So, In America, I’ve noticed, when we make decisions about who and what we vote for or against with an “America First” mentality in mined, regardless of political affiliations typically. This is what we call patriotism and part of the sovereignty of each country in the world is driven by patriotism. When our nation was born, The people of the states of the union often carried a greater allegiance to their state than the nation, and the right of states to override federal authority allowed for such atrocities as the proliferation of slavery. Although the states knew they must be united, the concept of “every state for itself” lead to more conflict than national welfare, as borders and even currency played a large roll in commerce and were not being effectively regulated. A national bank and currency was vital, but cultural differences still played a role in the conflict across the mid-Atlantic region and Kentucky which had to spread to the South to guarantee citizenship and rights to the American people. Freed slaves in particular. This process of guaranteeing basic fights for the American People as a whole was a product of the federalization of what was initially a confederacy of former colonies that revolted against a common English crown and buerocratic ministry without the best needs of the empirial holdings of the kingdom proper being fully considered. The slogan of many revolutionaries was “no taxation without representation” and the Western powers began a war against the native peoples in a way that it couldn’t maintain the control or finances necessary for success. Factors that have contributed these changes in power structure across the land have been the rate of trade and communication, control of trade routes, language barriers, and the patriotic unity of a peoples with a large factor being technological domination. The states of America had to come together and unite economically and legally to provide for the needs and rights of their citizens within their boarders and abroad. A unified dollar and congressional power over interstate commerce, with the people of each state having fair representation from the local to federal levels, was very much at the heart of our success. I find it only reasonable to assume that to provide for the needs of the people on the planet, all of our rights to life, liberty, and opportunity, the necessity is paramount for the United Nations to federalize; to lateralize global defence and the protection of international and state essential human rights, unify currency, centralize banking into an internationally representative institution, and constantly work in the pursuit of longevity and stability on the planet for generations to come. Before national interests eclipse global interests and personal determination. The world must be a representative republic, and we must apply historical lessons to avoid the proliferation of the oligarchical class and the underclass.
The constitution was written to protect the needs of citizens. In fact, the phrase "pursuit of happiness" was originally "the pursuit of property" but they had to change it because of the slave thing. They wrote the constitution for a few main reasons. The states had a unicameral system with no judicial or executive branch meaning they had no separation of powers. They also wanted to give the federal government more power because they did not have the power to tax or pay for an army for defense. And the big one, the federal government couldn't regulate trade which was THE issue back then. Each state were putting tariffs on this or that, hell, even Virginia was conducting foreign trade deals with France on their own.
The "theory" sounds great. The practice... not so much. The problem with your proposal is that you provide an "ideal" final outcome that is impossible to achieve. It's the idea behind Utopia. It's the ultimate ideal of communism. It's even the world in Star Trek. But there is never a route on how to get from here to there. Alas! We know it's not achievable. Every attempt in the past has ended up very badly. The only conclusion possible is that it requires homogeneity. And the human race cannot survive without diversity.
This is also where the United Nation is failing to uphold its mission. In a post WWII world, the nations of the world came to fall under the security of five powers in particular. From the very start, the interests favored these nations, leading to complications and conflict on the chessboard between the United States and the Soviet Union which played out into the Arab Spring and the South China Sea trade disputes along with many other international entanglements where national interests are once again in a position where they are a clear and present danger to global welfare. Nations are accountable for their own citizenry, with the higher international body being fully incapable of mobilizing a proper check of the abuse of sovereign rights of national leaders. The world would benefit from the valuation of our available resources and international potential as opposed to national securities. Competition is creating environments where sacrificing cooperative potential and logistical wisdom is seen as a price that must be paid for success. Paranoias and grievances of local populations are being exploited to protect the interests of businesses seeking to conglomerate and dominate international trade as a select axis of nations grapples influence and determinism from the rest of the world, leaving the third world at the mercy of the squabbles of an aristocratic first world. Take this for example, The Queen of England pays no taxes. I highly doubt the property bearers of Buckingham Palaces contribute their fair share of estate expenses that would entail a fair taxation policy. This is in the nation of England, and so long as international law is not being violated, England is free to govern itself as it pleases. Yet these dukes and duchesses are living within the same international community as the peoples of Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Each nation inherits its national equity and this prevents the ideal that all peoples are born equal. For the United Nations to uphold its duty to serve the international community, shouldn't it seek the power to levy a tax that places the burden of those who inherit poverty and famine on those who inherit crowns, jewelry, mansions, villas, and the full luxuries of their own post-industrial economies? Shouldn't it seek the power to fully regulate international trade, infrastructure, and defense? Isn't at least an obligation of our international regulatory community to census the population, in a manner free of national biases, and be held accountable for the lives of the people in all nations? It would require a unilateral effort of all participating nations to trust in a joint security force, but I can't see how it wouldn't be economically beneficial for all peoples in the long term. The measure of the economy would be how necessary goods and services are being provided. At the moment in America, the motivation to provide a service is that their is money in it, not that this service provides for the global economy. Economies competing and warring each other can only fuel an instability and lead to revolting populations until the end of time, or our human interests are effectively tied together behind a common force. I believe this is a false assertion that it requires homogeneity. Even within my state, neighboring counties Prince George's County and Montgomery County are two completely different localized identities, yet both are part of the Maryland community which is separate from the Virginian. Why can Maryland and Virginia be distinct and live unified under the United States and Israel and Palestine have national cultures that are seen as more worthy of honoring than coexisting under an international umbrella that is capable of maintaining a fair and balanced security for both? Two states can come into conflict, but it is a great thing that greater powers are in place to make missile launches between Maryland and Virginia over the Potomac river unthinkable. What I'm getting at is just because people have large points of cultural contention, that is irrelevant to the fact that the malicious destruction of life property, and capital, the subjugation of populations in diaspora, etc these are all factors that should be against the culture of any nation that seeks to be any part of the international community. A community that should agree by now that human rights are not to be scarified to appease a complex network of allies and rivals
