One world goverment.

I would like to highlight the argument of moral relativism, complicates things, especially for those whose experiences make them believe in ideas that are radically different from ours. What is good for one may not be good for the other. And if ideas are polar opposites, some people, with their own interpretations for certain ideas, might be hell-bent on destroying other people who believe differently. We have never seen a time in history when all of mankind has believed the same ideology for a century. With so much new ideas"more than ever"can we expect to even reach that "sweet spot". I find that impossible. For sure, pure reason could not entirely solve this issue. In Scientific Man vs Power Politics, Hans Morgenthau observes that the Germans embraced Nazism and abandoned liberalism (which I presume is the better ideology) because it provided them a scapegoat for their sufferings. Did people learn from this in the future? Not necessarily. After all, it could be argued that new postmodern ideas have emerged as a challenge to liberalism. As a result, people in the West now hate themselves for things that others have done in the past. Can we expect liberalism to win this fight again? Yes. But can we expect it to be challenged in the future? Yes. Can anyone guarantee the safe exchange of ideas? Not even a world government can do that, unless it is one that is as controlling as the current North Korean regime. Structural realists would concede that a world government could sharply decrease armed conflict. However, the type of government is another thing that is worth mentioning. Immanuel Kant, a liberal, would have disagreed with the idea of a world government. He (correctly) thought that any regime could possibly turn into a tyranny. That is why other sovereign countries must exist in order to save the other country, or at least serve at other bastions of freedom. Liberals, therefore, argue that world peace can be attained without a world government. Classical realists argue differently. They think that institutions, norms and cultures"let alone governments"do not seriously change the likelihood of conduct because it never changed human nature and its imperfections. And as such, while things are "better" today, there is always no guarantee for it to last of improve. The best approach to peace, therefore, is through guided action. That means prudence and moderation in both action and belief. It is, however, unrealistic to expect others to follow suit. So that unfortunately means that others can pose a danger or at least a serious liability to society. We must, therefore, have the the willingness to fight and the knowledge when to do so. A world utopia, on the other hand, already eradicates the need to fight. But given human nature, I fail to see how that is a possibility. Of course, there is no reason to give up. That is one thing that you and I share. That is why we are discussing such a matter. Nevertheless, our means to a better society are rather different. You place more emphasis on institutions and "the right" forms of beliefs. I, on the other hand, think that people and leaders have thought that their own beliefs were always the right ones. Yet the likelihood of armed conflict has barely changed throughout the ages. They think about the implementation of ideas and institutions. Yet they failed on acknowledging the eternal, non-changeable elements of political life, particularly human nature. "Politics is the art of the possible." - Bismarck