NationStates Jolt Archive

Truly between the strengthening of the EU, the potential strengthening of the Union of South American Nations, the formation of the Mediterranean Union in 2008 (Look it up), the now real potential of a North American Union beyond conspiracy theory, and the general trend toward supranational organizations (An Central Asia Union is even proposed) there is a very real possibility of world government or at least an large transcontinental government.

This government may be a loose federation, but I still see it coming.

Between the United Nations, the European Union(which is more centralized than I even thought and which many would have called an conspiracy theory years ago), and other examples of governments willing to allow supranational organizations to influence their policy, this is becoming more of a possibility every day.

The EU is fast becoming an federation in some ways. An World Federation could be done on an continental, then regional level. Representatives from each union could be appointed, or elected to an world legislature.

I've been hearing alot about this recently. It makes me sick.

Say no to global repression through a one world government!

OP: You only use an if the word following it begins with a vowel. There are some exceptions, such as H (depending on preference), but that is the general rule. As for a world government- 200 years? I'm hesitant to comment on something that far away. The world in 200 years will be so incredibly different we wouldn't recognise it. I believe there will be some sort of world government within the next 150 years though. Not sure where I pulled that number from.

I've been hearing alot about this recently. It makes me sick.

Say no to global repression through a one world government!

I agree.

I'd say pretty high. It just makes economic sense.

I'd say pretty high. It just makes economic sense.

How does it make economic sense? All of these countries are not on a equal level economically, and an one world currency would really throw many things off balance even though ultimately stabilizing everything.

200 years is a long time. However, the trends of Supranationalism and Devolution are strong in Advanced Democracies, and so the possibility of a weak, Confederate state within 200 years is not impossible. However, first, economic conditions will have to change and become more balanced.

How does it make economic sense? All of these countries are not on a equal level economically, and an one world currency would really throw many things off balance even though ultimately stabilizing everything.

Well, it wouldn't be overnight. A lot of progress has been made reducing poverty and increasing economic opportunity in the developed world, so it's likely that we'd see a lot greater parity in terms of economic development in, say, 50 years than we do now. It's pretty certain that there won't be the kind of extremes in terms of economic development by the time a world government is plausible.

200 years is a long time. However, the trends of Supranationalism and Devolution are strong in Advanced Democracies, and so the possibility of a weak, Confederate state within 200 years is not impossible. However, first, economic conditions will have to change and become more balanced.

Why do you think these trends are so strong? I am really curious. It makes me want to pick up some books on globalization and supranationalism

Why do you think these trends are so strong? I am really curious. It makes me want to pick up some books on globalization and supranationalism

Well, the trends throughout Europe, especially post-1989, and the "developed world" as a whole (WTO, EU, and other "regional unions") have been towards the establishment of Supranational Organizations. Now, as in most comparitivism, we have to note that there are very few cases, and controling variables is next to impossible, so "measuring" the trend is difficult, but it certainly seems strong.

Truly between the strengthening of the EU, the potential strengthening of the Union of South American Nations, the formation of the Mediterranean Union in 2008 (Look it up), the now real potential of a North American Union beyond conspiracy theory, and the general trend toward supranational organizations (An Central Asia Union is even proposed) there is a very real possibility of world government or at least an large transcontinental government.


Don't forget ASEAN and the Pacific Forum. A Central Asian Union would make sense.

Anyway... A sort of Earth Confederacy would be an intriguing idea, as long as countries retain significant self-government. Or, better still, a sort of globalised European Union: a union of sovereign countries in close association.

It's possible, but lots of things could throw it off.

Who knows what new dividing challenges will come up in the next two hundred years, and who knows how different cultures and beliefs will handle them?

But, if mankind keeps scribbling on more or less the same napkin, then maybe. I don't really have any quams with it. Sure, I get the odd surge of patriotism when gazing towards the sea (ironic, eh?) but I dont think the occasional rallying of emotion is any real basis for a form of goverment. Plus, I can get the same feelings in some foreign places, like seeing the Statue of Liberty from the edge of Manhattan. So governments based on nationalism don't really seem to make sense to me.

