Short of contact with an alien species and the need to establish an authority of some sort to arbitrate trade disputes, I can’t say I see the need.
Eventually, the borders will become sufficiently porous to labour, capital and information and the role of national governments will change, but I don’t see them giving up any degree of autonomy or control willingly.
Who was the wise man that said, “World government will happen about 10 minutes after the founding of the state of Israbia?”
It’s just possible that if the U.S. joined (on fundamentally renegotiated terms) the European Union, it might evolve into a world government in 50-100 years. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=339251
With all due respect, just because you started a thread on the subject doesn’t give it any currency. I don’t think even one poster agreed with your proposition.
Nevertheless, it remains “just possible,” and as plausible as any other path to global union suggested in this thread. Including mswas’ contention that we’ve already got a world government, or SentientMeat’s suggestion that the UN plays that role. (Hint: If war is possible within a government’s jurisdiction, it is not a government.)
It is not a government in the sense you are used to having a government. That doesn’t mean it’s not a government. A government ‘GOVERNS’, the word govern does not mean that it has absolute control over everything in it’s domain, it means that it kind of pushes and nudges here and there to keep a semblance of order. Saying that a government that has wars within it’s borders is not a government is naive. There are gang wars on the streets of LA, is the United States not a Government? Is California not a Government? What about Russia, there is a war in Chechnya is Russia not a government? To say that there cannot be war within a government’s jurisdiction is like saying that we have no laws if there is any crime. It’s never 100% control, it’s more of a loose control, where in certain areas depending upon the cultural situation you have more success than others at controlling the sea of humanity.
Erek
Something I’d propose is that Al Qaeda is a revolutionary organization fighting against a world government that is predominately non-muslim. The war on Terror in my opinion is more accurately a global civil war.
No, and it never will be time for a world government.
The problem is, people are different. And more importantly, large groups of people who live together, we’ll call them societies, are extremely different from one another.
The OP discusses how it bothers him that the United States gets to take actions which affect his life, but he doesn’t get to vote on the matter.
How would a country like Canada feel (for example) in a union where even if all of its 30+ million people voted in an identical manner, a law could pass that would still severely hurt Canada, and Canada couldn’t do a damn thing about it. It’s one thing to feel the ripple effects of a great power, it’s quite another to be a small country (population wise) and have to confront the fact that other countries with larger populations will be passing laws that YOU have to live by, and there isn’t a damn thing in the world you can do about it.
Some would say that the problems with establishing a true world government are similar to the problems that confronted forming a united states in the American colonies. And true, they are similar, but their scale and the complexity of the problems are so much vaster on a global scale that it’s akin to trying to compare how a farmer fixes a problem with not producing as much food as he would like to the world trying to stop global hunger.
Lets also not forget, that the current “great powers” would effectively be dealt a death blow by a true world government. Most of the world is not democratic, most of the world does not support liberal western ideals.
In fact, I’d suggest instead of “world government” you refer to it as “Asian Government” since Asia represents 60% of the world’s population, and if you wanted this to be a democratic government that would mean asia would be able to make all decisions for the world no matter what Europe or the Americas or Africa had to say about it.
Of course, the idea of all of the Asian landmass coming to one idea about something is just as ridiculous as the entire world doing the same.
And ultimately we don’t need a world government. A government that, from some centralized seat-on-high dictates how individual regions are to conduct themselves. The ideal situation is the one we have now, individual states take care of their own affairs, and remain most importantly sovereign. The only thing that world government would truly be good at, versus the current system, is dealing with international problems. But I see no reason to sign away my liberties and my sovereignty as an American when we could equally address international issues simply by furthering and advancing international diplomacy and making improvements to international regimes and the UN.
That would be an excellent plank in the Dem party platform !!! 
I agree - it would indeed be close to, if not impossible, to form such a government.
Ticked off, I’d imagine.
…but explain to me how it is so very different? You seem to assume that these “ripples” have less effect than a direct law over a population has. Possibly. The truth is, we can’t always know what indirect effects one countries’ decision will have. And sometimes, they will have much larger effects - for example, China’s ignoring of western patent laws isn’t dealt with by invasion of their country, but by diplomacy. Would the same treatment be doled out to a smaller, less powerful nation? If you live in a powerful nation, then while others are not constrained by your laws, they are very much constrained by your decisions.
