Should national sovereignty be abolished?

[Nuraghe]

At the moment, nationalist populism that is hostile to globalisation is one of the political forces growing the most in the developed world. The reasons for this are not necessarily relevant to the scope of this thread, but it is unlikely that nationalist populism will lose relevance any time soon. From Brexit to Trump, the shared ideal of these national populists is the preservation of the nation-state system and the dismantling/weakening of the various international architectures established over the past century. Generally speaking, most people in western countries are in favour of a balance between national sovereignty and international cooperation. Nationalist populism and advocacy for increased international integration are minority viewpoints at present.

But I would like to present a case for the abolition of national sovereignty and the transition to supranational global authority. I believe that the strengthening of international institutions and the weakening of the nation-state could be a useful means by which we achieve world peace and global economic justice & development. At the present, the world is ravaged by conflict, poverty, and inequality. Globalisation has created the most peaceful and prosperous period in world history, but this peace and prosperity is largely concentrated in the developed world. Those in the global south are less likely to reap the fruits of globalisation. One of the major barriers to coordinating global development efforts is the idea of the "national interest". Those who are already wealthy do not want to sacrifice the lead that they have and are fine with much of the world suffering. The means through which this should be achieved, in my opinion, would be rather conservative: the gradual strengthening of existing international institutions, such as the United Nations and World Trade Organisation, at the expense of national authority. Eventually, we should seek the replacement of national armies with a global army, and the establishment of a worldwide system of the free movement of people, goods, and capital.

There are cases against this though. What motivated this was my reading of the book "Reclaiming the State" by William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi, two progressive economists who argue against the neoliberal model of globalisation and defend the nation-state as a vehicle for progressive change. I do not really agree with their argument - largely because they try to tie post-nationalism/supranationalism with fascism and fail to accept any conceptualisation of post-nationalism/supranationalism that is not tied to fascism - but I did understand some of their criticisms around the economy. Both left-wing populists and right-wing populists believe that globalisation has contributed to or caused the neglect of the working classes in western countries as jobs are shipped overseas, and support for globalisation often comes from those who support neoliberal economic policies that harm working people. Nationalists/right-wing populists also usually invoke ideas about cultural clashes between migrants and natives.

And so I ask the question: should we abolish national sovereignty and transition towards global authority? Or is the nation-state system preferable?

Note: This thread is about both the ideal of internationalism and the reality of it. I recognize fully that abolition of the nation-state and transitioning to a supranational global authority is very unrealistic in the short-term, and even in the long-term we are likely only to see small steps in this direction. But feel free

[Kostane]

Establishing a global system of authority that is democratic would almost certainly be a failure. There are simply too many different opinions and factions in the world for it to ever accurately represent the will of the people. More local government will almost universally be better at doing so. The role of international organizations is solely to fight global threats, like climate change and world war, and not to declare domestic laws. An international army would run counter to this, because it would promote war between this international government and local governments.

Now I’ll respond to your actual post:

At the moment, nationalist populism that is hostile to globalisation is one of the political forces growing the most in the developed world. The reasons for this are not necessarily relevant to the scope of this thread, but it is unlikely that nationalist populism will lose relevance any time soon. From Brexit to Trump, the shared ideal of these national populists is the preservation of the nation-state system and the dismantling/weakening of the various international architectures established over the past century. Generally speaking, most people in western countries are in favour of a balance between national sovereignty and international cooperation. Nationalist populism and advocacy for increased international integration are minority viewpoints at present.

But I would like to present a case for the abolition of national sovereignty and the transition to supranational global authority. I believe that the strengthening of international institutions and the weakening of the nation-state could be a useful means by which we achieve world peace and global economic justice & development.

How? Sure, abolishing every government would technically achieve “world peace.” However, domestic conflicts and terrorism would continue. Such a large government would, inevitably, be unable to have the domestic focus to respond to these threats. The government would either have to be authoritarian to make quick decisions, or be too inefficient to ever respond.

There’s also no reason why a unified world government specifically would be key. We could instead just have stronger multilateral institutions to promote economic equity and world peace.

At the present, the world is ravaged by conflict, poverty, and inequality. Globalisation has created the most peaceful and prosperous period in world history, but this peace and prosperity is largely concentrated in the developed world. Those in the global south are less likely to reap the fruits of globalisation.

