This is a classic example of being willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because some corruption might rear its head doesn't mean that a one-world authority wouldn't be the best way to enforce equality and protect the environment. The authority must, however, be immune from the whimsical wishes of the populace in order to function objectively. This excludes old-fashioned romantic notions of freedom and democracy.

By a show of hands, who wants equality and a better enviornment?

I don't believe a world government would solve the problem of war. The world's problems would still remain. For example, I don't think the Palestinians would agree to a two state solution just because a bunch of countries voted on it. And I don't think Israel will allow itself to be annihilated just because another group decided that was best for world peace. In fact, the idea has the potential to cause war, oppression and violence to an even greater extreme than we have now, as it presumes imposing the will of the majority on the freedom of the few.

You describe a world government without means to enforce its laws. With the enforcement rescources of the United States, Britian, and others having surrendered their sovereignty to the central government, it would have all the powers of enforcement necessary to prevent all the scenerios you fear.

A world government would never happen until the end of times because there are too many smart and strong freedom loving people who would never let it stand.

And honestly, the need for government to help us with our lives is for the weak and whimpy. I mean we don't need a babysitter for the whole world...

__________________
It is human to love and divine to forgive

Why would you think it fair for some people to possess more strength than others? Do you think it fair that the U.S. has more wealth and rescources than some other small country...............that some US citizens have more wealth than others? A strong, central ruler would even out these inequities making the world a place of more equality for the masses.

If the world government were a good one, I think I might be in favor of it. If the world government were a bad one (and I could tell), then obviously I'd be against it.

Imagine for a moment that the one-world government was made up of those same smart and strong freedom-loving people you're talking about. Is it still a bad idea?

And I agree that we don't need a babysitter for the whole world -- but would that immediately be worse than the many babysitters we have now? Where can you go in the world that you aren't being babysat and made to follow one set of laws or another?

A democratic world government is both possible and feasible. At present a disproportionate amount of power is held by the US and the other 4 permanenant members of the UN Security Council (code for the 'international community'). However, this disprportionate amount of power currently weighted in favour of the rich nations of the West could be underscored if, say, every country in the world elected members to a global parliament in direct proportion to their population size. At present, the US, with a population of approximately 275 million people, consists of 5 per cent of the world's total and therefore would be represented by just 5 per cent of the parliament. Alternatively, countries like India and China, for example, with excess of well over 1 billion, would naturally be far better represented. Issues like human rights abuses would offset this representative amount. In this way, unbalanced power relations that currently adversely effect the world, could conceivably be redressed. This potential solution to the problems of the world, requires political will to make it happen.

That's the way the world turns. I think it is unfair for those who are blessed with more to be forced to give up what they have for those who are wasteful or irresponsable. If they give to the poor kudos to them but no one has the right to tell them what to do with what they have earned or been blessed with.

Of course taking from those with less because one is stronger is the wrong way and that is one thing the government is created to stop, but I also think that is what a world government will do with its power.

__________________
It is human to love and divine to forgive

Any government that supports freedom and peace is best. Even a worldy government, as long as it doesn't need extreme weapons and laws removing our ability to defend ourselves wasn't it's way of keeping order.

A government that would somehow make everyone be peaceful and respectful would be great. A government locking us up and keeping peace by force would have errs and flaws that would lead to more force being needed. It sounds great but can't happen because we are human.

I would think it would be worse if there was just one world government that have random flaws like the governments that are in our world today because there wouldn't be other choices, voices, or ideas to be heard against it.

__________________
It is human to love and divine to forgive