It is interesting that in futuristic, sci-fi movies this concept is acceptable while the tin-foil hat, conspiracy theorist bemoan it as evil incarnate. Is this funny? What gives? Either the concept is to be desired or not. Now I agree that we must be careful who the new world leader should be. The UN is not a model to be running this planet, Washington DC also did not demonstrate any wisdom to be the inheriting this role. As spiritual beings petty border issues, ethnic and cultural differences are to be looked over or shall we say smoothed over but what happens then immigrants try to force their way of living, laws or culture down the throat of the host country who thinking out of generosity and good will allows them entrance.
It is clear in my mind that we are not ready for one world government but perhaps that is the only way we could survive the progression of this millennial. What do you think?
A singular global government is a terrible idea, at least at this point in human evolution. One idea often submitted in support of a one-world government is that with a plurality of nations ultimately comes conflict between the nations, and that if we just knuckled under and pledged ourselves to one regime, that would all go away. However, I see the plurality of nations as a good thing. On a global level, it can also act as a system of "checks and balances". Diversity of perspective is important in governance. This is very similar to the reasons that it is bad to have a single ruler. No one individual, even if they were actually inclined to try, could properly rule in the interests of all of humanity. One single perspective is too limited. Similarly, one regime cannot sufficiently address the needs of all people on the planet.
Following a systems perspective, I would argue for decentralization as much as possible, while not forgetting the need for coordination and steering from a higher (fractal) level. The human race needs to get its priorities straight. Peak oil has arrived and our economic-political-social systems are on the brink of collapse. Within a couple of years we might witness chaos, a state of emergency declared and military put to use to curb chaos. Do your own research and you will find out more about this. We need to work together, locally, regionally and internationally to build sustainable systems of all kinds.
I am not sure there is much reason for a one-world government except if humanity had to communicate with space aliens. However, there are probably some others I can think of. If a one-world government was based on the principles of meritocracy, including that of 100% inheritance tax and probably that no elected representative can belong to a political party, and that if the government ran like a (mostly) Platonic republic, then it may be a good idea, as long as it does not get corrupted. There is already in some ways a one-world government because of international courts. However, the environment, and human rights such as in the 'Bill of Rights,' and labor rights are being ignored in many countries. A one-world government could take steps to solve such problems, some of which need cooperation among governments. Governments of nations should still have their own say and be able to recall any world law-making body if they are considered not sufficient.
However, a one-world government should probably wait until all of the world is rational, including when there is no more Islamism, or arguably, Abrahamism. Islamist countries in the UN try to enact laws against 'religious offence,' but if the representatives had the ideas of the people who protest in the West with signs like 'behead those who insult Islam,' 'butcher those who mock Islam,' 'Islam will dominate the world,' etc., then they should not be in any law-making body that says anything to the rest of the world.
It is interesting how one world government has taken on an almost wholly negative complexion.
I kinda have to agree with Roy on this one. There is always a struggle to centralize and to decentralize. Perhaps it's just a prejudice that I hold personally but it seems that there is a higher morality to decentralization. When you concentrate power into a few hands for selfish purposes there is always the tendency to play "hungry ghost". Hence the fact that I do not trust corporations very much. They are sociopaths by law and (at least in the US) accountable primarily to their shareholders above all else. This causes (in the worst case) the thinking to be driven by extremely short-term considerations (quarterly earnings). Honestly, I would like to see the concept of the "limited-profit" corporation come more into vogue, so that profits beyond a certain, specified percentage can go towards the greater public good or other long-term improvements.
In a weird kind of way I have a lot of sympathy for groups like Anonymous, Lulzsec and the Occupy movements. While some activities of the first two can be malicious and just plain mean-spirited, there is also the aspect of standing up to the cable companies and internet providers who always seem to look for ways to place chokeholds on their customers for the sake of profits. Along those lines I hope like mad that Google's "Gigabit Internet" initiative in Kansas City works better than expected. It will show the "old line" internet providers for the money-grubbing a**** that they are.