One world government

Mr. Hikarijon, thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. As this is my first debate on Debate.org, please afford me some leniency on errors. I believe we need to set the framework for this "one world government". Are we presuming that each country willfully and uniformly abolished sovereignty or each country retains its individuality but accepts political direction from a single authority? Which form of government? (I.E. Republic, Democracy, Communism, etc...) Admittedly we can argue the pros/cons of each system, I can focus my arguments based upon the system of your preference. Are we assuming that all people are free to worship whichever God(s) they choose? Free to marry whomever they wish? Able to choose profession? Country/Area of residence? To sum it up, complete equality. My understanding of your initial post, is that a single world government will reduce or eliminate war, poverty, social imbalance, etc... I will begin my argument refuting those ideas. In my next post, I will answer Mr. Hikarjion's questions/comments and provide my reasoning against a single world government. "We live in a divided world only because we choose to..." While there may be some truth to this statement, I think it wise to consider historical fact. As humans entered the neolithic era, pieces of land were selected primarily for access to food/water/defense. Lack of reliable transportation in the earliest parts of human history explains why mankind is tribal. Clearly our ancestors were unable to fire up a Boeing 787 and fly to California or San Paolo. This sets the framework for "national pride" and perhaps fascism. Fast forward and we have rival or less fortunate individuals/groups using violence to obtain resources they are unable or unwilling to produce for themselves. Therefore I do not believe violence between nations is related to government or nation (or even secular) rather it deals with a person/group who wishes what the other has. This is a very important point; unless this "One World Government" is capable of reversing cultural or ideological behavior any gain from the current system is nominal (in this context). From your initial statements, I presume resources are divided equally. Oil produced and sold in the middle east benefit school children in Bolivia, likewise the unemployment rate in Kazakhstan will influence the world's tax rate set forth by this government. As you see, this in itself will lead to splits in opinion. In America, political parties debate furiously on tax rates and social programs leading to "hardliners" and possibly resentment. "A perfectly organized system that is designed with the interests of everyone and not the individual would certainly be better..." We must consider what is Utopian and what reality is. Consider the USSR. This is a small scale example of your argument. While unemployment was virtually zero (I imagine the disabled/terminally ill/elderly, etc... meant that unemployment could not be zero) not every profession was equal. Imagine a butcher, (s)he sells the same products at the same price dictated by the government, yet this butcher is able to sell meat on the black market, thus increasing his/her utility. The opposite is an assembly line worker, if this worker produces more or less of his/her product, relative gain to the butcher is lower. (I paraphrased from the book, "Naked Economics".) Thus imbalance. My argument hinges upon the have and have-nots. One world government will not resolve violence nor will it act as a catalyst for division of wealth. Thanks again for the topic. I look forward to your reply!