Government is not a one-size-fits-all entity. There is not, has not, and will not ever be one type of government that works for everyone. And it's not so much about those governed as about those who create the government. The ones who are governed are typically content--when they aren't they help some other group overthrow the current system. But not to put themselves in charge--that's too much work! But to put those who prefer running things a different way in the position of governing them. Every successful empire let local governors run things in a manner comfortable for those governing and tolerable to those governed.

Additionally, the larger the governing organization, the greater the threat of in-fighting and fragmentation. There is a stabilizing point at which a government is capable of maintaining its various parts. Too small and they are absorbed by another entity. Too large and they collapse. European countries are an example of the former... they are now reconfiguring as the EU which claims to be non-governmental, but its more like the early US. The latter type is China which is suffering from political bloat. Sooner or later China will regurgitate smaller governments and eventually explode into independent units (which then may be absorbed by other governments).

The US is somewhere in the middle, leaning towards the bloating phase. The technocultural revolutions of the 20th and 21st centuries are hastening it's demise. The governmental system was not built to endure the types of changes in recent and current generations.

Finally, someone may determine the "best" form of government in an ideological respect, but human nature, culture, and economics will find any ideal to be unsustainable in the real world.

If you just look back at what we've had up until now, I think it's pretty obvious. Governments grow larger and larger as communication and transportation gets cheaper, easier, faster, and more reliable.

There's no way to stop it because it's obviously human nature to do this sort of thing.

I think that having a world government would be great for a lot of reasons and possibly necessary... but there are different ways to do this.

When last I described my journey into creating a new "more perfect" government, I didn't say much about what I did. I just said it was like a math problem, which is inaccurate.

I started with one question, and that was "What is government's main function?". I found through simple thought that it must be to secure domestic peace. Governments have many other functions, but to the people of the government, that is the most necessary (according to my train of thought).

So I started by selecting the easiest socio-ecological model that I could work with, and it was a city-state. The reason I chose a city-state is so that you could have many sovereign states within reach of each other, like miniature states or nations but not too complex from an individual standpoint.

This is very important to me, to be able to have sovereignty, and simplicity, in a democracy (which was the model I was assuming I would find when I came out of the thought exercise). Well, I then started working on the government by setting up a stand-alone "de-facto" governmental operating system, that would ensure for one, that there would be domestic peace, and two, a fail safe for the citizens, so that the government if susceptible to corruption, can seek federal aid in correcting the issue (which would ultimately handled by other City-States under federal jurisdiction).

This "operating system" was like a universally acceptable base of laws and principles that could be implemented or standardized via federal law and contested fairly easy by a sovereign city state if justifiable. The reason the laws are there, is to stabilize the city-state until they recreate the laws themselves or alter them and then enact them. So, there is a sort of starter kit for new city-states, but they are flexible so that they can meet the needs of the city. This way laws feel more familiar and are respected more by the citizens.

All government control will be decided by the public, as will essentially everything else. People will be appointed by the public, and the education system will in all city-states be required to teach philosophy, under federal law. Again, there is no punishment for not teaching philosophy for whatever reason, so long as there is in fact a reason.

Philosophy, I think is very important for demonstrating the power of the mind, and opening the doors to curiosity and the feeling of true freedom. Logic and reason will be some of the courses taught because they help remedy the ignorance of bias.

The city-state under federal law, would allow people to be transported from one city-state to another based on skill, and belief or just to move. This would mean that in one city, you would see so many Christians, and in another, so many Catholics, and with that demographic, you would see a lot of rules changed to better suit their belief system, but it would still be governed by the federal level government. In that case, if there's something going on in one city-state that isn't acceptable to most of the other city-states under federal jurisdiction, then the federal government can reset the operating system for say, 15 years as a penalty, and if the city-state still feels the need to, they can re-enact the laws that were reset... try, try again.

Oh man, typing this all out is going to take FOREVER. Everything flows so much faster when it's just a thought...

ANYHOW, I think this is what the world government should be like. Break down Nations into sovereign City-States with a number of hierarchical systems of governance that control blocks of area, that is essentially neutral and plays no role in governance but communication and universal operating systems by which all City-States must obey if they step out of line... and if they don't, settle it the old fashioned way, war.

So in short, the people control the city, the cities report to a higher state (which for now I'll just call a meta-state), which could just be based on geography or population, the 'meta-state' is neutral, but communicates with other city-states on city-state issues according to the federal governmental operating system, and then to the federal level that overlooks all geographically sectioned meta-states and then to the city-states. This way the people are always in control...

Er, If you have a question ask, I'll answer it.

A one-world government sounds a bit sketchy. It's hard to imagine democracy working well when power is so centralized. Then again, it depends on how it's structured and how much power is doled out to the leaders.

The Anti-Christ bit was a nice touch. Something about that seems so very Christian, as soon as there is world peace and unity across the globe we're all fucked.

One world government allows for exploitation of people and one-size-fits-all legal systems. Multiple governments allow people to naturalize to countries that suit their needs. The fewer the governments the fewer the choices for happiness.

A single world government would eliminate some of the most important checks & balances required for freedom. There must be competition to ensure freedom, that includes competition between world leaders & governments.

On an aside, have you ever read about the Bilderberg Group? From Wikipedia:

"Daniel Estulin, writing in Nexus magazine, claims the long-term purpose of Bilderberg is to "Build a One-World Empire." He states the group "is not the end but the means to a future One World Government". Radio host Alex Jones claims the group intends to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States and other countries into a supra-national structure similar to the European Union."

That would be placing too much power in one group of hands.

Don't you guys agree that more is better? More government(s)?