It seems inevitable that we should eventually reach the stage of a single, worldwide government. Or failing that, a regression back to a WWI-esque alliance system, without the inordinate hostility. If it is a world government, or at the least some sort of Euro-American government, which comes to fruition, it seems like the [i]only[/i] option is for it to be authoritarian and fundamentally anti-liberty. It may be the case that a government is established on the principles of civil libertarianism, social equality and economic freedom, but how likely is it that it will continue like this? Just look at the U.S.; even without capitalism as an influence, the State is an institution and it is always in the interest of such institutions to consolidate power and reinforce authority. Of course, there could be solution to this. Anarcho-communism being one, and while it might work at first, I can't see it being sustainable for any decent period of time. There are far too many operations of social control and efficiency that require a State. Also, one idea that came to mind while thinking about it is to have the State as a [i]function[/i] of society, instead of an institution. It's difficult to explain, but fundamentally it relies on the idea of the government not being an entity, but a process from which everything is formed. The obvious issues here being that some sort of socialist economy, likely syndicalism, would be necessary, and that the government would be both legislatively and executively weak. It seems the problems with political beliefs is that they assume there is a solution to the dissatisfaction and problems we face. [b]TL;DR: A world government, or united "western" government, seems inevitable. However, it also seems the only way for this to be effective is for it to be authoritarian. [/b]