If only the world in general could be more peaceable and not have separate states. Many of the elements could stand to be adopted in general. As it is, your plan mostly seems good, although I'm doubtful about how "anti-extremism" and "de-Zionification" classes would manifest in practice, and "single economy" seems really weird and chafing.
Here's a thought - which to many people is a very crazy one. Treat the world as a unified world and economy, instead of having individual nations with separation of certain laws related to finance and human rights. All the nations just become states under a single union, with open trade and a standard on taxation.
Ok, but what you fail to recognize, is that the best way to do what you want, is for there to be 2 separate, independent states, controlled by each of their respective population.
A single state solution is not going to have good consequences.
Okay, sounds great in theory! Do any major world governments fit that description? And if not, what will it take to get them all on board with your ideals?
Or they could do what Lebanon does and have some mandatory representation from all ethnic groups in all important public institutions.
There are definitely ways to make this work, if there is a true willingness to live in peace.
I'm not suggesting those, nor am I suggesting anything at all. I just say what I think the reasons and the future trajectory is.
No need to be binary about the potential political changes. I only say that nation-states are bad, I din't say that states per se are bad.
Also, the next world war won't be before anything but the end of all of us. I didn't ever say anything about a global state, but what I think indeed is that, analogous to programming, state should be contained in the smallest possible context, that is, I think that smaller, more focused states with more direct democracy and with more (respective to today's nation-states) people that indeed share common values, would be more stable and peaceful. I know that such an idea will get many objections (even I do have my objections), but I believe such a political situation would be better for everyone.
To suggest that humanity needs a global state seems to beg the question of all of politics: how do you get people to get along and transition peacefully to new states?
The threat of Napoleon got the Holy Roman Empire to globulate into its modern nation-states. But I don't see how Saudi Arabia is ever going to relinquish power, let alone share a government with the Israelis.
Like... parallel societies? Separate school, health, monetary systems? That looks like a brewing conflict once there's a conflict in meatspace that can't be solved in such style.
We don't need to eliminate states. We need to bring down remaining empires masquerading as nation states. Russia shall be divided by separating it's ethnic autonomies, Kaliningrad taken away, Crimea given back to Ukraine. Catalonia and Scotland shall be finally granted independence. Bavarian voices are rather silent nowadays, but why not.
How about the concern that the existence of a single government doesn't stop people shooting at each other, as indicated by, oh, say, the Syrian Civil War? Even in the optimal case where you somehow did achieve a one-world government that was democratic and benign (rather than resembling the average government) you would inevitably have groups of people thinking that this is a non-ideal government whose authority should be challenged. In the end you'd just wind up replacing all ordinary wars with civil wars. And the civil wars, instead of being confined to one country at a time, would rage simultaneously in all countries, always.
I would definitely prefer governments to be made up of small autonomous city states with a simple NATO-like 'An attack against one is an attack against all' clause to maintain peace.
I'm curious if, as an alternative, you'd rather see decentralization (smaller population units), some kind of global superstate, or something else entirely?
We've all seen the poisons of nationalism, but I wonder if what one might call "tribalist" tendencies are so easy to vanquish - assuming one even wants to.
I see no evidence one government would suffice. There's too much diversity in the world, of both the politically fashionable kinds and the kinds that are currently politically unfashionable to acknowledge but don't cease to apply because of that. Even the EU is frequently criticized for instance for the difficult-to-the-point-of-impossible task of tying together all of its economies under one currency, just to give one example of major structural issues it raises, and is at the very least under a lot of stress, if not outright coming apart. If you can't even integrate Europe you can forget about running the whole world under one government. The EU is your best case.
Great way of erasing all cultural differences and putting an end to diversity. Might as well merge all countries together into one and establish a single religion and a single political system while you're at it.
Well, this world has formal boundaries we call borders. Beyond that, it's a big universe...
I know this sounds a bit glib, but I'm deadly serious about this. There are geopolitical complications, yes, as well as some additional complexity when it comes to commerce, but all in all, more regime diversity seems like a good path towards lessened internal social tension.
That might work but only after curing another evil of our time: the concept of sovereign nation. There must be effective (i.e. not nukes) policing force which may regulate things all around the world. Also, elites must become truly international, not bearing the mentality of any nation.
reply