"We created the United Nations but most people are so busy worrying about their pride and their countries economic and social dominance that the UN doesn’t have that much power. … Take the country Sierra Leone for example- 6.4 million people, less than 200 doctors in the country full time, a that makes 32000 patients per certified doctor. You can’t justify that …it should have been important as a social movement that could have helped bring out problems like these. We can use today’s social technology and work together to confront the challenges of today like poverty, security, climate change, and the economy, but we choose not to." - from Fluxus: Effects of Fluxus on Today’s Art and Culture (school paper about an art movement) (am glad to expand upon this)

"I believe there is a moral sense and a global ethic that commands attention from people of every religion and every faith, and people of no faith. But I think what’s new is that we now have the capacity to communicate instantaneously across frontiers right across the world. We now have the capacity to find common ground with people we will never meet but who we will meet through the Internet and through all the modern means of communication, that we now have the capacity to organize and take collective action together to deal with the problem or an injustice that we want to deal with, and I believe that this makes this a unique age in human history, and it is the start of what I would call the creation of a truly global society." - Gordon Brown

The point of a global government is that it would create global institutions that can create institutions that reflect our ideas of fairness and responsibility.

If this doesn’t help let me know and I’ll be more specific and expand upon it.
References :
http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown.html
http://sites.google.com/site/calembendell/papers/fluxus-effects-of-fluxus-on-today-s-art-and-culture

Robert Graves has pointed out that the Normans would have been interested in him as he was a horseman, as they were, and an enemy of the Saxons, who they conquered at Hastings. And this affects most of the tales we hear about him. They are almost all propaganda for the ruling classes until Tennyson’s Idylls of the King which certainly contains such propaganda but also a more modern sensibility which forces him to consider the individual responsibilities of the figures he is talking about. It is in such a context that you can talk about Arthur’s Philanthropy. In Malory, Chretian de Troyes (sp.) and so forth Arthur is supposed to be nothing more than the type of the Just King — the template which monarchs are supposed to follow. Loving is not exactly a word you would use for him. And generous means his table was open to knights and other travellers of good quality.

If Arthur lived, it would have been at the start of the dark ages, though, which was a centuries-long period when methodical record keeping was absolutely not going to happen.
References :