2. Why? How would it be implemented? What prevents it being implemented?

"We better learn to live together first,
think globally second,
and quit killing each other.
"Together we stand, divided we fall."
If not we all go up together in a mushroom cloud."

Dangling Fury (A Philosopher from Montana)

As stated above, it seems that the natural progression of ever more inclusive models of governance has been moving forward throughout history. The only thing preventing it from reaching a conclusion previously were the cohesive elements. They have arrived. Not only that; but the advance of science and ever more effective worldwide distribution systems have allowed everyone from pole to pole to participate in the “good life.” There are certainly pockets of poverty and disease as well as unrest but these are becoming smaller every year. Even in the case of natural disasters a united world level response cleans things up quickly and effectively.

On the other hand, Hollywood has never made a movie that represented a world government in glowing terms. It is usually always (except maybe “Star Trek”) displayed as an evil, big brother construct. I don’t know many evangelicals who run Hollywood, so other than some websites run by immature Americans, I wonder why the staunch cultural rejection of a world government? Perhaps we need to reflect more deeply on the negative connotations of Bismarckian “Kultur” in our "liberal" and "free" cultural media.

I would say that if people were nervous about a world government it would be for a more practical reason: Washington didn’t understand nor care about us after hurricane Katrina so how much harder would it be if the government were in Geneva? Even is a country as advanced and homogeneous as Japan the ineptitude of government in dealing with local natural disaster is staggering; and the over inflated self-pride that prevents others from picking up the ball slanderous.

Of course, conversely, the local leaders in Myanmar don’t seem to care about the people in Bogalay from Cyclone Nargis so a world government might be something the local people would very much appreciate. And the governments of the Indian Ocean, in desperation, reached out for immediate outside assistance after the Tsunami of December 26, 2004.

Frankly, if I were an Evangelical Christian and believed that a world government would facilitate the second coming of Christ, I would be in the front of the united world bandwagon. Unless, of course, unless I wasn’t so sure of what Christ might think of my lifestyle. Hmmmmm.

One road block to world governance being implemented, is not an imaginary devil but a real one: the patriotic feeling attached to smaller government units.

A second road block, and one ever so much more dangerous is religion.

There is one possibility for a model of government. This model, though very practical and a proven workable model, is perhaps the most dangerous to its neighbors and the world community. It is the Theocratic State. There have been many in history: Tibet, The Roman Catholic Empires (the sponsors of The Inquisition – not to be confused with the ever popular witch burnings of their Protestant imitators) which now only reside in the Vatican and of course the Islamic State. One may argue that the Islamic state is a democratic republic model with a president or king and parliament. I would suggest to them that they are quite naive and should look more closely at the history of Islam and the governmental system.

Sunni and Shiite squabbles have gone on for centuries and will likely continue and may become more openly hostile to each other. I believe that this open hostility is becoming more dangerous as the result of outside forces playing one against the other, esp. now in Iraq, the birth place of the Shia. Iran would surely like to recover its most holy places, which the "Americans" are responsible for desecrating.

As for Turkey and its historical hegemonic role, this could go either way. Would they join Europe? This would not solve and might even serve as a fuse to ignite more Kurd and Armenian resentments. Would they join The Islamic state? They in concert with their “brothers” would likely put their infighting to rest but is would possibly cause tension in Southern Europe where there is no reason to assume that Albania and Kosovo might not want to join the Islamic state as well. With Turkey in Europe, Europe is secure. With Turkey in the Islamic group things could ultimately be dicer. Either way, you still have Israel added to the mix, so the Middle East is a sensitive issue in any scenario for some time to come. (See Addendum 1)

Again we need to remember that in Islam there is no separation of religion and state. A king or president is only the head of a central organizing tool of state used as necessary to confront an outside force. The Saudi rule Saudi Arabia but the real powers are the religious leaders and Sharia court. For the neighbors of the Islamic state, this could possibly lead:

"... as in the case of the creation of the United States, a completely new form of governance may be presented. I would suggest, however that this would not happen unless, as in the creation of the United States, a traumatic event occurred that the human race fervently wished to avoid in the future."

Addendum 1:

The Guardians of the Rock (Tradition!) vs. The Followers of Ali (THEM!)

Sunni and Shia are like twin brothers, one older by only a few minutes. One day the elder waylaid the younger whilst praying. The younger trusted the elder completely but was deceived. This younger brother never forgot and never forgave.

For the rest of their lives they have used every device and every neighbor to avenge the act and gain final victory over the other. The two brothers will never see eye to eye and will never support each other. They will never recognize the legitimacy of the other. The younger will never honor the elder until the elder apologizes and submits.

So, why doesn’t the older just apologize? He cannot because in so doing he must admit that he is NOT the older but the younger, in fact, is the rightful elder.

Thus, the neighbors (China, India, the US, Europe, Russia) are all played against each other as tools of revenge and one-upmanship. The errant uncle (Judaism) is irritating to them both and due for a good back-hand, but not actually germane to the struggle.

The Shiites believe that the descendents of Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib are the rightful leaders of Islam and the the House of Āl Suʿūd are the usurpers. Obviously, the Sunni do not.

An interesting note: Because of this split, the Shia have a “Second Coming” tradition. This leads to another interesting note: the Bahai are a “Second Coming” Shia heresy.