We see example after example of corruption and sheer ineptitude on the part of our own government every single day... we need more government! What could go wrong with a world government?!?

The EU is in its infancy. They are slowly moving closer and closer together.

I certainly hope not.
A representative democracy with most of the representatives elected by semi-literate peasants (or city-dwellers less than one generation away from being peasants) is a recipe for corruption and disaster.

What exactly is democratic about people in Kuala Lumpur deciding say, marriage laws that apply to Koreans?

How is that a government of the people, by the people, or for the people, when people that barely interact face to fact have control over the lives of so many others? Anti-capitalists seem to abhor the concept of market power; what do you think will happen to the concentration of political power with world government? How can you hold the position that concentrated economic and political power is bad and good at the same time?

A strongly representative world democracy could easily have alot of local representation and laws... what's "democratic" about Texas rednecks being able to oppress gays in Maine and Cali?

Seems perfectly democratic to me. Gays should vote harder or have more kids or something. Until they win at the ballot box they should stfu, right?

Nothing. I support the decentralization of the US government too. You seem to hold another contradictory position.

Nothing.............................. but I guess you answered your own question about how well a world "democratic" goverment works or even a national "democratic" goverment works

So what do you guys see as the future of world government?

Collapse.

this is wrong, but since you seem smart i will assume you are making this incorrect statement off of poor assumptions rather than actual failure to understand what is going on

you should pay more attention to the way news flows about and the manner in which it ultimately ends up in 'mainstream media'

but yeah, your conclusion above is just wrong

Don't you think civilization will collapse before it gets that far?

Dude this is such a glaring contradiction. You don't want people from Texas to be able to "oppress" people from Maine and Cali, yet you want a WORLD GOVERNMENT

You think Texas is bad? Wait 'til you have the Middle East voting as a block. Have fun with your world government 'o tyranny.

We can't even control our national government and some here want a world government. Brilliant.

Yeh, he makes a great argument for states' rights and the supremacy of the 10th Amendment and calls for world government in the same blurb.

Nothing. Which is why modern democratic institutions have my vote as the best method so far of running large societies.

Speaking for myself, because I understand I am a part of the process. I can get involved. If I choose not to, I can vote for somebody who I believe will best implement what I would like to see. And I can vote him out if he fails to live up to my wishes.

And people think ACists are utopian idealists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

You are a true believer right now. Also, what happens if you become a permanent minority in political thought. If you subjugate the Constitution, then what protects the rights of the minority like you.

If you stay in this game long enough, you will become either a minority or a sellout. True believers don't last for a long time in the world of politics.

I'm sure they can figure out some form of democracy that lets religious areas have "states rights" etc.

Where do you see conspiratory posts of me? I am opposed to centralization of power as a general principle. And even if you want to centralize power, and seperate those powers, I think imagination is the last thing you need to create a working system.

I disagree that we are bound to have world government one way or the other and I would like to see an argument why we would.

Also, I understand you are not supporting a world overlord, but you do place too much faith in centralized power and the benevolence of the people holding it, or in the checks that can be put it place to keep them from being too malevolent, imho.

Also I will add that I am in favor of free international trade and strong, voluntary, cooperation. I also think that if nation states around the world would be organized more decentrally (like Switzerland is for example), voluntary international cooperation would automatically increase. In such a scenario, the need for a sovereign body governing (aspects of) the world would not even exist.

Monckton is so full of ****. The Copenhagen Treaty is still being drafted, however:

It looks like 0.5 of GDP of developed nations is the most likely to be adopted. There is a reference to 2% of GNP in one section.

The term "government" is used in the sense of "overseeing" and applies to a committee that will oversee the treaty. Naturally, an international treaty will have an international compliment overseeing it.

Yes, there will be penalties for not adhering to the treaty.

It's typical of conspiracy theorists to try to turn what is for once good global agreement on what needs to be done in terms of a global issue into some kind of NWO wet dream. The idea that developed countries should help in mitigation and adaptation for undeveloped countries is not really in dispute. Since the US has dumped more GHGs into the atmosphere than anyone--and gotten rich by it--it makes sense to pay for the damage we have caused/ are causing/ will cause.

This might take a while.

adoption is still illegal for gays isn't it?

Over time we have produced more than any othe country so naturally we are going to "Dump" more