The only issue is whether or not it'd be a freedom loving, pro-democracy, liberal hippie government. If it was, I'd be all for it, but there are many, many, many (see how I repeated for effect?) who'd be totally opposed to that. So, actually, now I think about it, no, I don't think there will be. In a perfect world, maybe, but we're far from that. What's definete is that they'll be more co-operation between nations as the Earth gets smaller.


That is, of course, if Global Warming doesn't lead to everyone dying in fifty years...

The EU is fast becoming an federation in some ways. An World Federation could be done on an continental, then regional level. Representatives from each union could be appointed, or elected to an world legislature.
I don't mind the idea of a world government, but I dislike the idea of a world federation. Basically, by continuing to recognise existing soverignty, you're both diluting the role of international law and forced to distribute power unevenly in order to maintain its current (and horrendously injust) balance.

The overwhelming power of individual nations is the reason to change the way the world works. There's no point making a world government if you're going to let them keep their dishonestly earned gains.

The UN is about as world government as you can get right now.

never going to happen. Seriously, quit watching those conspiracy theory films.

never going to happen. Seriously, quit watching those conspiracy theory films.

Why? All of these continental unions are forming, and the European Union is growing stronger. I would have thought the European Union was a conspiracy theory several years ago, and many others would have thought so too. Ever think such a thing was possible?

Before we have one world government, we have to have one world. We might all live on the same planet, but we definitely don't all share the same world. :p

One world????!! -- Mother Earth forbid!!

With destruction of humanity if need be.

As a man greatly in favour of international co-operation, I would only support a World government if the nations of the world were united as a Confederacy, were countries still had thier own democratic local governing bodies, making up the majority of internal decisions with a World Parliament co-ordinating only truly international matters such as Space colonization and distribution of aid resources to nations that require it.

I would not support the creation of an International military, but a Peacekeeping force would be fine by me.

I am personally undecided whether or not Multi-national federations are truly a good thing or not. I think that there are several deficiencies within the EU, for instance.


By the way, for anyone interested in reading a good book concerning the inception and function of a democratic World Government, pick up George Monbiot's "The Age of Consent : A Manifesto For a New World Order".

Very good read.

A world government would be impossible. There are simply too many diametrically opposing cultures and economic imbalances to make it work. The reason the US is able to pull off a multicultural nation is in essence we are able to buy the peace. People who have nice homes and are running off to the Mall to buy an Ipod before the first showing of X-Men at the multiplex cinema arnt for the most part planning on suicidebombing anything for allah. It would be impossible resource wise to "buy off" the rest of the planet in a similar fashion which in my opinion is what it would realistically take.

We certainly shall, presuming we do not somehow destroy civilization and/or render ourselves extinct.

Now, I would prefer it be more of a confederation with the various countries retaining sovereignty, but simply with the global government as a passer of simple global laws, like a Bill of Rights for the world, and organization space colonization and all that jazz.

Basically what people here have already said.

What confuses me is when people oppose a world government period no matter how it would work. Why is that? What's wrong with cooperation on a global scale?

What's wrong with cooperation on a global scale?

You mean other then the fact that its only going to be possible in Fairy Fairy Land? Besides the fact that its impossible to get 10 random people to agree on the color of shit,we have countries that live right next to each other that have been blood enemies for millenea but lets all just hold hands and dance in a big circle jerk? Yea good luck with that.

You mean other then the fact that its only going to be possible in Fairy Fairy Land? We have countries that live right next to each other that have been blood enemies for millenea but lets all just hold hands and dance in a big circle jerk? Yea good luck with that.

Because clearly it's impossible to get societies to a level where people happily cooperate despite differences in ethnicities, sexual orientation, ect ect. :rolleyes:

The problem with those societies is that they have not had the chance to get the necessary education and cultural advancement towards tolerance. Once they do, it can and will work.

Am I saying it's going to be a Star Trek love fest? Sadly, no. But it will definitely be far more than enough to ensure peace everywhere, and that's the important thing.

The problem with those societies is that they have not had the chance to get the necessary education and cultural advancement towards tolerance. Once they do, it can and will work.



No, the problem is these societys arnt even in the slightest bit interested in the nessesary education required for tolerence and in fact have the exact opposite in mind. You cant teach to a nonreceptive and completely unwilling mind. Especially to someone with Soverign Power of his own.

No, the problem is these societys arnt even in the slightest bit interested in the nessesary education required for tolerence and in fact have the exact opposite in mind.

