Martin William Smith wrote:

[...]

>It wasn't true before the bombing that Yugoslavia was subject to the
>NATO rules.  Now it is true,

Now it has been demonstrated to be true, but before it was demonstrated, it
was still true. Just nobody realised it.

> and NATO is, effectively, the enforcement
>branch of European government.  But it's not a world government, and
>it's not my idea of good government.

falling short of your expectations of *good* world government is not going
to be a huge concern to NATO, trust me. Why do you say it isn't world
government? What makes you think what was done to Yugoslavia can't be done
to Norway, if gets too uppity, or perhaps too socialistic? Or Korea? Or
Tasmania
>

>No, I think that a combination of the UN and a NATO-like military
>would be a world government.  There would have to be one less level of
>bureaucracy, namely the nation level.

You're not making any sense Martin, how can you have a "United Nations",
without any actual nations? Unless the united nations that rule the world
comprise just the united wealthy nations, or perhaps the united
corporations.

>  There would be states like
>Oregon and Tasmania, and some nations, like Norway, would become
>states in this sense.  All large nations would have to devolve into
>smaller states.

Is this merely some sort of hoped-for future, or do you have some reason to
believe it is actually possible?

>  There would be a United States of the World.  I think
>it would be similar to the US government with respect to the
>separation of powers, and its constitution might be similar to the US
>constitution.

Yes, you would think that.

[...]

>> The US alone is the only other contender, I think NATO is
>> prefereable. And probably more able to do the job, except obviously
>> the US would be loathe to surrender its role as a regional
>> government, ruling over the countries of Nth. and Sth. America and
>> the Pacific region.
>
>I think you are right, but I think it will happen eventually anyway.
>I think the EU's movement toward a US-like federation, and the
>emergence of China as the most powerful economy, will force the
>issue.  I don't know when.

China "...the most powerful economy"? How might that happen?

Apparantly we are not moving in the direction of the break-up of large
nation-states. There are certainly no indications that the powerful of the
world are in any mood to voluntarily surrender their power over the less
powerful. In fact the powerful seem to be forming a super-coalition to
protect their common interests and enforce their will against the poor and
the weak. A 'world' government along historically standard lines in other
words.

The rich and strong are organising to re-inforce their exploitation and
rule over the weak and poor, as they have done ever since class society
first emerged. Only on a larger scale. The powerful are not going to
voluntarily subject their global power to the democratic will of the world
population in any meaningful way.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.