Would The World Be Better Off Without Countries?

Question

Compare the current animocity of competing countries, none of whom have much sway (except for the superpower) with a global federation of 10 000 states/counties/provinces/etc, all very different, each of whom are based on old provinces, not invented specially. Say the world govt is democratically elected and only controls about 5% of tax revenues, mostly to fund peacekeeping, wildlife protection and pollution control measures. And each US/Brz/Ngr/Aus/Ind state, Russian oblast, Chinese&Canadian province, Ger Bundesland, Fr Departement, UK County, etc became independent in that they could all have their own laws, control their own budgets, have or choose any currency to use, have immigration & foreign ownership restrictions if they so chose, measures ensuring competition, unique local tax & benefits systems, ... . In short, who needs countries, right - they leave people antagonised - but would this still be the case under this new system?

Answer 1

Interesting. You are correct. It's funny how imaginary lines (borders) can get people all riled up. I guess it would be better, but it's like saying wouldn't the world be better off without money? Short answer: yes, but then reality sets in.

Answer 2

Excellent points.

However, marginalising state power through the bolstering of more regional/provincial areas would, in effect, only shift sovereignty elsewhere and ultimately cause more animosity through highlighting the micro divisions between the now many populations. Ultimately, you're making more nation states.

The key here is the use of nationalism to underpin identities, and the use of the past/culture in the 20th century to draw imagined lines on maps. Along with capitalism, nationalism intrinsically brings about political reactions to the left and to the right. They become the stimulus for centring populations and maintaining national integrity. Normally this is done to compete with an overwhelming significant other culture/society whereby opposition and the idea superiority becomes the motive for identity creation. This is dangerous because of the animosity it generates between others and the fact that people/organisations/govt's will fabricate and alter the recorded past.

Therefore, no I would have to say your idea, though ideal in some areas (such as the devolution of the United Kingdom) would eventually be harmful and retrogressive. However, anarchy and the idea of people without associated countries would make a better world. Inherently though I think people would be exploited and history would repeat itself.

Answer 3

Good question, no simple answer. Without countries no, just wouldn't work. However without religion would be a more reasonable starting point when considering, throughout history, how many conflicts were/are the result of religious differences.

John Lennon put it very succinctly in his song "Imagine" but it's never going to happen, unfortunately.

Answer 4

Wouldn't work. Basically all you have there is countries (Independent States) with an umbrella global government who gets 5% of taxes. The problems we have today would still exist.

Answer 5

what you are proposing is part of the plan of the new world order
after the wicked have been destroyed at the comming of the saviour. its something man canot do without mass murder or inprisonment because man has not the ability to rid the earth of evil, however they would like to rid the earth of good,too many bloodsuckers at the helm.

Answer 6

I don't know. Ask the EU in 10 years once everybody is fully assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Answer 7

if all countries was to merge you would still be left with religion which has started more wars than boarders.

Answer 8

Yes, but its too late.

Answer 9

no