My goodness, none of you get it !
It is not going to be like either side of this argument say.
Everything is going to be local.
In the long run even national governments will either fade out or just
l0ok after defense and a few remaining infrastructures.
State government may only exist to operate such infrastructure as
railway systems. They will be needed to move food into what remains of
the larger cities, and connect the much larger country towns.
Local government will probably continue as people will need some sort
of local community organisation.
There will be 50 to 100 times as many farmers as there are now.
Even banks will have shrunken to local establishments handling local
currencies, eg the Totnes Pound.

The writing is already on the wall.
In the US California is virtually bankrupt.
Country roads in the US are being let go back to gravel. Town police
forces are being disbanded, but as the states get into further
financial trouble, local police will be restablished in the US.

However here in Aus where we only have state police they will become
ineffective and local, council run police forces, or voluntary police
will be established.
Are there country roads here that are not being repaired ?

In such a scenario as I have described here, how effective would your
world government be ?

Fortunately, in a way, I will not see it but my grandchildren way
well find all this new way of life in local communities quite a
pleasant way of life where the local community is everything and
community co-operation is the real thing.

Bazz,

Wow, Utopian dreaming takes many forms, doesn't it ? One world government on the one hand, a multitude of vibrant, local communities, from here to Timbuktu, on the other.

As usual, I agree with Squeers, that we already have one-world economy, power without responsiblity. Marx says somewhere something about capitalism recognising no sovereigns, that 'it' puts its money wherever it thinks it will get the best returns and passes any human costs back onto local societies.

Even now, it would be difficult to say that this company, BHP say, is an Australian company, or that one, BP let's say, is a British one. Fifty-odd years ago, Vance Packard noted that more returns were being generated by American companies overseas than in the US. The shareholders in our banks are as likely to be overseas banks as local shareholders. A huge proportion of the US Reserve is owned by China. And no doubt, many Europeans, or at least Germans, are cursing the day some bright spark dreamed up a European Union, let alone a world one.

But the idea of a single world-government is still good for a laugh.

Jo

Joe,
Yeah the idea is laughable because it totally runs against the grain of human nature but the fact is that these elite factions believe what they say even if you don't.
However, as risible as the concept seems,real people are dying in Africa and the Middle East in the name of the NWO, this whole mad rush for global hegemony is going to be a nightmare, an absolute shocker on the scale of WW2 or worse.
The elites simply can't control the planet anymore, there are too many people and for one thing the Russians and Asians are not going to go along with it.
Just watch what happens, we're rolling into endgame and things are going to get really ugly in the next few years, the elites are going to roll the dice one more time and it's going to be a massive disaster for them.
We can only hope that they don't survive to do it again.

To borrow from Shakespeare - A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

That is, it doesn't matter what you call it, just what it is.

I don't think we are in danger of a one-world government in the material sense and the UN is all but a toothless animal. However it is naive to believe that there are not some global influences at play with various interest groups already exploiting the imblance of power, particularly in relation to free trade agreement arrangements. That is who benefits the most?

It is also disingenuous to refer to any movement of a global government as a Left idea. If anything it has its roots in the opposite direction. Bob Brown has only ever discussed the idea of global governance - ie. don't destroy and pillage foreign environments or peoples for short term selfish financial interests. It used to be called manners and a recognition of the rights of other human beings outside our own borders.

Bazz,
....and that's why I'm an Anarchist.

You may be interested in this site:
http://attackthesystem.com/

Even conservatives like Pat Buchanan are saying the U.S is finished, the economy has been looted, White America, the backbone of the nation has been destroyed, the constitution is in tatters.

If people haven't been reading the likes of Dr Paul Craig Roberts then now might be a good time to start:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27045

I think it's a fair assessment that America is in the first stages of decline. Western hegemony in general is at a crossroads. China, for one, has beaten the West at its own game.
There's a whole raft of organisations that have acted on behalf of this failing neo-liberal hegemony. Some, like the World Bank and the IMF, have morphed from their original charters into doormen for Western corporations, giving access into developing countries, often with little or no benefit.

JOM,

It's not unusual for superpowers and empires to degenerate and crumble, and for other powers to usurp their position. Human history is one long baton-change in the race for power, glory and fortune.

The big difference between antiquity and the present is man's development of devastating weapons....and the worry that a failing power may use them.