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

Let me start by contradicting the opposing speculation of the economy, which states that people in places with more resources, such as the Middle east or Texas, will be richer. Opposite of this will be true. Today, all the oil from the middle east goes to entities such as middle-eastern monarchs (for most of the cases). But when we have a single authority, such resources can either be taxed or owned by the state. Most countries do that already. This won't have any negative impact on the economy because unlike other enterprises, mining or petroleum industries do not perform any better when privatized. Finally, the world government could make sure that such resources, which is a product of nature and not of enterprise (excluding the scientific innovations which are few and could be government-funded), is mobilized for common good. Finally, the poor can get their share of such common resources. Actually, USA is quite unique in its "finders keepers" policy which accounts for the inequality; other countries deem that such resources are public property. I must defend myself against a previous claim that I have proposed a socialist/communist society. I have never proposed any communist ideas, and even this is something that many countries to the right of economical spectrum practice. As for the rich people getting grouped together, it will not be possible as the poor too can resettle in the booming areas. Resources can be mobilized without the hindrance of international borders. Yes, US has its disparity between states, but even European Union has much more disparity, despite leaning heavily to the left. The argument, pertaining to cultural differences, can be solved through decentralization. Holidays, for instance, can be decided locally. Places that have a majority of Christians can have Christmas as a holiday. In places where they are a minority, they may use their paid vacation quotas to celebrate Christmas. These are trifle issues which may be solved locally. 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. Look at India on the other hand. Conflicts were caused only when people migrated to the other states: from India to Pakistan or vice versa. Various cultural factions inside India did not fight. Now, they are a more tolerant nation and continue to improve. Often, violence are fueled by politicians who want to be the kings of their divided faction, and not by genuine differences. On the other hand, a single world government could be an authority capable of arbitrating such conflicts. Such a force could provide safety to the minority and intimidate the bullying majority. Proper referendum could be conducted if a significant number want a separate administrative division. Yes, the world government would have a lot of diversities. From Muslims to Christians. From communists to conservatives. With an exception of few states, this is already true of many smaller states. As for the communism, once everybody votes, I doubt that this ideology can garner much support. Religious factions cannot garner majority, and if they do, they have the mandate and not agreeing with it would be undemocratic. An ideology that is acceptable to the majority will always win. Some dissatisfied minorities cannot blockade the progress. Various issues such as abortion or gun rights can be left to local governments. People can continue to decided on such issues for their administrative divisions. Tyranny or imperialism has often tried to conquer and enslave the entire world. Examples of this include Roman empire, British empire and Nazism. Some of those forces have threatened democracy. 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.