The Post-Nation Era

Ever since coming up with the solution of abandoning countries in favour of global and very local governance, my head has been spinning about how it might work. But what has become clearer in my mind is the basic belief that it would work, or at least be a major improvement on what we have today.

I have started reading political statements and news articles in a different way. Never before has I realised that nations and their apologists did so much damage. Look out for policies defined in a national interest that are plainly against a global interest and arguably against the interest of the citizens of the subject country too. There are everywhere. Some are blatant – just read the obituaries for Kim Jong Il. Others are more subtle – look at the statements of European leaders around their recent summit. The worse an argument is, the more likely it is to be sold using a justification of national interest, and we fall for it!

So am I advocating a sort of big brother super-state? Well, I hope not. Though I have started to look again at one of the countries I had the privilege of living in during the 1990’s, namely Sweden. The place had a collectivist feel which I found strange at the time. Districts of cities had a lot of power, and people clubbed together readily on basic things. As an example, a typical apartment block had a common room in the basement for laundry, thereby saving electricity, freeing space in kitchens and creating social contact all at the same time, at the cost of a bit of time and planning.

Then the Swedish state was more intrusive than I was used to. We all had personal numbers and identity cards, and information about each other was readily available to all, for example income and tax records. Taxes were high, and very progressive, but then services were excellent too. My favourite example concerned affordable childcare facilities, whereby parents could both work while raising children. Also, people worked hard, but their hours showed a good balance between work and family.

Of course Sweden is also famous for its environmental leadership – with a clear understanding of common goods - and its generous overseas aid. Ten years ago, capitalists scoffed at the Swedish model, but they seem to have fine-tuned it a little now to promote growth and innovation a bit more. They tried a Tobin tax, but found that alone it was too costly. Even while I was there, the arguments against innovation seemed thin – as an example Swedish IT was always leading edge – but now the economy has become a leader again overall.

So Sweden may be a good model for future global governance. Lots of local democracy, within an accepted system of benign global rules. It is feasible. It even works to an extent in isolation, so imagine its power if everyone played by those rules.
What might those rules look like?

Start with the universal declaration of human rights, maybe strengthened a little with statements about gender equality and rights of children. After abolishing countries, we can also add in a right for full freedom of movement and residence. We just have to accept transparency in our affairs.

Next, create an economic policy for the world. Common goods, such as forests and natural resources, are owned commonly. One central bank runs a global monetary and fiscal policy with a single currency. Goals are full employment, global balance sheet (common resource) growth, stable prices including asset prices, a declining GINI coefficient, and fair outcomes for each generation. Taxes would focus on production and on redistribution.

Much tax would be collected or be immediately reallocated locally, to communities of say 100,000-500,000 people. Health, education, housing, policing and social care would be managed locally, and communities could also raise tax on property and consumption. Where I am struggling in the extent to which communities should be regulated. I want competition at this level, but not at the expense of human rights and wider goals. Ideally, there are a set of big rules about freedom of movement and human rights, but everything else would be the subject of local democracy. But a part of me would intervene too much. Why not outlaw smoking? Or gambling? This part gets tricky.

Companies would be registered and regulated globally, with no need for subsidiaries. Shareholders and workers would have lots of rights to prevent greed, and communities would encourage companies to locate in their areas. Careers are managed by individuals, with much freedom of movement, personal education and personal pension plans, and the right to variable working hours and styles.

There would need to be a lot of transition arrangements, but the EU experience shows that these can be managed.

There is a second type of community. We all have a residence community, but we are also free to join communities of interest as well, for example religions or languages. And families of course. This way traditions can be maintained and sensitivities can be managed, at least in theory.

Am I mad? Does this sound like communism, or at least collectivism? We all know what happened to communism, its inherent flaws. Would this system reduce corruption, ore make it worse? Would it stifle development? I don’t really know. But I do know we could eliminate armies and secret police. We could solve the current crisis in an instant. Climate change would be resolved. The millennium development goals would be achieved, indeed exceeded.

What about the people? Could we survive without our nations? For this one, look at football. When there are clubs, we don’t really care too much about countries. My guess it would be the same with governance, that given the chance to support a local team of people we identified with, together with other communities of global interest, we could easily dispense with the nation.

The sad thing is, I don’t think we are ready to try. We have all been brainwashed, and our elites have too much to lose. Even the most noble live experiment of pooling resources, the EU, is collapsing rather than thriving.

But I’ll continue reading articles and statements with my new lens. Try doing the same, you may reach the same conclusion.

Now I’ll retire to read my Christmas treat, the Economist. I’ve only read two special articles so far and already I’m captivated, the comparison between Martin Luther and Facebook was simply brilliant.

Happy Christmas and a healthy and peaceful 2012.