If its prime motivation is to feed the world, protect the innocent and heel the ill, then you can brush the rest of the problems with it aside. They are formed from greed and belief and with the guns in the right hands, they can be shut up.

World Nation or many nations?

This question is worthy of study. I see green-agenda.com as an introduction to the goals of Agenda 21, an effort well under way for precisely the purpose of a one world government. I also see freedom21.org/un-alternative.htm as a small but growing force opposing the agenda. As for answers to those questions, there may only be the effort of individual study to find out for oneself.

If we are going to be idealistic enough to consider the possibility of one world government, much less one that actually provides equality for all people, why not be idealistic enough to consider no government at all?

When talking about idealistic organizations for society, the small agrarian commune sounds much more appealing than some world dominating political entity.

It may seem an ideal situation Didymos Thomas however, the overall planning for community structure would have to lead above the rule of a singularity.

I believe that in the United States of America, you have one vote that leads to government. That is, who you vote for in the county of where ever, should they win of course, they rule the place of election. Providing that this is the way the government is decided, a whole lot of places that join to form the body of the government, I do not see a problem. Where we are, we have to vote three times for the same place and we may win three times and still hold no place in the form of the ruling government. That is local, state and federal government. That is a waste of effort and I would say expenses.

Hey don't quote me on how your government works, I can not be sure I have a grip on the ins and outs of its workings.

Ideally that was the purpose of the United Nations but they never did a thing right and that was from conception.

We're talking about impossible, idealistic structures of society. The practical implications are such that both the pluralistic, independent commune is impossible as well as singular rule.



And I have no idea how the Australian democracy functions. In the US, we have many tiers of government. The most basic, and most important, are the state and federal (central government in Washington) levels. When we vote, we usually vote on many things. Take a Presidential election - all Americans will vote on the President, many Congressional seats will be up for contest, and various states will vote on referendum issues. An American might go in to vote for the President, and wind up casting ten other votes on any number of issues.

We also have a hierarchy of laws. State law may contradict Federal law, but Federal law is seem as supreme in these cases. However, when these conflicts do arise, a state might not enforce the Federal law, leaving enforcement up to the Federal government. There's also the issue of state's rights - powers not given to the Federal government which state government can invoke. For example, we might not have a prohibition against alcohol on a Federal level, but an individual state could pass such a measure. Enforcement would then be the burden of the state, and not the Federal government. State's rights have basically disappeared after the American Civil War.

Why is a singular nation not possible? I'm sure it isn't today but what is the closest form of leadership that could allow for one nation of the world?

Dissent and ego - sometimes both.

Alright, then how do you 'uniformalize' the ego and dissent of people in a rational manner?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'uniformalize'. But, it sounds like the idea is contrary to the notion of dissent and the notion of ego.

Of course, the idea of a single world government just makes me sick to my stomach.

A world nation would be impossible without serious injustice. What may be good for the United States may not be good for the people of Africa or South America. Some ethical principles are definately universal, but things not in control of society such as climate and environment would make it impossible for everyone in the world to live under the same laws.

Humanity does not think as a unity, it appears humanity as a whole cannot be rational, at this point and time the most rational consideration would be population control, to harness industry and technology to serve a reduced population. Utopia is the furthest thing from the possiablities of humanity----cows will fly first!

Agree with what's been said for the most part.

I believe this is where we're headed; world government. By and large, throughout the majority of world history, the trend has been more nation-states bonding together than the other way around (with the exception of the collapse of the USSR). As more people travel, as media forms permeate deeper into all parts of the world, as migration becomes easier, etc., I think it an inevitable permutation that the barriers separating us will continue to fall.

But I'm not hard over on this prediciton; there's a lot to support the notion that whenever governments CAN separate and control, they will. I suppose time will tell. I used to think that in my lifetime I'd see this come to fruition but I realize now that's unlikely in the extreme.

For my part, I believe anything that binds more of us together as *humans* is a good thing. Anything that separates, polarizes and dichotomizes us (nationalism/fascist mindsets, xenophobic cultures, ethnocentrism, organized religion) is contrary to (and inhibits) cooperation, peaceful coexistence, humane treatment and humane bonding of our species. The concept of 'we' gets lost in the 'me-and-mine'.

.

I agree with Khethil that it seems the historical process seems to be moving towards a United World Government and like him I'm doubtful it will happen in our lifetime. And then again It might be, with the introduction of the internet and modern travel.

I dont think dissent and ego is insurmountable towards a unified world. We are not looking towards a total "peaceful government of worlds". Fights can notbe avoided in such a large-scale enterprise. Can we avoid fights with siblings with-in a 2 children family?

Democracy I think will still be the best form of government, parliamentary and federal at best.

If there was to be a single world nation that would start to this day it would not be possible. If you were to suggest that the nation would have one true religion or none at all, the world would not be ready. There are to many wars going on and the fight to control the middle east will be endless.

The problem is.... to whose ideology do we subscribe? For example I live in Asia because I do not subscribe to Western ideas, philosophies or religions for the most part thus I have settled in a part of the world where I fit in culturally, religiously and philosophically.

Many forms of communism have tried to impose "unity" and failed because there is no such thing as complete unity and conformity as long as people have free will and independent thoughts. One world government and economy with representatives from each existing country to keep the world in line and prevent war, conflict, hunger, etc. I do agree with but that would be an Eastern idea that would not appeal to most Western capitalists as it would make "Wall Street" obsolete thus no human suffering to profit from.

If there's one thing that I've heard over again from people trying to drill it into my brain, its that supposedly there is no free will. Makes sense, but who cares.

I think I have heard every argument about there being no free will and I disagree whole heartedly. I do as I please and it is that simple, sometimes I do things to annoy people just to flex my free will. I have to say I am unpredictable which keeps things interesting for those around me. I suppose the big question is if we don't have free will then who or what is controlling us and to what end?

If we were to become a single world nation, would it happen in sections or in one big war/revolutions.

Would we become continental nations first and then a world nation?

I just cannot imagine a world nation being established in any real sense. You would have to convince all the various nationalities and cultures to subject themselves to group governance with hostile cultures.

Take, for example, Iran and the US. Would either nation sacrifice their sovereignty to give the other more power? While the tension between the US and Iran will eventually die, other conflicts between other groups will arise. Such conflicts seem to go hand in hand with civilization. And even hunter gatherer groups find themselves in conflicts for hunting grounds, ect.