[onebaddude]

I'll never understand the opposition to a single, global, government entity. It seems like the most logical plan.

Otherwise, you get multiple countries playing the zero-sum game of gaining at the expense of other countries. Exactly what we have now. You know, like exploiting the resources of poor countries so we can have cheap gasoline. Good system?

[VLM]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so you're guaranteed to have a 100% fail, a worse outcome than your zero-sum game, which merely fails most of the time.

What's most likely is an oligopoly of multinational corps really being in charge, with a thin veneer of democracy as a marketing message to keep the population under control. "You're not really feudal serfs because you get to vote for your overseer, among two candidates selected by the plantation owner who only differ in minor, yet rabble rousing irrelevancies" Or rephrased, the American system, but worldwide. It may not be a good system, but its a stable system.

We already have it, to some extent. Is there any real ideological/moral/ethical difference between the neo-cons and the taliban other than minor stuff like selection of holy book (said by a former -R who more or less got kicked out by the extremist fundamentalist neos)?

[jeffasinger]

I think part of the aversion to a one government world is that it makes it impossible to vote with your feet. With the current model, if things get really bad in your country, you can always leave and find a different government.