one world's one government, and not many governments, in the future.

"I just want to state that a single government would not solve the problem of disparity without socialistic/communist ideals." I said that the disparity would never shore up to a very high level, where first and third world resemblance reappears. This is because of the inevitability of a simple and accepted economic premise where resources aren't barred from reaching one place from another. As for the theoretical extreme, which is bereft of any disparity, such a situation has never occurred, not even in USSR. Also, I never claimed that the one world government will make everyone equally rich but said that vast disparity that we see today will not reappear. It is a well-established economic theory, and one of the objectives or globalization. "And the only way to erase disparity completely is through communist ideals, which do not work at removing the lower and upper classes." I never said that complete elimination of disparity is a goal or effect of one world government. This point is irrelevant. "You just exemplified that disparity cannot be erased even in the most "left" - or liberal - of societies. Please explain clearly how one central government can erase disparity." Again, I never talked about "erasing disparity". I only talked about disparity being lessened. "The nation of China, with the biggest population in the world, is a communist society. This party would receive more votes than you think. " China isn't a communist nation because the Chinese people support the system with their votes. It is an imposition, and it is very unlikely that the Communist party will receive a majority if they go to an election. Anyways, China is vast, but nowhere close to having a majority of global citizens. "Communist nations, such as North Korea, USSR, and Cuba came about because of public support. It is impossible to say that they would never possess a majority in legislature." Small groups support many unpopular ideologies. Ku Klux clan, neonazis, they all have some support. When did Russian, Cuban or North Korean communist party get a majority of vote in an election? Never. So while a possibility exists, it is not a probable outcome. As for possibility, it could even happen in the US, but let us refrain from improbable possibilities. "What you are proposing is a communist confederation," No. I have never implied anything like that. I have even refrained from implying Kenyesianism or welfare state. ""As for the rich people getting grouped together, it will not be possible as the poor too can resettle in the booming areas." This is a statement that you made. I just want to state that this how it is currently, at least in the US: people can live anywhere they desire, permitting they have enough money. But, still, we find serious divisions between our separate jurisdictions and neighborhoods. The rich live in one area, and the poor live in another. This is disparity, as you have called it. " I said that in context of the world (if entire paragraph is read instead of a sentence, this should become obvious). I am not challenging the imperatives of capitalism. What I am saying is that people from the poor parts can migrate to the places with job, while enterprise or capital can go to places with more resources and cheaper labor. The only claim I made was that national borders won't hinder such transfers anymore.