[JonSkeptic]

>The notion that nation-states are allowed to run rampage and be as anarchic as they please, internationally, is stupid.

A world government sounds nice in theory (let's call it 'The Federation'), but I don't think you could even joke about one without peeving off more than half of the global populace. We simply aren't at a place in human history where international law can actually be binding or where nations can put aside their differences and work together (also known as a Power-of-Friendship-ocracy).

So, yeah, a total lack of enforceable international law/government is a stupid idea; I'm just not sure anyone has a better idea yet.

[humanrebar]

Or maybe it would be enforceable but we wouldn't like the means or ends of the enforcement. Why would a world government be any less corrupt, unjust, inept, or capricious than the median national government?