There's a global trend, over about the last 15 years, towards nationalism, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment. Countries seem more self-centred than before, somewhat embittered, somewhat xenophobic and war-like. Why? It's no surprise that 15 years ago, social media was born.
The ultimate reason is that social and cultural trends have, as a result of internet technology, rapidly become global, whereas politics and laws remain strongly national or regional. Laws on personal representation, free speech and personal protection, and political representation, have not kept up pace with the global cultural shift that is the open communication of the internet. Politics operates slowly and more carefully. Even today, social media and internet communication is barely regulated by any government.
The result of this disparity between culture and political representation is that people feel less safe, less important, and less protected by their governments. The reaction is to a call for stronger, more isolationist governments.
But, like closing ones ears to the noise of social media, this is not a solution. Global culture will continue. Mass communication across the globe will lead to closer unity; a close integration of the melting-pot of cultures is inevitable. Trying to ignore or stop this creates anger or fear about those who are part of that culture, a literal xenophobia of the merging of our distinctive cultures and societies into something new and different.
It is a reaction against this which has created the trends for nationalism and protectionism; but it's a forlorn battle, both a futile gesture, because global cultural unity is inevitable, and an unnecessary one because there is nothing to fear from integration.
What is the solution?
Politics is certain to unify as culture has, although more slowly because politics operates more slowly than culture. A global government is certain, a global language is certain, a global currency is certain. A global network of laws, rules, and taxes is certain. Of course, even now there are global political institutions. We have the United Nations, we have the International Criminal Court, we have the European Union, and other supra-national groups. These institution are the prime target of the nationalist-protectionists (Napros?) for this reason. More disparate and common are the network of international treaties and agreements which countries have exchanged for centuries. All of these form the fronds of a growing global government.
A global government is certain to form because governments are stable structures built upon laws and inclusive representation of the populace which create and enforcement them. These structures are more resistant to decay and disaster than chaotic governments, and larger structures are more stable still. As in life forms, larger and more stable structures survive, grow, prosper, and spread; and weaker and smaller ones die. Life exists not because it inherently thrives, but because it is informationally robust enough to survive cataclysms that weaker forms to not. The robustness of civilisation and its laws is why a global government is certain. Governments which undermine their laws undermine their robustness too, and are weaker and less resilient as a result. Such governments may persist, but will be more likely to collapse in the face of a disaster. This is the way all empires fail; not by wars or plagues, but structural weakness.
The future is a global government, with national governments, then regional, and local governments. Each must (and will, due to its strength!) represent its citizens such that laws and views can be made and can influence the whole. History shows that these structures evolve, though it often takes wars, and many decades or centuries of woe and ignorance for them to do so. It would be far more efficient to start with a clear vision and goal of the concepts and ultimate outcomes, rather than waste time and energy (and lives, and suffering) on alternatives.
But, we sigh, the weaker and more chaotic ideas like nationalism and xenophobia only break, as weaker life does, by cataclysm; by showing their weakness under times of stress, just as stable governments prove their strength by enduring it. Perhaps wars are the only way that the good can evolve, because wars prove what is correct by challenge. Perhaps, we can hope, these challenges don't have to be so violent and inefficient.
There are things everyone can do to help. Firstly, recognise that a global cultural mix, a global cultural average, is inevitable and good for everyone, that immigration or different cultures should not be feared; even though it can be instinctively natural to fear what is different. Second, to welcome and support supra-national political bodies, and lobby for fair representation in those. Thirdly, to know how politics operates, and the importance of laws. We must recognise those who call for rules to be bent as wrong, for those who call for protectionist policies as wrong. We must know that all wars stem from violations of laws, violations which begin small. All of history's dictators began as petty criminals. Their crimes grew, always to at least one murder. In due course such people create a nation of criminals. Good citizens need to be aware of these signs.
The most efficient country would have no tariffs, no taxes, so that people can trade without any viscous hindrance. The most efficient country would have no immigration controls, so that anyone can go to and from any country at will, live where they like. The most efficient country would have a few laws as possible, as much freedom as possible for people to do as they like, speak as they like, move where they like.
But of course, there are necessary compromises in those points. Laws are needed for stability and to preserve the very order that a government requires. Freedom cannot extend to those who wish to cause chaos or break the rules of law. Taxes are needed to fund the law makers and law enforcers.
