An interesting article on this week's economist points out how Julian Assange's Wikileaks diversifies its operations across different countries to use each set of legislative nuances to its advantage. In this way, no single government can "prevent a document from being published or force its removal." Apparently Wikileaks calls itself "multijurisdictional."
To me this is a nice example of a long term trend that most people like to contradict: governments will eventually have to merge.
I see a few influencing factors that will push this forward: economics, politics, and social movements.
First are the economic pressures. We already have the EU, an economic block that to a large degree exists to minimize cross-border economic frictions. A single currency bolsters trade, reduces monetary redundancies, etc. Especially for small countries, it makes a lot of sense to want to join: more access to capital markets, and less fiscal overhead. The Euro and dollar are currently the two de-facto reserve currencies. There will be a handful of others, but eventually all the small countries will have to accept that the cost of sustaining a proprietary currency does not justify the benefits of an individual monetary policy. We will have a world with just a few currencies. This is the first step towards blurring national boundaries.
Second are the political pressures. These are exemplified well by Wikileak's strategy. The cost of relocating a company is smaller today than it has ever been. Often there is not even a need to relocate, you can headquarter your company in one place, operate in several other places, and be regulated by the legal framework of yet another place. More and more, governments will have to ask themselves, what country does this company belong to? How do we tax the company? We already have a widely accepted set of international accounting rules, but the next step that necessarily follows is a widely accepted framework for determining taxation, rule of law, etc. Take Wikileak for example. They operate in the fringes of several legal frameworks, thus effectively setting themselves outside the reach of any. Its legal jujitsu. Governments cannot sustain a capitalist model in which they have no control over taxation and legal oversight of the very companies that make up the economy. Eventually, they will have to agree on an international standard and this too will further break down national boundaries.
Finally, there are the social pressures. These are perhaps the most important as they affect people directly. I offer myself as an example. I am a dual-citizen. This means that, with two passports, I have certain advantages when it comes to travel, labor choices, etc. My brother has three passports. I know two people with five passports. For obvious reasons, governments don't like dual-citizens. They find it tricky to control their usage of identities; how to make sure that they do not use one identity for nefarious purposes while maintaining another identity for a clean getaway? Governments are still grappling with how to best deal with "us." The problem is that people are what make a nation, they are who elect and shape government; trying to fight back a mass change in the social-structure is like fighting the tides. A losing battle.
I sometimes sit and think what the world looks like when dual-citizens are not the minority but the norm. I don't know if this will ever be the case, but if you take two reference points, 100 years ago and today, the trend is very obvious. I offer this very extreme example to underscore my point: The fastest growing minority in the US are Hispanics, and to a large degree Mexican immigrants. Demographic projections show that they could grow to be a national majority in less than 100 years. Throughout this time I would venture to guess that the political bonds between these two countries would strengthen. The question I raise, and I raise it primarily to provoke people, is: given the above hypothetical, what is the purpose of a national boundary when the US majority is of Mexican descent? How would these people perceive this separation? Wouldn't they tear it down? You can replace the illustrated countries with any other two, I merely use the US as a point of reference because it is "the melting pot" and currently, most of what's coming in is Hispanic.
For a number of reasons, people don't like this future. I can understand their hesitation, but I don't think this has to be a pessimistic scenario. The outlook can be very positive.