Why would this change under your concept of a global government? Who would be in power under your government? How would decisions be made? If it is by popular vote, developed countries like the U.S., Russia, and China are sure to dominate, making economic inequality worse. If it is authoritarian, that only magnifies the problem as the leader will solely focus on their own region.

One of the major barriers to coordinating global development efforts is the idea of the "national interest". Those who are already wealthy do not want to sacrifice the lead that they have and are fine with much of the world suffering.

You’ve described self-interest rather than national interest. In a global government, why would Elon Musk give up his wealth? Furthermore, why would any already wealthy region agree to do so, instead of just not cooperating. A nation itself is not the root cause of self-interest.

The means through which this should be achieved, in my opinion, would be rather conservative: the gradual strengthening of existing international institutions, such as the United Nations and World Trade Organisation, at the expense of national authority.

The United Nations has five permanent security council members with veto of legislation: China, the U.S., Russia, Britain, and France. Why would these countries agree to development efforts that would weaken them relatively, rather than just vetoing them? Literally every single one of these countries is in the developed North. Every institution you made is a Western institution, so how could they possibly solve unequal economic power?

Eventually, we should seek the replacement of national armies with a global army,

But I thought there’d be no war in this magical world…?

and the establishment of a worldwide system of the free movement of people, goods, and capital.

You mean capitalism? You know that exists right now, right?

[Major-Tom]

The sovereignty of people who make up a respective nation is inherent, something that cannot simply be taken away. Further, any attempts to create some sort of global superstate would mark a ruinous disaster.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Eventually, we should seek the replacement of national armies with a global army, and the establishment of a worldwide system of the free movement of people, goods, and capital.

Yeah, that just sounds like NAFTA and the TPP on steroids, or Hillary Clinton's private position that there should "be no barriers to trade." ie. no customs regulations, safety standards, nor tariffs.

I am all for internationalism, but hell no to the type that just wants to triple down on building a neoliberal capitalist hellscape and telling everyone that the flaws of neoliberal globalization will be fixed by more neoliberal globalization.

[Arctic Lands]

We should pursue a classless, stateless and moneyless world, and that includes abolition of national sovereignty at some point. Not instantly, of course, and not against the will of the workers of each nation.

[Sardinia-Sicily]

Yeah, this would almost certainly fail, especially if implemented to quickly. Also how would this government work, as Kostane pointed out, it would either have to be Authoritarian, meaning much of the world gets neglected and left to their own devices, or it would be a weak democracy that has no way of enforcing anything. Not to mention the fact that uniting nations together would almost certainly start fighting in the streets, ie: Turkey and Armenia, or the Balkans. If you really wanted this to work, you would need to start at the regional levels, like a stronger European Union or a South American and North American Federations, before making such a drastic move, like a whole United World.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

it would either have to be Authoritarian

It would be authoritarian, designed to suppress the working classes even further.

I mean, how else would it remain in power when more manufacturing is done by literal slaves in "developing" areas all while more people in the developed world lose their jobs? When salaries/wages, and benefits are further undercut, forcing more people into poverty to boot!

[Western European Khilafat]

United Abrahamic theocracy my beloved.
(But with arenae where we can do theological combat, the Only weapons being logic)

[Dimetrodon Empire]

United Abrahamic theocracy my beloved.
(But with arenae where we can do theological combat, the Only weapons being logic)

That won't happen either.

[Kostane]

United Abrahamic theocracy my beloved.
(But with arenae where we can do theological combat, the Only weapons being logic)

War in the United Abrahamic theocracy timeline:
"The square root of a number is always positive"
"No, you fool, the square root of a negative number would include i"
"i isn't negative"
"It's not positive, either, you doofus."
Casualties: 13 billion brain cells lost.
(/j, obviously)

[Dumb Ideologies]

NSG OPs are a real dystopia buffet.

[Nuraghe]

How? Sure, abolishing every government would technically achieve “world peace.” However, domestic conflicts and terrorism would continue. Such a large government would, inevitably, be unable to have the domestic focus to respond to these threats. The government would either have to be authoritarian to make quick decisions, or be too inefficient to ever respond.

I don't necessarily agree and the government would not need to be "large". We could have an extensively decentralised system of non-sovereign states capable of solving issues. Global authority does not need to be a centralised state that behaves like a nation-state does.

There’s also no reason why a unified world government specifically would be key. We could instead just have stronger multilateral institutions to promote economic equity and world peace.

