I can take on your communist Utopia and aspirations for ruling the world later. But let me start with the idocracy of one world government.

I challenge you, to find out who your state senator is, or better yet your mayor or a city commissioner, find an issue they are working on, and send them an e-mail with your honest and constructive opinion. I have exchanged emails and had a little debate with my state senator... Now try to do the same thing with your US senator... You will probably get a standard reply letter in the mail saying "we value your opinion etc etc etc," and you will have zero chance of having any impact... Do you want to try to write the president and share what you think? Not a chance. And now you want to give total control to a WORLD government... How much of a voice do you have between 7,000,000,000 people? On the other hand, you can show up at a city council meeting and be heard. The more power you give to your local government and state government the better for you. Such a concept has been usurped by the 17th Amendment and you should look into the drive to repeal it.

Take, for example, freedom of speech. In the United States, you can burn a quran, say whatever you want to say about muhammed, publish whatever you want to publish about him. In Eruope, that is not the case, many European countries will label it "something something" speech and throw you in jail for saying it. In Islamic countries, such speech will get your head cut off... literally.

So how do you rectify such varied opinions on the issue so everyone can get along under one rule? The answer is you don't You let Saudi Arabia decide for Saudi Arabia, the UK decide for the UK, and the US decide for the US. By respecting the sovereignty of the individual countries, you reduce conflict and most likely violence and rebellion.

This was the case with the United States... The country was set up so that you could have different laws in different regions, but we could all come together for mutual defense and prosperity. You may live in an area where 75% of people want legalized gay marriage... I live in an area where 75% support a ban on gay marriage... we can both get what we want and have the freedom to move to a different state where they have the laws that you want... so long as the supreme court and federal government stay out of it. It is a simple case of a Win-Win solution verse a Win-Lose solution. And remember, every time the federal government makes the decision for us, it opens up the possibility of the federal government changing their mind and turning against your opinion. So while you may even be on the winning side of the win-lose, you still lose the freedom to make up your own mind.

Such a scenario would play out over thousands of issues if you had a global government.

And do you think everyone in the world would simply sit down and sing "kumbaya"? Never would happen. You have riots already.

I disagree because i do not believe in the dissolving of culture through cultural diffusion and any culture deserves the right to self govern how they want to seperatly

Primary Objection: Utopic Naivity

Specific Objections:

(1) Representation Problem. Historical, religious, cultural, linguistic, etc. differences make equitable representation impractical with a single consolidated global government.

(2) Benevolent Government Fallacy. Presumption that a single global government that possesses the full and unrivaled political power of the world would not become corrupt or abusive. Consolidation of power is the surest path to corruption. You want equity give power back to the people with as limited a government influence as is realistically possible.

(3) Economic & Power Realities. Money is integrally connected to most if not all forms of power in society and government. Given that the present concentration of wealth and power is invested in maintaining the economic status quo, good luck instituting a global government that isn't purely and solely representative of those very interests.

(4) Anti-Capitalism Fallacy. There are corrupt capitalist governments, and there are corrupt anti-capitalist governments. The problem is not purely economic.

(5) Anti-Money Fallacy. Money is merely a formalized means of expediting the exchange of goods and services; if we used another medium our problems would still exist.

I would rather poke my eyes out and jumb into a volcano than ever live under a communist world government that violates national soveirnty, human rights, gives power to the wrong people, fucks the economy right in the ass, and so on. No no no no no!