I think the major misconception here is that they think if every country shared a government, they'd also be sharing a religion. Which is not the case.

The only actual hurdle is that some countries ban the freedom of religion and usually only allow one type to be practiced. If you were to have a one-world government, they would need to be willing to allow their citizens to practice any religion they choose without persecution.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Nature's number one job is to create and promote diversity. No two leaves are the same, no two trees are the same no two snowflakes are the same, no two ants or fish or clouds or people. Diversity works, it's a law of nature. A one world religion or government would not work out in the long run. Although, it is possible to achieve unity through diversity. This is also exactly what nature does, it lets all the earth's diversity live in a perfect balance.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, when you take a slightly less "macro" look at Nature and it's Perfect Balance...you find that this balance and harmony is maintained by everything eating everything else, all the time.
Nature, from afar, looks tranquil, leafy and verdant, fluffy and furry. When you get close, you see claws and fangs, camouflage and armor and stealth, hordes and swarms, ruthless rape, egg-eating and newborn slaying, merciless bloody consumption of still-living prey, stingers and quills and barbs and venom and neurotoxins, no mercy, no quarter, no pity. Either you are more of a badass than everything around you, or you are dinner, soon to be feces, soon to be fertilizer.
Nature is not the place to look for examples of Peace, and how to achieve it. It seems to me that our tendencies to war and competitiveness are a direct result of our having been a part of Nature for so long. If we want peace, we must turn away from the nature given to us by Nature.

Originally posted by muse7
Wouldn't that be better than living in countries, divided by lines in the sand and fighting like school children in playgrounds?

*waits to be called a globalist 37th degree mason rothschild*

Might be a pipe dream on my part, but I had been thinking about this for a while and I think it would take some time to get used to living in such a world, but wouldn't that be the ideal world to live in? Everyone being together without countries separating us and preventing us from reaching our potential as a species, instead we like to brand ourselves white, black, brown, hispanic, etc those things just keep us from reaching our true potential.

I would have no problem with a one world gov't, just as long as the powers that be helped people so that we all could move forward in our lifes. Not get sucked pennyless and live in a paper box under the bridge.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Some of us that are intimately familiar with life in the US and who now live in other countries might tend to disagree with you. Of course it is a matter of degrees.
The reverse is also true. Don't believe for a second that the US is the land of liberty. I will not return to the US to live that life of rigid conformity once again.

Whoa. Doesn't sound like the US I know....rigid conformity? Where did you live? What happened to make you feel this way? I'm interested....please elaborate.

Originally posted by theovermensch
One World Goverment is the only solution.You could enforce a global minimum pay,then upward moblity would actually work and corporations would not be encouraged to exploit workers in third world countries.

OWG might be inevitable, and it might even be a good thing....but not without built-in constraints to keep its economic policy:

• free of ideology and based solely on sound economic scientific theory,
  
• constructed to be reactive instead of predictive, and
  
• committed by law and design to strive for minimum impedance to commerce
  

For instance, you mention enforcing a global minimum pay, or a Global Minimum Wage. Minimum Wage sounds like a good idea, but looking at such a policy through the science of economics has shown that it has far-reaching, complex consequences, which compound over time, and snowball into major problems.

Minimum Wage is actually a form of price control, akin to Rent Control laws such as those in NYC. Such policies usually have good intentions--reasonable wages for unskilled labor, reasonable rent prices for housing. But historically it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that any time a government enacts a price control, things spiral out of control very quickly, and often the result is the opposite of the intended effect of the control.

Minimum Wage is a control known as a Price Floor. The cost of wages may not drop below a specific value. (Rent control is a Price Ceiling.) Thus, two things are immediately apparent from the economic perspective: One, the demand for labor at the low wage end will drop significantly, as does demand for any product or service that goes up in price. Two, the real minimum wage is $0.

So, in arbitrarily raising the minimum cost of labor to a fixed point, the demand for that labor is lowered accordingly, as less employers will be able to afford to hire such people, or will only hire one, instead of two or three. True, those that do get hired enjoy a higher wage than they otherwise may have received, but only at the cost of many others receiving no wage at all.
This demonstrates the key tenet of the study of Economics: all resources, no matter what kind, be they materials, skilled or unskilled labor, land and property, currency or capitol--all of them are finite in supply, some more than others. This scarcity results in competition for those resources. Money, and prices, are the vehicles we usually use to enable this competition for scarce resources. Most resources have multiple ways in which they can be used--timber can be turned into furniture, or pencils, or the framing of a house. Economics, therefore, is the study of the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses.
When resources are allocated to those places or businesses in which they will result in the generation of much wealth, they have been allocated economically. If they end up somewhere where they do not generate wealth, or even left to rot and not used at all, then they have not been allocated economically.

So when looking at the minimum wage idea, it should be kept in mind that a higher wage results in fewer jobs of that type, and therefore increases competition between those workers applying for that job. The higher price results in fewer jobs because the employer has a finite amount of money with which he can apply only so much to purchasing labor for that job. This means that he must pay more for less work completed, which results in the employer having fewer products to sell, and those he does have to sell are more expensive than they would have been. Consumers who absolutely must have his product, despite the higher price, must therefore buy less of some other thing somewhere else. I could go on, but you get the idea. The effects of price controls are like ripples in a pond...they travel ever outward, and bounce around, and cross each other.
The higher wage of the lucky worker who manages to get hired will not benefit long, as the prices of everything will inch up in response to the rising cost of labor, and soon his buying power is no more than it would have been had no minimum wage been set. Whereas those that are on the REAL minimum wage of $0 have an even more difficult time, because the cost of everything went up and they can't find work.

In fact, Minimum Wage was actually used purposefully in the post-civil war south in the U.S. as a method of keeping the newly freed slaves out of the job market, by raising the lawful wage above what most employers could afford to pay them. The ex-slaves were hesitant, illiterate, uncomfortable and unused to their new status, and had little or no skills to offer at first....and many of them never got a chance to begin learning job skills--which would have increased their value in the job market--because of the "Minimum wage".

So, please.....let us have good economic policy in this OWG thing.

I don't agree I'm against a one-world-government why would we give the Elite absolute power think about it one world religion The Gov would have way to much power i appose a NWO they are straight Evil i am not down with that There plane is to control and enslave us all WAKE UP