I guess that's another difference between us, Eclipse Now.

>>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... Check out this page, and YOU can spend the next hour reading their various links and proposals for world government.<<

When I am shaping my views on a topic, I read widely, not narrowly. I found the Federal Union site extremely interesting. As indeed I found the arguments on the World Federalist Movement site.

To me, they are not persuasive. Basically because they - as you do - assume that talking about something is the exact equivalent of doing something. Doesn't matter what you say, doesn't matter if it makes any sense. Just say something.

The "Federal Union" site is probably a standout in this field of endeavour. The justification it puts forward for its existence is straight out of the Stanford playbook:

"global flows of money are now far beyond the power of any national authority to regulate or control... the World Trade Organisation and the IMF, lack legitimacy... we face environmental and humanitarian problems on an unprecedented scale but the international institutions and agreements lack powers and they lack teeth etc.etc."

But it has nothing - nothing at all - by way of positive suggestions as to what should be done.

For example, the link "A world parliamentary assembly" doesn't actually go anywhere.

>>Unless [the Stanford article] can answer the questions I raised in my last post, it's a dusty history of ancient speculation...<<

Hardly dusty. Hardly speculation.

It is however a handy guide to the arguments - for and against world government - that have been conducted through the ages.

Valuable background material, I would have thought.

But hang on.

Isn't it you who should be answering these questions?

Quick recap: you are proposing a World Government. I'm just saying "can't be done, won't be done" and giving you my reasons.

With examples.

Which, so far, you have managed to ignore.

>>But it has nothing - nothing at all - by way of positive suggestions as to what should be done.<<&#8232;I’m surprised by that, as years ago it was quite clearly laid out. I note they are using Wordpress now and may have either changed the website over to Wordpress or changed the theme and navigation systems.

Anyway, the World Citizens Australia Association (WCAA) has a variety of goals and support similar organisations trying to create a United Nations Parliament or even reform NATO to become an inclusive, umbrella organisation on a journey towards a global parliament of democratic nations.

http://tinyurl.com/24dkhk2

They focus on reforming the UN or NATO into organisations that could gradually grow and become more and more inclusive. I think we already have the backbone in the EU. The EU have certainly been discussing world government.

http://tinyurl.com/2b7sm7y

Thanks for your input and time. In an otherwise busy life, I'm mainly motivated to learn through debate.

My 'super-states' argument about the benefits and potential risks of New Unions has been re-written under point 2. I've also tidied up the structure of the rest of the page a bit. Thanks.

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

You are most welcome, Eclipse Now.

>>Thanks for your input and time. In an otherwise busy life, I'm mainly motivated to learn through debate.<<

I wish you joy with your hobby.

What do you make of a mix of the following strategies?

* The Functional Approach. Functionalists such as David Mitrany would argue for what might be called the “look, no hands!” approach. The functional needs of the world community will demand their own solutions. Agencies and committees will be set up to handle these common problems, and little by little the various national sovereignties will be whittled away and transferred to the growing network of international agencies. There is no need to set up any formal political structures to achieve integration.

* The Regional Approach. Following on from the success of the European Common Market, other economic integration and free trade organisations have sprung up for example, North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). This can lead on to other associations been built like the Organisation of American Strates (OAS), African Union, Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Nordic Council and the League of Arab States (Arab League). Although none of these organisations have a political structure like the EU, it is a start and may follow the same road that the EU began.

http://www.worldcitizens.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39&Itemid=7