[orik]

we've come up with a system that's created great prosperity and wealth for all our citizens, but it's important to look back at what they had going on in the 1200's -- those were the good old days.

(I don't mean to be so dismissive, but a lot of people still don't have access to the internet and the technology and services, and they way they get that infrastructure built is through nation states.)

[ethanhunt_]

He wasn't saying to go back to 1200s, his point was that, ,=since then, those states fused into countries which was good, therefore we should keep fusing into (presumable) the inevitable one-world government.

[ZenoArrow]

One world government = single point of failure. It may work more harmoniously if you have leaders that care about the people they serve, but if misguided leaders get into power and cause problems your choices of living in a society beyond the control of this leadership is greatly reduced.

[zanny]

Playing devils advocate a bit here, but does it actually matter to an individual? In most parts of the world it does not matter if your country is composed of millions or hundreds of millions of people, you can't just leave if the government turns against your interests.

For most people, they are stuck with the government they have no matter what, regardless of if it is a good or bad one.

For all of them, a world government changes nothing. They are already at the whims of leaders that can work harmoniously or for selfish ends that can better or worsen their lives with no recourse on their individual parts.

The exception, and I think this is what the OP misses, is that Europe is demonstrating that you can take a different route, with sovereign states that agree to open borders that allow people to instead go wherever they feel best served by the state. The EU is new, but if it doesn't fall apart I guarantee in a century it will evolve into different countries appealing to the specialized interests of certain peoples who then migrate there. I would feel that is much more healthy than trying to erect universal laws upon every human on Earth.

[ZenoArrow]

> "does it actually matter to an individual?"

Yes, and it's not just about population size, there are more important concerns, such as the safety and economic mobility of the individual.

Let me put it like this, would you rather live in your current nation state with the leadership you have, or under a world government run by a ruler like Duerte that openly promotes killing people (my apologies if you're currently living in a country like this).

> "For most people, they are stuck with the government they have no matter what"

Not really. People do move country when things get bad in their own one (for political and economic reasons), even when they don't have much money to do so. People even risk their lives to make such journeys.

> "They are already at the whims of leaders that can work harmoniously or for selfish ends that can better or worsen their lives with no recourse on their individual parts."

Not all countries are equally badly run. Some national governments look after their citizens better than others. I can list some examples if you like.

> "Europe is demonstrating that you can take a different route"

Europe isn't taking a different route. The EU is becoming increasingly centralised. The Eurozone is a step towards consolidating economic power in Brussels, there are talks of an EU Army, etc...

> "I would feel that is much more healthy than trying to erect universal laws upon every human on Earth."

In my opinion, the best compromise is universal rights rather than universal laws. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was organised by the UN is one example of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...

[bobcostas55]

This is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc situation. Why should the nation state get the credit for the success of capitalism?