What of the nation state?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, it would be a layered government of sorts, with elected officials from all those regions in it's parliament, giving the entire planet and all the microplanning into the hands of just one government would be quite overwhelming I think, the world government would take on mostly things like ensuring peace, earth defense and other global concerns, not dictating the same crop rotation process to the sahara desert and the antarctic. It could draw from the best of all countries to drive space exploration and exploitation, build ion cannons directed at orbit, operate space stations etc. There already is some cooperation with these things, but I would think if it were directed by one single agency with the combined funds of all current agencies but united towards one goal, it might be more effective.

I'm not sure that highlighting the increased layers of bureaucracy required to implement such a scheme is a convincing argument for an overarching world government, not to mention you've got Beskar talking about continental government's as well. So when the unwashed head to the polls, they're going to be expected to have educated themselves on candidates and issues for their local government, their state government, their national government, their continental government, and the world government? Or are the higher level politicians going to be Euro-like semiautonomous unelected bureaucrats?

You seem to be implying that such an organization would be limited in its power and authority to such things as "earth defense". That begs the question, why bother? What benefits does such an organization offer that, say, the UN, the WTO, or individual alliances/partnerships already not cover? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, a coalition was formed via the UN to correct the situation. When trade disputes emerge, the WTO arbitrates them. Either this proposed World Government has real power, and is thus subject to the concerns I mentioned in my previous post; or it has extremely limited functions, which makes one question whether such an organization is worth the time and resources it would take to create and maintain.

And concerning the 1984 scenario, it's more or less a reality in North Korea and where are our counterbalancing efforts to help these people? Britain installed cameras everywhere and noone invaded Britain. Nation-states also have that problem that the people in them say "we don't care about people of other nationalities, we have our own problems and they have theirs", so the counterbalancing only comes into effect once the "evil nation" declares war on the "better nation". Or harbors people who fly two planes into a big twin-tower, or something like that. A world government couldn't keep the people down anymore than the US government or any european government can now, but in addition it could also intervene and restore order if a regional government tried to limit freedom.

Nation states are certainly not perfect, but at least abuse of power on a national level does not spill over on to the rest of the world. Who is going to control these ion cannons? Who will decide when, where and on who they will be used?

Humanity has always benefited from competing governmental systems and ideologies. For Sparta, there was Athens. For the monarchies that ruled Europe, there was a France. For Fascism, there was Communism. And for Communism, there was America. And now even for America, China's hybrid communism/capitalist system is forcing us to change and adapt to stay competitive. It is never a good idea to put all of one's proverbial eggs in one basket, or you end up with a government like that of North Korea.

I just don't understand the desire for another layer of government. If the massive wars and terrible loss of life during the 20th century taught us anything, it is the dangers of big, powerful government. (My apologies if that is deemed to be an invocation of Godwin )