Mark Aldridge wrote:cavalier1138 wrote:There are a lot of bad arguments to unpack there:
First of all, the notion that a worldwide government is "outside the political mainstream" implies that absolutely no one supports centralized authorities like the UN, EU, World Bank, etc. Since all of these agencies are going strong, I'd suggest that you're the one with the extreme views. And any government has leaders who don't share the values of all their people. The Supreme Court didn't have the values of the South when they decided Brown vs. Board of Ed., but you'd be fighting an uphill battle to argue that the Brown decision was bad governance.
Borders are objectively meaningless. They are a grown-up version of siblings in the backseat of a car claiming that one is encroaching on the other's side. Subjectively, they carry a lot of weight, and that's a problem. Under a more centralized authority, these problems would probably start to be dealt with in a more permanent way (observe how the EU has basically ensured that the children of Western Europe have grown up without war for several decades now.
And the fact that you didn't get too drunk and punch someone because they were rooting for the wrong team (i.e. had the great misfortune to not have been born in your country) isn't a sign that nationalism is good. It still foments discord between groups of people who have absolutely nothing that would otherwise come between them.
I'm sure there are plenty of good people who are also somewhat patriotic, but that doesn't make patriotism a good trait, in and of itself. Military personnel are trained to kill for love of country. This isn't to denigrate your service; that's an actual fact of military training. We could get into the necessity of war, etc., but claiming that being ready to kill for your country is inherently a good thing is a non-starter of an argument.
Anyway, all this just is getting far afield: a bunch of old, bigoted British people just screwed over generations to come by voting for isolationism in a country that has never survived by being isolationist.
Borders are definitely not meaningless. If you are in the business of running a country it is important to know what and who is coming in and out. they are not two kids fighting over imaginary lines in a back seat. They contain people who can decide what sort of society they want to live in under the principle of self-determination.
How would a one world, stateless government work? Who would get to make the decisions?
you are sort of missing the point by alluding to trivial questions of representation that liberal democracies have more or less solved in their interactions with supranational bodies in the post-war era. cavalier is trying to summarize the postmodern critique of the state system that hails from a few different disciplines, including political science (Benedict Anderson, ect), cultural anthropology (Derrida, Skinner, ect.), history, and of course international law (Weller, Henkin). Of course borders will continue to exist as an organizational principle but the descriptive reality has been transformed via global pluralism, trade, information technology, and other far more important forces and its never going back, so acting like "self-determination" and "borders" of the classical/westphalian variety have this undeniable staying power is either philistine (e.g. trumpism, they just aren't versed in the literature/thinking about it very hard) or openly revanchist.