<This tells me about as much as a self-professed libertarian becoming an advocate for a one-world government.

This deserves a little more explanation.

In my college days, it seemed obvious that eventually some sort of world government would have to be generated to allow nations to live better together. The example I had in mind then was the sort of highly-limited Constitutional government the Founding Fathers had in mind, which reserved most powers to the individual states and did very little itself except protect people from aggression. A "constitution" for the planet would be even smaller than the U.S. Constitution since all the part related to foreign relations would be irrelevant unless the aliens land.

Unfortunately, almost without exception today, everyone talking about a "one world government" has some sort of socialist "People's Republic of Earth" monstrosity in mind--the sort of government where the United Nations tells you how big the holes in Swiss cheese can be. This is NOT what I think we need.

The more I think about it, the more I think that muddling through as separate nations is probably best. Given what has happened over the years to America's "limited Constitutional government," it's probable that even a limited world government would eventually decay into the all-powerful centralized Uberstate that seems to arise so easily from the human condition.

I am not against government. Like Ayn Rand, I think some form of government is necessary to protect the rights of the individual. I am against government that turns around and begins to violate the rights of the individual, and pretty much all of them do today to varying extents.

I still like the solution from "The Day The Earth Stood Still," but am having trouble finding indestructible, all-powerful incorruptible robots at Fry's.