But multilateralism in an international society of nation-states will always find itself subverted by nationalism.

Why would this change under your concept of a global government? Who would be in power under your government? How would decisions be made? If it is by popular vote, developed countries like the U.S., Russia, and China are sure to dominate, making economic inequality worse. If it is authoritarian, that only magnifies the problem as the leader will solely focus on their own region.

The US, Russia, EU, and UK have a combined population of just under one billion, less than China, India, and the continent of Africa, so I am not sure why the popular vote would be dominated by developed countries. The global south would be extremely empowered in a democratic global community, and with a greater voice in global affairs, more attention would be directed to their issues.

You’ve described self-interest rather than national interest.

The two terms are used almost synonymously in international relations and foreign policy literature, and that's because they are synonymous.

A nation itself is not the root cause of self-interest.

The nation is not synonymous with the nation-state.

But I thought there’d be no war in this magical world…?

I am disappointed. Until this point it seemed like you were actually engaging with what I said but you ruined it with this condescending remark. I never once asserted that there would be no war nor would supranationalism be "magical".

You mean capitalism? You know that exists right now, right?

We do not have an international system in which people, goods, and capital can be moved freely. We have made great strides over the last century but there are still extensive barriers to trade and migration globally. Further, the free movement of people, goods, and capital is not necessarily capitalist, nor is capitalism defined by it. Capitalism necessitates the ability for goods and capital to move, but not people and they do not need to move "freely". Theoretically you could have the free movement of people, goods, and capital without capitalism. But that's besides the point.

[Kerwa]

The ideal is a post scarcity society where such ideas are meaningless.

[Nuraghe]

The sovereignty of people who make up a respective nation is inherent, something that cannot simply be taken away. Further, any attempts to create some sort of global superstate would mark a ruinous disaster.

Can you objectively demonstrate this?

Eventually, we should seek the replacement of national armies with a global army, and the establishment of a worldwide system of the free movement of people, goods, and capital.

Yeah, that just sounds like NAFTA and the TPP on steroids, or Hillary Clinton's private position that there should "be no barriers to trade." ie. no customs regulations, safety standards, nor tariffs.

I am all for internationalism, but hell no to the type that just wants to triple down on building a neoliberal capitalist hellscape and telling everyone that the flaws of neoliberal globalization will be fixed by more neoliberal globalization.

No safety standards is an issue, but why is having no barriers to trade a bad thing? Free trade is supported almost universally by economists because it is measurably better than protectionism in every metric. The only time it ever has a use is for political point scoring. If you wish to drive economic development and alleviate poverty, as I do, free trade is the only viable solution. Protectionism makes people poorer and encourages inequality.

it would either have to be Authoritarian, meaning much of the world gets neglected and left to their own devices, or it would be a weak democracy that has no way of enforcing anything.

Why?

Not to mention the fact that uniting nations together would almost certainly start fighting in the streets, ie: Turkey and Armenia, or the Balkans.

Can you prove this?

If you really wanted this to work, you would need to start at the regional levels, like a stronger European Union or a South American and North American Federations, before making such a drastic move, like a whole United World.

I am fine with this.

it would either have to be Authoritarian

It would be authoritarian, designed to suppress the working classes even further.

I mean, how else would it remain in power when more manufacturing is done by literal slaves in "developing" areas all while more people in the developed world lose their jobs? When salaries/wages, and benefits are further undercut, forcing more people into poverty to boot!

You are just making something up to argue against.

United Abrahamic theocracy my beloved.

Only a small majority of the world follow Abrahamic religions and a minority of them want a theocracy.

[Port Carverton]

At the moment, nationalist populism that is hostile to globalisation is one of the political forces growing the most in the developed world. The reasons for this are not necessarily relevant to the scope of this thread, but it is unlikely that nationalist populism will lose relevance any time soon. From Brexit to Trump, the shared ideal of these national populists is the preservation of the nation-state system and the dismantling/weakening of the various international architectures established over the past century. Generally speaking, most people in western countries are in favour of a balance between national sovereignty and international cooperation. Nationalist populism and advocacy for increased international integration are minority viewpoints at present.

While I disagree with those movements, they're right that globalisation isn't favoring most people. Yes, it has helped people in third world countries to earn better wages with industrialization, but at the same time those people work in terrible conditions and fast social changes destabilize their societies.

