Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness.
Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US.
China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.
Global citizen means person without (a national) culture (other than consumer culture maybe). But culture is a human need. Ideally, we should live in a world where free movement allows us to choose the culture that fits us best, and stick with it. In this world, only a few strong cultures would survive.
Does it? Seems more like people without a strong connection to a national culture, which doesn't mean they don't have culture. The example of Spain, pointed out in the article as one of the OECD countries where more people identify as "global citizens" versus of their country, is informative, as much of Spanish culture is highly regional. A citizen of Catalonia or the Basque region might have plenty of local cultural attachment without feeling a strong connection to the country overall.
A perfect example are the Kurdish people spread across Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They identify as Kurdish; and don't view themselves as citizens of Syria, Turkey or Iraq. In the emerging world, this situation is common -- basic services are provided by local tribal groups, not by the national government (which is usually dominated by another ethnic group that diverts resources to its own people). Those tribal groups may or may not be confined within a single country.
Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.
Nationalism erects walls between ethnic groups by definition. Framing it as "within a country" is missing the forest for the trees.
Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.
I don't disagree with your inefficiency comment, but upsides are diversity of trying things in 196 slightly different ways, 196 chances to fail without thew whole system going down, and the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy.
There are very, very few people who are lucky enough to base their current country on their personal philosophy.
What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative. That doesn't make your arguments less true but we have to acknowledge the different viewpoints. The problem with the EU is that is not a government, stuck in some sort of limbo in-between sovereign European states and people that would like to see a fully integrated European government. I myself living in Germany would like to see such a European government if the structural issues within the EU are solved (e.g. lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Commission).
I agree with you on the currency issue. But it is solvable through more European integration and solidarity. In the US for example some states are economically weaker, while others are economically stronger. A fiscal union allocates federal taxes to the weaker ones, in order to ease economic differences. Such a model should be considered in the EU.
What worries me most about the current state of the EU is the pessimism. Yes, there are pressing issues and controversies but instead of choosing isolation (e.g. Poland and possibly the UK) we should rebuild and innovate what fundamentally is a rather successful project. Prosperity and peace are at an all time high. These all time highs are in danger now but can't be solved through reverting back to national states. Problems are global now and therefore have to be solved globally.
A normative claim that the world "should" have one government when there's no way to make it work is just fantasy. Nonexistent options don't figure into the moral calculus. If the EU can't be made to work it certainly can't be extended to the entire world. You think the stress of the EU is going to be lessened when it is outvoted on every issue by Asia?
Every major centralization of power right now is under huge stress and in serious danger of flying apart at the seams in the next couple of decades. There's no current "world government" option.
That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.
"comparable needs" does not necessarily refer to tangible goods. The central needs are probably freedom and a justice system protecting individual rights and us from each other, not e.g. everyone driving the same car.
Same reason ships have separate compartments in the hull, so if one floods they all don't. Basically it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
-Buckminster Fuller
Redistribution of wealth to provide equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of many countries and societies. I'm arguing that if you are for this principle, then how could you argue it should stop at a border? And if instead you're in favor of abolishing all income redistribution, then in essence that is also an implicit argument for abolishing government, which again makes borders meaningless. Either way, rationally, i see no objective defense for the principle of borders restricting what people have access to.
Compare the US and mexico. A child may be born 5 miles south and lose an incredible amount of opportunity. Why is that fair? What did the child do to earn that station in life? Why are castes accepted when they are cross-border but not inside a country? Why should poverty be inherited? (I'm not arguing against inheriting wealth, just against inheriting poverty and not getting a fair chance at making your own wealth as a consequence.)
No. That is just an argument against that type of society and government.
You can argue things have changed since 1950s, but near every controversial action making the headlines (book bans, stand your ground laws, ID teaching in schools, anti-immigrant action, homophobic legislation, racially motivated police crimes) seem to come from county and state level.
Don't forget immigration law is a Federal boondoggle.