I generally agree...as long as "Democratic World Government" includes a strong states' rights component with its corollary, the sovereignty of the people.

But, there is a glaring dillemma with any attempt to a representative world governance: incentives are counterbalanced by nations' unwillingness to concede some sovereignty as an exchange for mutual coersion, mutually agreed upon. Esentially, there is a double bind; every potential participant has incentive to cheat on any agreement which would comprimise a Pareto outcome. Further, all it takes is one nation to ignore the process for everything to be unravelled and for the organization to lose its creadibility.

I respect the concept, and the site certainly gets my vote. However, it is an idea to be honed.

As much as it has its failings, Canada's federal system is an adequate prototype: there are some things that are suited to that kind of overarching infrastructure. From a common agreement (The Constitution/BNA Act), guidelines are set with respect to the division of powers. Such an agreement, tangible enough to be analysed in an impartial court, protects the rights of the states (or for Canada, provinces; or for an effective world organization, nations) in the context of social priorities.

The oganization must have the power to enforce an internationally agreed upon standard, while nations, ceding this aspect of their sovereignty, govern their people and industry in a manner of their choosing. So long as the standard is respected, their should not be a division of, or search for, power among world leaders.

This is the critical feature: the credibility of the regulating body cannot be tarnished. Which is what is great about the system implied by the web site: it provides a vision where the leaders of a world organization are constantly adapting; when the organization loses touch with the people of thhe world, a new one is elected.

However, it is all just a show unless the oganization has some credibility to start with: some method of enforcing the agreement between nations. This aspect needs development. Sanctions and buycotts are not as effective as they promise to be; a large, independent military force is an invitation for disaster; classical solutions offer little; this will be the key issue for any such organization, current or better.

Perhaps the "Commonwealth of Democracies" proposals for a caucus of democratic states within the U.N. might be a good first step. Further European Union expansion might be another plausibility.

I wonder if USAmerica might leave itself out of the equation however with its unilateral and quasi-imperialistic practices, with the quickly federalizing European Union picking up the slack in the trend toward world governance based on civil society rather than WTO corporatism. The EU already has more economic leverage and more diplomatic cachet with Latin America than that of USAmerica. It would be interesting to see the EU jump across the Atlantic to pick up several Latin American countries and perhaps even Canada.

Regards
Alan Avans
Prairie Village KS