As I said, it also requires cultural advancement. Every single one of the societies with this problem has not culturally advanced to the twenty-first century because Western societies have stamped on them all over the place for one reason or another, be it European imperialistic colonies in Africa or the United States's abuse of the Middle East for oil.

It won't be easy. It will take a while. But it WILL happen if we actually put in the effort to do it! Without that effort, my liquidy friend, it won't happen, but with it...with it, it will.

Why shouldn't the planet be ruled by a single government? It is pretty sad to begin with that humans draw lines in the sand and divide it up in bits and pieces among certain groups under the guise of "nationality". Having all the planet's resources for the use of all is only smart. Of course I don't think the UN or EU has anything to do with it, it is simply a practical measure that will happen at some distant point in the future. All the rise of powers like the EU means is the increased possibility of WWIII as forces rise that could challange the United States and bring the chance of another real war to us all.

Because clearly it's impossible to get societies to a level where people happily cooperate despite differences in ethnicities, sexual orientation, ect ect. :rolleyes:

The problem with those societies is that they have not had the chance to get the necessary education and cultural advancement towards tolerance. Once they do, it can and will work.
This all sounds very "White Man's Burden". The Western World's Economy based approach to the world is itself a massive source of inequality and segregation, and we're not going to be able to create an effective shared government by imposing our own beliefs on others through cultural imposition, however much we might think we're doing it to "enlighten" others.

This all sounds very "White Man's Burden". The Western World's Economy based approach to the world is itself a massive source of inequality and segregation, and we're not going to be able to create an effective shared government by imposing our own beliefs on others through cultural imposition, however much we might think we're doing it to "enlighten" others.
I apologize if I was implying that every single aspect of cultures in those societies are inferior. I wasn't.

Tolerance itself, however, as you say did not arise within our own societies until recently, within the last eighty years or so. It did not arise because our economies were not powerful enough to give us all of this leisure time to consider our freedoms. It also takes a lot of time for society itself to adjust to the IDEA of tolerance, hence my use of the words cultural advancement. That, and the simple fact that by integrating tolerance into one's culture, it does advance towards being more open to everyone.

I happen to like different cultures. I would be very sad if we somehow created one gigantic world culture. But on that same token I do want equality under the law and in society for everyone across the entire world regardless of simple little differences like ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or gender, or what have you.

I for one welcome our new Combine overlords...

...

Wait, we ARE talking about one-world governments, right?

If an NAU is bad, then a World Government would be infinitely worse. Any kind of consolidation of political power leads to bigger government since people are no longer able to vote with their feet against tyranny. Undoubtedly a world federation/confederation will work to harmonize all the taxes and regulations so as to make living in one place as miserable as being in another. I plan to leave the US and live in some tax haven while I still have the chance to get out.

The sad thing about this is that there are actually people who would welcome it. What's even sadder is the fact that some are already blindly trying to forward this arbitrary and quite farcical utopianistic notion of a uncorrupt, unauthoritarian and benevolent, one world order. A world without borders, without necessary organization.

The sad thing about this is that there are actually people who would welcome it. What's even sadder is the fact that some are already blindly trying to forward this arbitrary and quite farcical utopianistic notion of a uncorrupt, unauthoritarian and benevolent, one world order. A world without borders, without necessary organization.

Oh come on, James. You could at least read our posts. Those of us advocating it are talking more about a loose confederation than some sort of New World Order style oppressive overlord.

May I ask why you see any form of world government, no matter what it might be, as a bad idea?

Different parts of the world are at different stages in development (in various respects) and are probably better off separate. Suddenly imposing different laws on the various countries could cause problems.

Different parts of the world are at different stages in development (in various respects) and are probably better off separate. Suddenly imposing different laws on the various countries could cause problems.
Indeed, hence why I don't see it happening for at least another century. It WILL happen eventually though, once everyone who is behind is given a chance to catch up.

We aren't suggesting that we do a world government right now. It would be a gradual thing, once most of the world has reached a developed economic stage, and once conflicting cultures can either be reconciled or rejected as fringe movements. Also, we need to eliminate the dictatorships.

I give it a century at least.

Those of us advocating it are talking more about a loose confederation than some sort of New World Order style oppressive overlord.

You know, I kind of remember a discussion at the beginning of American History of a confederation versus federation...

