but than 1 vote would mean nothing


amd the only way for there to not b a war would be in unified (just for the need to survive) anarchy

And so who determines just what are the "whimsical wishes of the populace?"

The only way would be possible is letting a computer control the populace. But wait, since computers are programmed by people, who are fallible, that wouldn't work either.

You live in fantasyland if you think something like that is possible. How do you propose to eliminate human greed, passion, jealousy, pride, laziness apathy and all the other things that contribute to the human condition?

And what about the people who don't want it? Are you going to MAKE them capitulate? Why that sounds a lot like oppression to me? What will happen to the people who criticize your perfect one world government? Will they be done away with in the night?

And this enforcement you describe, of course, presumes war.

No, it sounds like lawful enforcement of laws just like the ones we have now..............tax enforcement, mandatory primary education, universal healthcare, environmental safety enforcement, etc, etc, .............etc.
That will not be necessary. They are currently being dealt with by our candidates and media campaign. Just look at the support we've ginned up for the universal healthcare and environmental awareness I mentioned above. Don't worry about getting the masses on board...............we have proven our ability to lead them in the direction of their own best interest.

You people need to get over your passion for out-dated concepts of liberty that have been gone for a generation, and embrace the modern world of efficient provision for all.

__________________
It is human to love and divine to forgive

My concern is not whether God is on our side, my greatest concern is to be on God's side... - Abraham Lincoln

Eh even if that was true, those courts are part of a democratic framework. Working just fine. The Autocracy you proscribe has failed so many times, its just silly.

WWII is my prime example. Ok so yeah obvioulsy some ideologies can't co-exist, and then we get war. Note whats happened to Europe now- old wounds heal, new idenities form. Hurray and all that. And while no ofcourse happiness is not universal here, I note that I haven't been conscripted to march against Queensland for their boutiful banana stocks, or had my government bomb Tasmania for wanting to declare independance (actually apparently WA has a bit of that [the independance not the bombing] but we still loves 'em.

If we hadn't federated though, what devisions would have arrisen over 100 years? Wars been fought, areas invaded perhaps? We'd be in worse shape, no question.

A path to change open to such people is non-violent, and therefore that is a well tread path- if we were seperate countries it'd simply be a bloody battle over our disagreements instead. At worse they become criminals, instead of dictators.

Well a large section of ideologies can then- essentially any that places a democratic ideology firmly in charge. Empiricism has seen enemies join in lasting peace, I'm confident it will continue as such. Hopefully with less war as precursor though.

Mmm, certainly to suggest that governance is bad because of corruption ignores all teh good that unity can acheive. KOD, there is already an element of that shield from whimsy in democracy- set terms. You essentially have your way for 4 or so years (with sensible guidleines and overwatch) to get things done. In a democracy that Corruption you mention can be rid of through election; in autocracy, violence- be it assasination coup or civil war.

Can you stop calling it old-fashioned; it really is all the rage. Autocracy on the other hand, so parse...par-se? I need an accent don't I?

We keep doing it Matticus, getting larger group idenities- just one step to go. Its not without precendant, this causeing peace thing- every government is testament to it. We stop fighting each other because we travel/trade/communicate better as one nation- and our leaders no-longer havea vested interest in keeping us divided, and have no ability to dehumanise an opponent people- a neccassary precursor to war.

Consider- todays options, limited media, many languages, constant threat of war- you really think you're getting exposed to as many ideas as you would if there were no borders?

Keep in mind what I and the OP are advocating is a Democratic world government- ideas can be debated without fear(mostly) and change without violence in such a state- thats what leads to options. In truth, you'd have the entire world to bounce ideas off, to be inspired by.

There ya go yielding to some ethereal "sensible guidlines and overwatch." Who decides when to enforce "sensible guidelines and overwatch" over your democratically chosen 4-year wonders?
It seems like you are spending too much time pondering self-appointed philosophers of the blogishere. You sound like a garden-variety right-winger. Next, you'll be claiming to support freedom of choice for one's healthcare. We've come too far in our transition from the old America to a progressive state to allow that to remain the norm.

What if your world "democracy" simply votes out community in favor of secession back to individual sovereign nations? What if they were free to simply choose to exist on their own apart from the needs of the world, making their own decisions based on their 'local' situations and needs? You really do sound like a Individualist Conservative.