But I would like to present a case for the abolition of national sovereignty and the transition to supranational global authority. I believe that the strengthening of international institutions and the weakening of the nation-state could be a useful means by which we achieve world peace and global economic justice & development. At the present, the world is ravaged by conflict, poverty, and inequality. Globalisation has created the most peaceful and prosperous period in world history, but this peace and prosperity is largely concentrated in the developed world. Those in the global south are less likely to reap the fruits of globalisation. One of the major barriers to coordinating global development efforts is the idea of the "national interest". Those who are already wealthy do not want to sacrifice the lead that they have and are fine with much of the world suffering. The means through which this should be achieved, in my opinion, would be rather conservative: the gradual strengthening of existing international institutions, such as the United Nations and World Trade Organisation, at the expense of national authority. Eventually, we should seek the replacement of national armies with a global army, and the establishment of a worldwide system of the free movement of people, goods, and capital.

These institutions are also plagued by inefficiency due to divergent interest among the countries. Additionally, most people will not have any loyalty to some vague ideal of a shared humanity. Even some countries in the West are struggling with identity by defining it by passport.

There are cases against this though. What motivated this was my reading of the book "Reclaiming the State" by William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi, two progressive economists who argue against the neoliberal model of globalisation and defend the nation-state as a vehicle for progressive change. I do not really agree with their argument - largely because they try to tie post-nationalism/supranationalism with fascism and fail to accept any conceptualisation of post-nationalism/supranationalism that is not tied to fascism - but I did understand some of their criticisms around the economy. Both left-wing populists and right-wing populists believe that globalisation has contributed to or caused the neglect of the working classes in western countries as jobs are shipped overseas, and support for globalisation often comes from those who support neoliberal economic policies that harm working people. Nationalists/right-wing populists also usually invoke ideas about cultural clashes between migrants and natives.

This is an area where globalization could help, but a more equitable system would need to be implemented, like European tripartite corporatism but on a large scale.

And so I ask the question: should we abolish national sovereignty and transition towards global authority? Or is the nation-state system preferable?

Note: This thread is about both the ideal of internationalism and the reality of it. I recognize fully that abolition of the nation-state and transitioning to a supranational global authority is very unrealistic in the short-term, and even in the long-term we are likely only to see small steps in this direction. But feel free

I don't think it's a good idea. There would be no loyalty to some institution.

[Kostane]

How? Sure, abolishing every government would technically achieve “world peace.” However, domestic conflicts and terrorism would continue. Such a large government would, inevitably, be unable to have the domestic focus to respond to these threats. The government would either have to be authoritarian to make quick decisions, or be too inefficient to ever respond.

I don't necessarily agree and the government would not need to be "large". We could have an extensively decentralised system of non-sovereign states capable of solving issues. Global authority does not need to be a centralised state that behaves like a nation-state does.

What is the difference between this system and the current system of sovereign states?

There’s also no reason why a unified world government specifically would be key. We could instead just have stronger multilateral institutions to promote economic equity and world peace.

But multilateralism in an international society of nation-states will always find itself subverted by nationalism.

The same is true of your proposed system.

Why would this change under your concept of a global government? Who would be in power under your government? How would decisions be made? If it is by popular vote, developed countries like the U.S., Russia, and China are sure to dominate, making economic inequality worse. If it is authoritarian, that only magnifies the problem as the leader will solely focus on their own region.

The US, Russia, EU, and UK have a combined population of just under one billion, less than China, India, and the continent of Africa, so I am not sure why the popular vote would be dominated by developed countries. The global south would be extremely empowered in a democratic global community, and with a greater voice in global affairs, more attention would be directed to their issues.

China and India are both developed nations.
Moreover, how would there be any agreement under your system? If you are right about conflicting interests, then the U.S., Russia, the EU, and UK would vote against legislation detrimental to them. China would do the same, as would India. This means that with that many perspectives, agreement would be nearly impossible.

You’ve described self-interest rather than national interest.

The two terms are used almost synonymously in international relations and foreign policy literature, and that's because they are synonymous.

Not true. National interest refers to a specific interest of a nation-state, rather than self-interest which happens on an individual level. Without a nation-state, there is still self-interest.

A nation itself is not the root cause of self-interest.

The nation is not synonymous with the nation-state.

Semantics. Neither one is the root cause of self-interest.

But I thought there’d be no war in this magical world…?

