Nothing wrong with your interpretation of the question, but being condescending to people for answering the actual question asked in the OP (i.e. whether world government is possible) makes you look silly.
*You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
*Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
The social and economic differences between peoples of the world are too disparate for a single world government body to effectively govern. The needs and wants of people across the Earth vary far too much for it to work.
This is precisely why I'm skeptical that it work. Also, there are just too many people in this world (7 billion +) physically too far apart for one government body to govern effectively.
5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
Huh? You just contradicted yourself. A world government should intervene in world wars but shouldn't intervene in smaller conflicts because they're "international affairs" and the world government "won't ever be powerful enough to do anything about it"? If the world government is too weak and ineffectual to intervene in smaller conflicts who gives a crap what 'side' it takes in a world war situation?
World government = world dictature, end of the story.
EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp
E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%
"I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"
"Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan
A world government should intervene in world wars but shouldn't intervene in smaller conflicts because they're "international affairs" and the world government "won't ever be powerful enough to do anything about it"?
Nations view military power as a zero sum game. The more powerful a global government's military becomes, the less powerful their national military becomes (relative to a global power scheme). No nation powerful enough to contribute substantially to a global military force would do so past the point where the global benefits (as realized by that nation) of doing so are outweighed by the domestic cost of losing military power relative to that global force and the rest of the world generally.
Basically, it is only beneficial to contribute power to a global force as long as that contribution doesn't compromise one's international bargaining position.
No nation would want to create a global force that is more powerful than its own.
If the world government is too weak and ineffectual to intervene in smaller conflicts who gives a crap what 'side' it takes in a world war situation?
Because, having the world gov't on your side might lead to greater support from nations that have taken no side in the conflict.
Gaining the support of the world gov't in such a situation would be akin to having the court of public opinion on your side.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
- Edmund Burke