You know, I kind of remember a discussion at the beginning of American History of a confederation versus federation...

I don't recall such a difference being specified in my own American History class, so could you please clarify the difference and what your point was?

It would be cool in my opion if it did happen ... i dont believe in all that racist and this religion is evil stuff so from that point of view its ace

I think it will happen to (or world war) .... different continets are already joining together ... ie the EU etc with all the countries in it slowly coming under one lot of rules
If that then happens more in other place (ie the middle east etc) then it will either lead to a massive war or peace quicker ... and if it leads to a massive war we will either all be dead or at some point peace would happen and talks would have happened slowly

But as others have said it would be very difficult with some countries now just because of the differences from economics and jobs down to health care etc

I've been hearing alot about this recently. It makes me sick.

Say no to global repression through a one world government!

You prefer repression by local governments?

I see many advantages in a one world government.

The entire world would never vote for a Bush creature as president, only Americans are (genetically determined) dumb enough to put such organism in a presidential chair.

And no Bush, means no war in Iraq.

I can't imagine a world government unless there are other worlds. People need to have somewhere to go to flee the government.

On the other hand, larger, super-governments a la the EU may be the future. Fewer, larger states based on economic cooperation may be the future of many governments.

You prefer repression by local governments?

I see many advantages in a one world government.

The entire world would never vote for a Bush creature as president, only Americans are (genetically determined) dumb enough to put such organism in a presidential chair.

And no Bush, means no war in Iraq.

I prefer no governments. Just small bands or villages of people, with at most a chief or wiseman to offer advice.

A one world government would be the most tyrannical and repressive force in human history, with little chance of ever stopping it- as there would be no rivals to keep it in check.

This government may be a loose federation, but I still see it coming.


I think you're seeing quite farther than just 200 years. At least, no less than 1000.

Remember, history isn't a straightforward process.

It won't happen anytime soon.

The problem with the concept of one world Government is that it assumes that government is a "one size fits all" proposition. Different cultures require different forms of Government. Just look at Iraq. You have 3 different cultures all forced for decades to live under a single Government. Saddam did it by force, the U.S. is doing it... well, badly. Now imagine trying to force ALL of the various cultures around the world to adhere to one single governmental ideology.

Some cultures are better suited to a Republic (like us). Some work better with a monarch/dictator (I know saying that is anathema to many, but look around.) Some cultures thrive in socialism, some deteriorate.

Maybe someday in the distant future when all human cultures have mixed to the point of total mutual assimilation then a single world Government could work, but for now it's a pipe dream.

I prefer no governments. Just small bands or villages of people, with at most a chief or wiseman to offer advice.

A one world government would be the most tyrannical and repressive force in human history, with little chance of ever stopping it- as there would be no rivals to keep it in check.


I don't think the US prez can do what he wants.

We could build all kind of mechanisms to protect us against a world prez that's going berserk.

I believe as well in small communities.

But also in one world government to setup the big picture.

- Many countries see pollution as a problem, some do not. The outcome is a solution that will not work.

- Space. Now it's USA that's paying most bills. It is not fair.

- No need anymore for a big army. Just a single small united army to make sure that everyone stays on track

- Immigration problems can be solved at the source.

- We would be in the possibility to fight hunger and poverty better.

- No more communisms anymore!

- ...

Truly between the strengthening of the EU, the potential strengthening of the Union of South American Nations, the formation of the Mediterranean Union in 2008 (Look it up), the now real potential of a North American Union beyond conspiracy theory, and the general trend toward supranational organizations (An Central Asia Union is even proposed) there is a very real possibility of world government or at least an large transcontinental government.

This government may be a loose federation, but I still see it coming.

Between the United Nations, the European Union(which is more centralized than I even thought and which many would have called an conspiracy theory years ago), and other examples of governments willing to allow supranational organizations to influence their policy, this is becoming more of a possibility every day.

The EU is fast becoming an federation in some ways. An World Federation could be done on an continental, then regional level. Representatives from each union could be appointed, or elected to an world legislature.

Right...with who heading it?... Who was that other guy who wanted unification?...











































http://difference.weblog.glam.ac.uk/images/DrNo.jpg

I prefer no governments. Just small bands or villages of people, with at most a chief or wiseman to offer advice.