The scale would be bigger, yes. So?
Complexity is another matter. There would undoubtedly be much more bureaucracy - and I myself am a fan of small government. I think a set up like the US would be the most effective setup - smaller states “controlled” by a central authority. That way (for the most part) the states would be left to their laws - but resources and aid could be spread in a way that’s better for those in the poorer states.
You assume that’s a bad thing 
To be fair, while i’ve said i’m not a fan of the US having a large say in what happens in my life, I’d prefer them to China. However; I am willing to accept a comprimise in my freedom in order that all people are able to live in that comprimised system.
Well, we could always have a dictatorship, but that relies on the dictator being benevolent.
As I suggested above, a US style system would mean that the “states” would have a considerable say in what their own population does. And to your argument of Asia being able to control the worldwide policy, as you’ve pointed out:
If they’re not all going to back one policy/leader, then there is no “Asian vote”, but a lot of range in policies voted for - a range which could be defeated by a concentrated western, african, american, whatever group, vote.
I do agree, with the most part, which is why I suggest the US model - small government, more power to the “states”.
Yes.
It is your sovereignty as an American that is the problem. You want what is best for Americans, first - then others. The priority is always given to one’s own country. I just think a system in which everyone is trying to screw each other in order to get positives for themselves is going to do anyone good in the long run - and meanwhile the smaller nations are unable to compete.
No, Evil, we’re too busy lynching Smurfs this season, perhaps another time. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Ack. Is not going to anyone good in the long run.
It’ll take 100 years for this to happen. Or a major global disaster. A major global disaster may lead to a world government due to all the fragmentation caused by isolated governments.
Another problem is the cultural differences between places like Sweden and Saudi Arabia. No centralized government could placate both.
However globally the rise is towards more expansive governments. The EU for example, or the confederation of asian or african states, or the UN are examples of this.
I’m not really concerned with US military powers as much as things like pollution or disparities between the rich and poor. In the developed world like the US for example we spend about 2 trillion a year in government funds to help build infrastructure and as a social safety net (social security, education, medical attention for people) but we only spend about 20 billion to offer safety nets or infrastructure in the developing world.
Another issue is pollution. China is a major polluter and their actions will affect the whole world. So will America’s pollution and our greenhouse gas emissions.
But the Jews already control the world. ;j
I think there is rather a false dichotomy going on here, that there must either be utterly independent nation states forever more or a single full-on centralised government of Worldistan.
New alliances, federations and multi-state entities are forever coming into being by simple agreement on rigorously negotiated treaties and charters, which typically leak a little sovereignty to the larger entity only in very specific fields. For example, the UK is still a sovereign nation despite EU directives such as the Human Rights Act (since, after all, it could at any point tear up the Treaty of Rome).
So, put simply, the US will only leak sovereignty to a limited world government if and only if the US agrees to it. It arguably already leaks some to international entities like the World Trade Organistion and UN Charter.
…Hmmmmm?
True, but that has not prevented the very different societies of Europe from putting together an association, the European Union, which is almost a government. More closely resembles one than the UN, anyway. And it seems to be working.
Not so. No more than the current United States government is an empire of the coasts over the interior. Which is isn’t, because coastal residents are not all of one mind and do not all vote the same way. If we had a democratically elected World Parliament, 60% of its members most likely would be Asian, but they would not all vote in a bloc. The Indian members alone would not all vote in a bloc. Some would be socialists and caucus with European socialists, etc.; some would be economic libertarians; and so on.
Without a World Government, we won’t be allowed into the United Federation of Planets.
I feel that World Government is both necessary and inevitable, but still at least a hundred years away.
Yes, I have one. The way to bring about world government will require a long and gradual process of the United States of America inviting and accepting new franchises.
If Hawaii can be part of the USA, so can New Zealand.
Don’t like that idea? Then forget about one world government because ultimately it means one big United States.
That is my view. It is inevitable for some kind of global federation to form in the modern age of international communication, pollution and trade. Just not right now. We already have global federations though like the UN, WTO or ICC. We also have localized groups of governments like the AU, EU or ASEAN, or the defunct USSR.
I am personally looking forward to the day, although I’m sure I won’t live to see it (I’m 26 now so I’ll probably die in the 2070s or 2080s). But there will be alot of resistance from conservative religious people who see it as a sign of the end of the world.