creation of a "global democracy"? Blackmail very rarely produces the results intended.

Pericles,
While probably very fascinating and revealing about the origins of western thought on western thought, I’m not sure how relevant that Stanford Philosophy paper is. The world is already on a timetable. The African Union and Union of South American Nations (USAN) have plans — USAN to be like the EU within 9 years! They might not achieve these timetables, but the goal is definitely there.

Then there are even more outlandish plans by some of the ‘usual suspects’ (Gaddaffi, Chavez), to form a “Southern Union” between Africa and South America to help stand up to the North! These ideas have been voiced publicly, but I don’t see any timetables. ;-) ( Please don’t bother debunking this one, I winked OK? )

But the serious point here is that the areas of major instability are trying to work it out for their own security and eventually their own prosperity.

“Considering that you contemplate the formation of the African regional bloc as a precursor to World Government, is not the above somewhat contradictory? Or circular, I guess.“

Not at all. I’m saying that the unifying process has a head of steam but needs extra momentum to help it make the full distance. There are dangers in stopping half way. The world could end up *less* secure if the new regional super-powers end up in conflict in a world of scarcer resources. So as the AU and USAN grow, we’ll also need to watch the middle-east, Muslim states, Asian States, etc. We’ll need to think about the parameters of a global democracy. What are its powers? What will elections mean? What referendums will the world vote on? Where does the World Union end and the ‘Nation-State’ begin?

Just imagine it! Imagine a global tax plan from which multinationals can no longer hide, or blackmail governments for tax breaks in case they leave. Imagine a World space-agency with the funds for an off-world colony. Imagine a World disaster relief agency rolling out the worlds best water purifiers and recovery plans. Imagine a global health plan!

Exactly, Eclipse Now.

>>But the serious point here is that the areas of major instability are trying to work it out for their own security and eventually their own prosperity.<<

One of the reasons that they are doing this is could well be that they do not trust the motives of people who want them to form broader alliances, with countries and blocs with whom they have little in common.

>>I’m saying that the unifying process has a head of steam but needs extra momentum to help it make the full distance<<

From whom do you suggest this "extra momentum" should come? And to whom should it be applied?

>>We’ll need to think about the parameters of a global democracy. What are its powers? What will elections mean? What referendums will the world vote on? Where does the World Union end and the ‘Nation-State’ begin?<<

Seriously. If you don't have a perception of the destination, how will you persuade anyone that the journey is worthwhile?

All you are left with is a bucketful of wishful thinking.

>>Just imagine it! Imagine a global tax plan from which multinationals can no longer hide, or blackmail governments for tax breaks in case they leave. Imagine a World space-agency with the funds for an off-world colony. Imagine a World disaster relief agency rolling out the worlds best water purifiers and recovery plans. Imagine a global health plan!<<

Imagination is all very well. But such utopian dreams do have the habit of acting as a substitute for the rational and workable. And there is a massive step between the creation of like-minded trading groups and the coming-together of political will.

As you yourself point out, a higher-level fragmentation of major power blocs is the most dangerous, least palatable outcome. And it is also that with the highest probability of coming to pass.

Incidentally, did you bother to read the Stanford paper?

>>While probably very fascinating and revealing about the origins of western thought on western thought, I’m not sure how relevant that Stanford Philosophy paper is<<

Sure doesn't sound like it.

I don't think you've demonstrated the relevance of the Stanford paper for me to bother reading it. You don't get to dictate an hour of my time on the basis that you happened to find it interesting. Unless it can answer the questions I raised in my last post, it's a dusty history of ancient speculation about world government, not a *proposal* for world government that we are probably only a generation away from.

The reason I raised those questions was to provoke thought about the dangers ahead. We could drift into a dangerous, untested new cold war unless we have a clear proposal for a world parliament. You certainly haven't proposed a solution to how the citizens of the world are going to moderate the effects of having a handful of new super-powers. (Especially as I fully expect America to be bankrupted within the next 20 years).
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2988904.htm

Basically, I think the European Union is heading towards a model of a World Parliament. Check out this page, and YOU can spend the next hour reading their various links and proposals for world government.

http://www.federalunion.org.uk/world/