A one world government would be the most tyrannical and repressive force in human history, with little chance of ever stopping it- as there would be no rivals to keep it in check.

Meh, an anarchist set up, like you seem to be espousing, is just the foundation a corporate tyranny needs. As small communities try to maximize profit from the resources they have at hand, especially in the modern world, they default to a corporatist structure and we end up with a situation waaaaaaay worse than what we have now. But that's just my prediction. *shrug*

One world government wouldn't be by default any more oppressive than the two hundred separate governments that inhabit this globe. It will be as democratic or dictatorial as its citizenry let's it be. Hysteria against "one world government" is kinda bogus, since anything a world state can do to its citizens, a smaller state can also do.

That said, I'm an anarchist, and would rather not live under a regime of either one world state or 200 smaller states.

I would agree that eventually there will be a world government, though I suspect it would work much like America did under the Papers of Confederation, that is a mediumish Federal government, and alot of regional powers.

Personally I support a single world government so long as it's Free and Democratic.

In the long run it's the logical outcome, and in reality, there's no viable reason (so long as the above two are met) to be against it.

I've been hearing alot about this recently. It makes me sick.

Say no to global repression through a one world government!

^ What he said. ^

One world government wouldn't be by default any more oppressive than the two hundred separate governments that inhabit this globe. It will be as democratic or dictatorial as its citizenry let's it be. Hysteria against "one world government" is kinda bogus, since anything a world state can do to its citizens, a smaller state can also do.

That said, there is a difference. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the Republic of Crete turned into a neo-fascist oppressive state. And let's say, for argument's sake, that you live in French Polynesia. You're not affected diddly-squat.

Now let's say that you happen to live in Crete. Well, you could always leave. Crete may not be too happy about it, but what are they going to do? I suppose they could do what the Communists did and keep people from leaving the country, but beyond that, there's no natural law forcing you to stay in Crete.

Now let's say that Crete forms an alliance with, say, Russia, and Russia becomes a neo-fascist oppressive state. Russia and Crete declare war on the world - and hypothetically, they win. Now the entire world is under this neo-fascist state. Including French Polynesia.

OK, now what? Everyone pile into the Hubble Telescope?

I don't recall such a difference being specified in my own American History class, so could you please clarify the difference and what your point was?

I was making reference to the Articles of Confederation. It was believed after the Revolutionary War that there would really be no central authority, but by and by the confederation was replaced by a centralized federation. The same thing would happen with a world confederation as more and more power is consolidated to a central mass.

I am also surprised that you can be an Citizen of the European Union, and there is citizenship to all those in member states. Further bringing the European Union to be considered as much an federation in its own right to some extent, at least it is heading that way.

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

The Wiki article says

"EU member states also use a common passport design, burgundy coloured with the name of the member state, national seal and the title "European Union" (or its translation).

Union citizenship continues to gain in status and the European Court of Justice has stated that Union citizenship will be the "fundamental status of nationals of Member States" (see Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignes-Louvain-la-Neuve Case C-184/99 [2001] ECR I-6193, para 31).[3] The European Commission has affirmed that Union citizenship should be the fundamental status of EU nationals with respect to matters covered by European Union treaties."

My biggest objection to a one world government is who will be at the head of it.

He will rise up, seemingly out of nowhere, in the wake of millions of people disappearing from the face of the earth (I will be among them), and appear to be a "savior", or perhaps a "messiah" or a "chosen one", come to rescue mankind from the worldwide chaos which such disappearances will no doubt cause (e.g. planes crashing because the pilot vanished, driverless cars going off the road en masse, pregnant women's pregnancies suddenly and impromptuly terminating, etc.), but in fact he will be none of those things.

He will, in fact, be a politician, the "politician to end all politicians", you might say, but he will be so smooth, so slick, so polished, that almost NOBODY will see through his act, and that's exactly what it will be, an ACT.

For, you see, this man will be none other than the DEVIL himself, in the flesh. He will make a seven year peace treaty with Israel, and Israel will rebuild their temple, but after 3.5 of those years have elapsed, he will be assassinated, and will rise from the dead three days later.

After he comes back to life, he will defile Israel's temple, and proclaim himself to be God, and demand to be worshipped as such. He will cause all people on the earth to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their forehead, forbid anyone who does not have his mark from buying or selling, and kill any and all who attempt to buy or sell without his mark in their right hand or forehead.

