@br00t4c
> we, the family of nations

i'm no nation, i'm an individual.

> He recommended that we replace our outworn habit of divisive feeling with a new habit of common action on a worldwide scale through the creation of some form of limited world-state that would be empowered to act in humanity’s collective interest in certain narrow fields of endeavor.

"having states didn't work, let us build a giant almighty one. that will fix the problem!"

> First, that a world government should be minimal and should be limited in its sphere of action.

if it's powerful enough to enforce any rules it will have limitless power by definition.

> Toynbee believed that the structure of a limited world state would likely be a federal one in which previously independent units would voluntarily come together in a global union.

this is a perversion of the word "voluntarily". nation states are not capable of doing things "voluntarily". they are inventions of the mind, not living beings.

> Finally, he believed that humanity needed to forge some unity of thought as to what constituted right and wrong. In other words, it was necessary to adopt a shared set of moral values that would serve to harmonize the disparate social and cultural heritages that had evolved independently of each other over the course of human history.

there is. it's called "natural law", but for the sake of the argument: it would be very entertaining to see how you'd align with the moral values of the maya state, which as well evolved in human history. "it's 4pm honey, time for the human sacrifice!"

the old "violently coerce people into compliance" solution never has worked. history is my proof.

the only "great refusal" i see is by supporters of etatism not wanting to carry the burden of responsibility themselves, calling for more authority to rescue them.