More Agenda 21.
Gary Stix writes at Scientific American:
… To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?…
Why would any thinking person want it to stand? Some things are worth fighting and dying for, and preventing this stupid idea from materializing is at the top of that list.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” — Robert A. Heinlein
Those who want people to be controlled (both those who would be Kings and those who would be Slaves) will never be content with any government that would be acceptable to the Libertarians.
Nor would the Libertarians accept any neo-Feudal government without attempting to first alter, and failing that attempting to overthrow it.
For this reason alone, a One World government cannot stand long.
Even if you could prevent a malevolent dictator from usurping the world government controls, you are still left with the option of a benign dictatorship. Cows and sheep may be contented when they have food, water, and a place to sleep with the worry left to their keepers; but, Mankind yearns for individual freedom. A World Government with the power to dictate the minute aspects of everyone’s life, will also be a World Government facing constant turmoil from those who resist tyranny.
I can answer the last question posed in the article excerpt: you can’t. That’s why we don’t want to do it. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” – Lord Acton.
A world government is impossible. Heck, you can’t get the UN to stop the slaughter of innocent people in Syria, Iraq, Iran, China, Somalia, the US inner cities, Mexico ….Heck, the US probably has as many killings as any of these countries in the inner cities by drug gangs supplied by the Mexican Cartels who come a close second in murder to the US gangs! If the UN can’t stop murder today, how can they enforce any other position?