And he will BREAK his peace treaty with Israel, and will turn against them, and seek to destroy them utterly.

My biggest objection to a one world government is who will be at the head of it.

He will rise up, seemingly out of nowhere, in the wake of millions of people disappearing from the face of the earth (I will be among them), and appear to be a "savior", or perhaps a "messiah" or a "chosen one", come to rescue mankind from the worldwide chaos which such disappearances will no doubt cause (e.g. planes crashing because the pilot vanished, driverless cars going off the road en masse, pregnant women's pregnancies suddenly and impromptuly terminating, etc.), but in fact he will be none of those things.

He will, in fact, be a politician, the "politician to end all politicians", you might say, but he will be so smooth, so slick, so polished, that almost NOBODY will see through his act, and that's exactly what it will be, an ACT.

For, you see, this man will be none other than the DEVIL himself, in the flesh. He will make a seven year peace treaty with Israel, and Israel will rebuild their temple, but after 3.5 of those years have elapsed, he will be assassinated, and will rise from the dead three days later.

After he comes back to life, he will defile Israel's temple, and proclaim himself to be God, and demand to be worshipped as such. He will cause all people on the earth to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their forehead, forbid anyone who does not have his mark from buying or selling, and kill any and all who attempt to buy or sell without his mark in their right hand or forehead.

And he will BREAK his peace treaty with Israel, and will turn against them, and seek to destroy them utterly.

Are you serious? The Rapture is not in the Bible, please give me Biblical evidence of the rapture in the Bible. The rapture is an relatively new Christian invention. It is not in the Bible, but an idea.

With the world economy evolving the way it is, the nation-state is increasingly loosing relevance. I do think a type of world government is entirely plausible in 200 years, especially if we stay on our current track. Then again, lots can happen in 200 years.

I think it is interesting how there are now think tanks for globalization studies, and more academics are calling themselves "Globalists" or "world federalists". Such as the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.

I think there is a huge intentional push toward globalization that most people are not aware of. Not to say that the conspiracy theorists are right, but people really want a global government.

I consider myself a world citizen, but have yet to see what the globalization effort will propagate. I see most likely a World Federation.

200 years, yeah maybe 190 years ago...

I give it less than ten.. thru fear, economic oppresion and gobal threats (warming ,plague,genocide) these powers will rise faster than you think - elected officals their not - elitist they are.

Neo-con's are not new or conservative - they are all the same club (CFR) and they fight and bicker between themselves so we think that we have a choice - regardless of who wins, the agenda still continues to move forward and we foolishly think that we decided. VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!

As for conspriacy theories - when will it no longer be a theory? By that time you'll already be chipped and controled. "after they already have an inch inside you, don't you realize your getting F*cked?" mkd

In two hundred years, the human race will be extinct, or the next thing to it. If the supervolcano doesn't kill us, a giant comet will. If the giant comet doesn't kill us, a massive nuclear war will. If the massive nuclear war doesn't kill us, a superplague will.

Long story short: It's going to have to be the cockroaches who come up with the unified World Government.

I don't know... that's just too utopic, and none too realistic.
Besides, what about the whole immigration issue? In EU and the US and other developed countries there is a huge problem in accepting immigrants, and with a World Government they would have a World Passport, wouldn't they?

And where would be its capital? I can't even begin to imagine the argument that would rise from such a question..

Why shouldn't the planet be ruled by a single government? ...

I (so far anyways) haven't seen much in the way of people saying it shouldn't happen, but more of it won't happen

The entire world would never vote for a Bush creature as president, only Americans are (genetically determined) dumb enough to put such organism in a presidential chair.



This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've come across. Are you trying to say that only The U.S.A. has ever had a bad leader? How about Hitler, are you forgetting about him, he was elected also

My biggest objection to a one world government is who will be at the head of it. ...

It's alright, it will be me :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=South Norfair;13228968]with a World Government they would have a World Passport, wouldn't they?

QUOTE]

To go between what? Planets?

[QUOTE=South Norfair;13228968]with a World Government they would have a World Passport, wouldn't they?

QUOTE]

To go between what? Planets?

possibly, or if its a confederation to cross the borders of the former states