Quote:
Please elaborate, how would everyone being the same nation create that?
So your idea is to redefine the meaning of "nation"? A nation is not a government. The EU, for example, is not a nation. The only way the EU ever becomes a nation is if we change what "nation" means. But in doing so we change what "nationalism" means. Instead it will just become culturism, some new word to describe what we currently call "nationalism".
So under a world government, we don't all live in one nation. We live in one state. A very different thing. Nationalists don't want to be part of a state, so those who reject a world government will be nationalists... people who want self determination.
Let's give a purely hypothetical example. Let's say we have a global election to decide if we have a democratic world government. 55% of the world says yes. 98% of Iceland say no. Iceland is a peaceful country, by some standards the most peaceful country on the planet. Do you suppose it remains peaceful? Do you suppose they just accept global rule? Do you suppose they just willingly abandon the nation of Iceland because most of China and India voted for a world government?
I don't. I expect Iceland to rebel in this hypothetical situation. So what does the world government do about it? Crush them?
Quote:
The same way smaller governments do. Why would it be any different?
The difference is with smaller governments, in our case they are democratically elected and subject to regular elections. People accept rule in this way. People will not accept global rule.
Quote:
Right now it's every country for themselves, the rich ones get all they want and the poorer ones get scraps. If it were all managed centrally, everyone could get their share of goods, services and resources.
I think it's incredibly naive to think a central global government will not oversee a system which continues to favour the rich.
Quote:
How are nation states built in the first place?
Culturally. I really don't think you know what "nation state" means. The UK is not a nation state. It is a union, or a country, it is not a nation state. They are different things. Iceland is a nation state. It became a nation state when it declared itself independent from the Kingdom of Denmark.
Your entire argument seems to be based on the premise that nations and countries are the same thing. They categorically are not.
You can't just erase the concept of a nation.
Quote:
There wouldn't be tax havens, and of course it could be, but we already have that problem.
Who use tax havens? The rich and powerful. You're suggesting we eradicate corruption by giving corrupt people more power, not just more power but ultimate power. How can you not see how ludicrous this is?
Quote:
Why would they? And you do realize they wouldn't be multinationals anymore. :P
Who do you think will be the people who make up the world government? The same people who have interests in global corporations.
Do you think this one-world government is going to be normal folk like you and me? No, it'll be your Blairs and Merkels.
Quote:
So a person living in a country of say 67.22 million apparently still has "self determination"
"Self determination" refers mainly to the right of a nation. And by nation I mean a people, not a country. The concept you don't seem to understand. Scotland has the right to self determination. This is why England are unable to stop them leaving the union. England can make it difficult, but ultimately not stop them. Glasgow on the other hand does not have the right to self determination. That is because Glasgow is not a nation, it is a city, a settlement. If this confuses you, then you really need to learn what nation means. Briefly, it means a people with a common culture, language, and territory, usually with some history of self rule.
Quote:
What would you say is the upper bound on the country size, and what creates it?
I guess the upper bound of a country is the population of China. If they absorb more territory, that's a problem, right? They would need to invade, say Mongolia. Maybe Mongolia could democratically elect to join China, but Japan won't. There's no way that every country in the world will ever agree to be part of a global state with common law and currency. Not democratically, anyway.
Quote:
Why would it be worse trusting a bigger government, when you clearly already don't trust any of the smaller ones?
Democracy. It's the only thing that stops our governments becoming truly rogue.
Quote:
Why are you convinced things would automatically be worse, while many things point to many things being better?
Because there would be no way to hold the global leaders to account. This is not a democratic possibility for reasons I've already stated. This can only happen by force.
Quote:
Of course it wouldn't wholly and completely solve every problem on the planet, but I think it would GREATLY improve many things, which I feel are some of the greatest hurdles we have as a species if we want to survive.
The problem you have is you're trying to erase a fundamental part of human nature, and that is culture. The concepts of nations and culture are very much linked. You erase a nation, you erase culture. But culture is what makes humans diverse in the first place. It's like you're trying to eradicate diversity. Make everyone exactly the same, a population of sheep. You don't seem to realise this is what you're arguing for. You want to change what humans are.