I said exactly what I meant, which seems to flabbergast people looking to stretch my words into something else.

There are probably people out there proposing an international union based on the individual freedom and minimal interference our Constitution was originally designed for, but if so, they're working out of basements and licking their own envelopes.

Conversely, inside the United Nations, and particularly in the power structure of the European Union, you have people whose ambition is to control every aspect of your life. The examples I gave of the E.U. Constitution and the history of E.U. proposals and behavior speak for itself.

It's no coincidence that the very first thing you invariably hear about from such people when worldwide government is discussed is a universal income tax.

The sad thing is that the very people most enthusiastic about a grand world power structure are exactly the people you really don't want running one. Not sure there's any way past that. One of the things you do when you establish a government is cede them much of the power of the military, placing the individual human right of self-defense under strict rule of law. Heinlein's fantasy "Space Patrols" were trustworthy with a monopoly on nuclear weapons orbiting the Earth. In real life, I'm not sure that would work. I'm afraid the situation described in "The Long Watch" would be the rule, not the exception.

OTOH, if somebody you think is a Marxist/collectivist proposes a system of representative democracy substantially the same as ours, would you object simply because of the source? That's the sticking point for me when I read your post: It sounds awfully doctrinaire to turn up your nose at a planetary federal representative democracy just because "Marxists" and "collectivists" favor it too.

People are not Marxists and collectivist because of the kind of shirt they wear, or because they carry a laminated card, it's because of a specific set of collectivist beliefs. No Marxist is going to propose a government based on individual freedom and minimal centralized control, by definition. Your statement was silly. If I said I didn't want vegetarians telling me whether I could eat meat or not, asking me what I would think if a vegetarian enthusiastically supported meat eating makes no sense.