I am disappointed. Until this point it seemed like you were actually engaging with what I said but you ruined it with this condescending remark. I never once asserted that there would be no war nor would supranationalism be "magical".

You've asserted there would be global peace. Also, it is magical to assume there's an agreement among 8 billion people.

You mean capitalism? You know that exists right now, right?

We do not have an international system in which people, goods, and capital can be moved freely. We have made great strides over the last century but there are still extensive barriers to trade and migration globally. Further, the free movement of people, goods, and capital is not necessarily capitalist, nor is capitalism defined by it. Capitalism necessitates the ability for goods and capital to move, but not people and they do not need to move "freely". Theoretically you could have the free movement of people, goods, and capital without capitalism. But that's besides the point.

Those barriers to trade and migration can be eroded without a single world government. There's something called the World Trade Organization. Under it, tariffs are not allowed, except for special circumstances. This helps promote trade without nationally defined barriers. There's, once again, no reason why the abolishment of national sovereignty is necessary.

[Ariddia]

But I would like to present a case for the abolition of national sovereignty and the transition to supranational global authority. I believe that the strengthening of international institutions and the weakening of the nation-state could be a useful means by which we achieve world peace and global economic justice & development. At the present, the world is ravaged by conflict, poverty, and inequality. Globalisation has created the most peaceful and prosperous period in world history, but this peace and prosperity is largely concentrated in the developed world. Those in the global south are less likely to reap the fruits of globalisation.

I take your point, but nation-states are inherently more democratic than supra-national institutions. National institutions are 'closer' to the people, more aligned with a nation's customs, and more democratically accountable.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

No safety standards is an issue, but why is having no barriers to trade a bad thing? Free trade is supported almost universally by economists because it is measurably better than protectionism in every metric. The only time it ever has a use is for political point scoring. If you wish to drive economic development and alleviate poverty, as I do, free trade is the only viable solution. Protectionism makes people poorer and encourages inequality.

Is that why the rust belt is struggling? Is that why people lose their livelihoods as jobs are shipped overseas? So much for alleviating poverty.

And frankly, most economists show strong biases and it isn't really a science, especially since many of them always comment on how we need to cut more taxes on the rich (they're the lowest since the gilded age now) and further deregulate, and they tend to have economic interests of their own that cause them to advocate for that.

[Port Carverton]

No safety standards is an issue, but why is having no barriers to trade a bad thing? Free trade is supported almost universally by economists because it is measurably better than protectionism in every metric. The only time it ever has a use is for political point scoring. If you wish to drive economic development and alleviate poverty, as I do, free trade is the only viable solution. Protectionism makes people poorer and encourages inequality.

Is that why the rust belt is struggling? Is that why people lose their livelihoods as jobs are shipped overseas? So much for alleviating poverty.

And frankly, most economists show strong biases and it isn't really a science, especially since many of them always comment on how we need to cut more taxes on the rich (they're the lowest since the gilded age now) and further deregulate, and they tend to have economic interests of their own that cause them to advocate for that.

Or maybe it has to do with keynesianism also having it's own problems and socialism being wntirely discredited after the fall of the USSR.

The main problem isn't that they advocate liberal economics (because they do work), it's that, incidentally, to work properly it requires high-trust in others in society and a certain degree of wealth and income equality so that everyone has money to spend and meet their needs. It’s why it works very well in Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. but fails in the third world.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

The future belongs to a single world, in which there will be no borders, nations or national states. There will be a single community of earthlings, citizens of planet Earth.

Such a community as a nation was progressive when it helped to unite feudal provinces or develop the economy and culture of former colonies. In the past, from 1800 to 1960, nationalism could be progressive. After that, nationalism became reactionary. Now it no longer stimulates, but slows down the further development of industry, culture and science. It slows down the solidarity of people. It threatens the emergence of world wars and fascist dictatorships, manifestations of xenophobia, genocide of other ethnic groups and nations.

But under what conditions is the transition to a single world possible? Kautsky claimed that "ultra-imperialism", globalism, is capable of winning under capitalism. Lenin objected that competition between corporations and bourgeois governments of different countries would not allow them to unite, and only socialist governments could unite the world, since the poor and workers of different countries had nothing to divide between themselves, they had no economic antagonisms. This meant that unification into a single humanity was possible and desirable under the flag of socialism, socialist globalism and cosmopolitanism, anti-nationalism.

