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

"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 just want to state that a single government would not solve the problem of disparity without socialistic/communist ideals. The poor will settle in one area, and the rich in another. The only way to avoid this would be to spread the wealth and make sure that everybody receives the same amount of payment. And I believe it is fair to say that these ideals haven't worked in the past and neither do they in the present. "I have never proposed any communist ideas, and even this is something that many countries to the right of economical spectrum practice."The question was not on the topic of the "finder's keepers" policy. It was on the subject of disparity. And the only way to erase disparity completely is through communist ideals, which do not work at removing the lower and upper classes. "Yes, US has its disparity between states, but even European Union has much more disparity, despite leaning heavily to the left."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. "As per the battle within Sudan, or entire Africa at that, such violence are a result of improper administrative divisions or incapable administration. They weren't violent even when exploited as a single colony."The reason Sudan suffered from inadequate administration was because of the conflicting religious and political views in the nation. They were always fighting each other, leading to a heavy focus on war and battle rather than domestic issues. "As for the communism, once everybody votes, I doubt that this ideology can garner much support."The nation of China, with the biggest population in the world, is a communist society. This party would receive more votes than you think. "But if we already have a democratically elected one world government, such undemocratic, segregating entities would never have a majority in the legislature, and hence, would never be a threat."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. What you are proposing is a communist confederation, one where everyone is equal - no "disparity" and states decide on policy issues. Both of these governments have failed. You propose a government that is very controlling to migitate battles between different ethic groups. The issue of a single government is too complicated. The world is different, filled with unique and interesting cultures that clash when put together. Forcing such nations to merge into one and agreeing on issues will only result in nothing being passed by legislature and continued disputes between ethnic groups.