It is my belief that the creation of a united global government would benefit humanity. Exchange of resources and industrialization of regions would be made infinitely easier without the need for diplomatic envoys and the everpresent pride of leaders. A Global government, if created, would also mean an end to wars, perhaps. When all of humanity shall be united and able to recieve what they need to survive. To be able to put aside old prejudice. Wouldn't that be grand?

it's a nice idea, but it's just that... idealistic.

the league of nations and the united nations have both attempted to do this sort of thing, and obviously, it has failed miserably.

Wouldn't a lot of people feel like they were being forced to forsake their national identities? Every "we" knocks out a few "me"s that may be precious.

I also agree that although it may be a nice idea it is highly unlikely it could ever be implemented in practice.

Has it? There is just no enough force applied. Democracy was at one point considered idealistic. Yet here we are.
The greater good of humanity, all of humanity, will force people to act despite the objections of the now powerful epople who control the world at present. You call it idealistic because there are those who would have you think it is impossible, those who would seek to maintain their power at the expense of all mankind.
Their time will come.

Why would they? What is a nation but a political creation intended to look after the needs of the people and preserve their culture? A global government must only protect those things, nothing more. A union is not an end to culture art and personal belife, it provides a solid foundation upon which these things can grow.

irony- you state that americans force their ideals on others when you claim democracy as the higher good.

but let's not get into that. =/

yes, it would be possible if all nations had goodwill and the same, common interest intent. however, too many people are afraid to be stabbed in the back by each other. in this way, they each "protect" themselves from the other.

it's not impossible... just hard to come by.

The 6 billion people in the world have different ideals, cultures, habits, intellect and goals. A global government is a logistical impossibility to control those, it will get worse when one culture overshadows the other. A tiny country like France has seperatists and Chinese Administration is under hammer from smaller politico-cultural groups like Falun Gong - a global government is an impossibility from both a practical and theoretical point of view.

Soviets tried it and it did not work. All we could do is a global system of co-operation and co-existence and a central system which makes sure it operates smoothly. UN is one such organisation but it is used and rejected by some countries according to their convenience.

You keep mixing politics and culture. These two things are seperate and in order to function to the best interests of mankind must be kept such. A political system is nothing but a way for the people to maintain their material well-being. A society is the means by which they interact with each other. Wars are caused not necesserily by the clashes of culture, but by the materialistic inequalities among people. Cultures will be quite capable of coexisting if the material needs of the people were met. But before that can happen, there must be a systen to distribute these materials.

I doubt this could happen, and heres why. Does anyone see, say, Isreal and the rest of the Mid-East getting along anytime soon?

The world is too divided by stark differences of opinion and beleif to ever truly get along well enough to start a global goverment. Besides, the voice of the individual would be lost. And what language would be the global standard?

Bah! I keep saying that a government will meet the material requirments of the people. The tension and war in the middle east is a result of the lack of materials. They are poor and thus their needs are not met. This drives the people, regardless of culture or pursuesion, to engage in violent means to meet their basic survival needs. Were material good provided, the people would become much more understanding and much less violent.
Education also helps. The government would also serve to educate humanity. Not only to teach them practical and technical skills but also something that is very important: Common sense and Logic.
If humanity is provided a material foundation and an educational foundation the petty cultural conflicts that occur today would eventually become a thing of the past.

Hmmm... that's true however most people do not separate politics and culture in their minds or in practice. Politics is seen as a tool to force your own idea of morality and culture onto others, rather than a means to ensure natural rights. If that idea could be somehow gotten past, I'd say a global government is possible but very improbable.

I think instead of a global central government the ideal would be a network of more or less autonomous local governments. That way there's less chance of tyranny by a single group. The only central control I see that as needing is making sure that all individuals have the ability if they want to bow out of the group they're in and join another.

Oh wait, didn't see the second part of your post. A political system is for meeting material well-being? Isn't that an individuals right and responsibility, not the province of government? A good government should ensure that no one is exploited or given privilege. But individuals must meet their own needs.

Individuals have long since tried to meet their own needs, but because of the inherent inequality in the distribution of resources and the lack of consideration of the rights of humans, such a system has given birth to the modern world. Where the majority of humanity, despite their hardest efforts to provide for themselves and their families, still live in poverty and struggle to survive.

The partitioning of the world into local principalities designed to ensure the rights of mankind has been tried. After all, what is the world today but just that, a seriese of autonomous principalities seeking to protect the rights of their population, not humanity as a whole. The overall effect is the benefit of a few and the exploitation of the many. Many governments result in a fractured world that inefficiently makes use of resources, cannot collaborate and has its interests, not the interests of all mankind, in the front of policy.

In order to protect the rights of mankind and ensure that the greater good of humanity is put at the forefront, material distribution is needed to provide everyone with the basics. If this is not done, there will be those who accumulate wealth at the expense of others. These people will then pass that wealth on to their children and those who were exploited would have less wealth to give to theirs. Thus begins the creation of those with privelege and those without, given enough time there will form an elite class that posesses the wealth and a poor class that does not.

That's true. And it's a hard fix, if possible at all. But violating the rights of some citizens in order to feed others is not, to my mind, justified.

Hmm, well, all of these "principalities" are only superficially free and going from one to another is very difficult do to their large size.

Networking is somewhat inefficient but central control is extremely inefficient, and that is the system that most of the world favors now.

Whenever there is material given out for free that gives an opportunity for exploitation of that--think of people who live entirely off of welfare but do no work. I think the best way, however counter-intuitive, to ensure that people are fed is to insure that they are free. Oppression, by a state or by the majority, always leads to some getting the short stick unfairly. In a completely free society progress will be made very quickly and so the poor will be fed better and better over time--also feeding the poor essentially depends on the goodwill of men anyway--welfare or otherwise--so why not simply allow people to give out of charity? That serves the need you're talking about--basic material needs--but is not exploitative of anybody.

I'm not sure what system I favor. Frankly, I waffle a lot because I hear a lot of great arguments from all sides. But in general I oppose Statism of any kind and favor minarchy of some form. I'm just not sure what yet.

To your last point, capitalism was supposed to be the answer. I all of the history of mankind, it has never benefitted the people, only the capitalists. Tyrrany by money. And those with money raerly give charity, those who do cannot make a difference. Right now, the rich keep their money. The poor starve and suffer around the world. Charity is helping very few. Many are dying while the few grow rich and powerful and gain even more wealth. What a fatal flaw this is.

To your first remark, you seem to say that by inaction you would let many suffer and die rather than by action harm the few?
It is a moral imperative to try and benefit the great majority of people. One cannot justify the suffering of many to appose the suffering of few.
If you hold that human life is sacred, then protecting the greatest amount of human life should be the goal. If that entails harming a few people, it is a needed evil. Stalin was rutheless, and his actions may not have been the bes course. But it was needed. To say countless more that would have died had Hitler been able to invade a non-industrialized Soviet Union.

Politics is influenced by culture, especially in a democratic set up. In US, if a state is racially biased, a candidate who makes a slightly racial comments wins the election rather than a more open minded on. These are politicians and they make the policies.

War are often caused by cultural clashes, like pushing Isreal in the face of Arab nations, who are culturally enemies and now it has a political dimension.

A world government would result in a clash of civilisations as a democratic system of world government would result in policies which completely overshadow Caucasians by Aryans and Orientals which at least Americans and British will find hard to accept. For example making suvastika a road sign for a temple as is here - it would be voted in by a world majority who represent more than 3.5 billion people but the British and Americans would find it inpalatable due to their hatred for Nazis and their lick-your-wound cultural system.