These ideas could win if the masses became disillusioned with bourgeois nationalism, for example, against the backdrop of a world war or a chain of destructive local wars around the world.

[Durius]

Yes, it should be abolished and any sort of global replacement should be fought. People deserve to be free.

[Pale Dawn]

No of course not and its a silly question. National sovereignty allows for societies to organize and define themselves with less overlapping and contentious borders found in societies of earlier periods. Any international government would either be spread so thin representing so many competing interests to tear itself apart or have genocided so much of the population to make the world manageable to be an outright evil.

[Kostane]

Yes, it should be abolished and any sort of global replacement should be fought. People deserve to be free.

Just to be clear, you are an anarchist?

[Japanese-Manchu Union]

No. It might be pretty hard to govern the globe with a global authority. Each place has a difference in culture, and identity. Let's say the Global Government tried to impose a law across multiple areas of the planet. Would every area agree on the law? Most likely not. Of course, this depends. Also, identity could be a problem. When you have something similar to national sovereignty, you can have some pride in how your nation is probably at least somewhat different from the one next to you, or across the pond. With a Global Government, you would probably have a ton of similarities with your neighboring country, which is now also a part of Globe-Gov, along with the nation across the pond. You might be sharing similar laws, the same language, the same dialect, and the same cultural identity. Now, my reasoning might as well be flawed. Globe-Gov might as well just institute a Global Federation or something. Although, this might not work out for a different reason or something.

Let's say Globe-Gov actually existed. You could say there would be no wars fought, because there is nobody to fight, the only nation is Globe-Gov. But, could Internal Uprisings happen? If there is no one else to fight, and maybe some people are unhappy with Globe-Gov Governance, there would be someone to fight. Conflicting religions and ethnicities might be a problem as well. It is possible that extremists on any side may want their independence from what they believe to be, a not great nation. Maybe every few years, a rebellion pops up, and gets crushed. Would Globe-Govs population get tired of constant wars? Or would Globe-Gov citizens just practically live with the fact that this is their life now?

I think that the idea of a Globe-Gov has many flaws. National Identity gives some sort of pride in your nation, for the worst, or for the best. You can know that your nation can most likely administer more local specific laws, instead of your World Controller giving out laws that may not fit your local life.

[Nuraghe]

While I disagree with those movements, they're right that globalisation isn't favoring most people. Yes, it has helped people in third world countries to earn better wages with industrialization, but at the same time those people work in terrible conditions and fast social changes destabilize their societies.

How is not favouring most people? Things are not going great for a lot of people at the moment, but the world is significantly better than it in 1945 was by all metrics. The liberalisation of trade and erection of international institutions has been monumental in human progress.

What is the difference between this system and the current system of sovereign states?

The lack of national sovereignty would allow for international institutions - at a regional or global level - to step in and rectify any egregious mistakes. We see this in Europe where European institutions have been pivotal at restricting the democratic backsliding agenda of of right-wing populists like Orban and Duda.

The same is true of your proposed system.

The lack of national sovereignty will limit this.

China and India are both developed nations.
Moreover, how would there be any agreement under your system? If you are right about conflicting interests, then the U.S., Russia, the EU, and UK would vote against legislation detrimental to them. China would do the same, as would India. This means that with that many perspectives, agreement would be nearly impossible.

China is debatable, but India is not a developed country yet. Agreement can be reached through negotiation and compromise between respective parties, the same thing that happens at international institutions just now.

Not true. National interest refers to a specific interest of a nation-state, rather than self-interest which happens on an individual level. Without a nation-state, there is still self-interest.

Yes, and the specific interests of the nation-state are its self interest. I don't dispute that different manifestations of self-interest will exist, but no competing self-interests have been as destructive as the "national interest".

You've asserted there would be global peace. Also, it is magical to assume there's an agreement among 8 billion people.

No, I said that it could be a means through which peace is achieved, not that there would be global peace. I never asserted there would be agreement among 8 billion people.

Those barriers to trade and migration can be eroded without a single world government. There's something called the World Trade Organization. Under it, tariffs are not allowed, except for special circumstances. This helps promote trade without nationally defined barriers. There's, once again, no reason why the abolishment of national sovereignty is necessary.

The WTO is a good start but it does not universally abolish tariffs - those "special circumstances" are rather extensive. Hence why the Doha round is still ongoing...