How do get from where we are now to the ideal global society?

But first, what is the ideal global society? For me, it’s a world government, perhaps a more muscular UN. It’s the principle of subsidiarity enacted along the US federal model, with countries democratically choosing almost all policies themselves, such as taxes and legal systems, but with the International Court of Justice as ultimate arbiter, enforcing such non-negotiable rights as freedom of speech, gender equality, freedom of religion… all the stuff we already take for granted in the west.

It’s completely free trade, free movement of labor and capital. It’s an aid and development program that is closer in size to 5% of global GDP than the current 1%. It’s a UN standing army, with a good track record of extinguishing hot spots, so that individual countries no longer feel the need to keep their own army. And it’s as many currency areas as are needed.

Now, how to get from here to there? Perhaps we should think of the EU and the US as good cop, bad cop. The idea would be that the EU holds the carrot, a shining example of democratic multilateralism at work, while the US holds the stick, engaging in the thankless task of dragging the stragglers kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

The problem with this analogy, in addition to it being belabored, is that the bad cop is being very cavalier with the (international) law, bending it in order to save it, supposedly, while the good cop is selfishly keeping the carrot all to itself.

Or, at least, that is the impression the EU is in danger of giving. First off, anybody who has taken international trade theory knows that retaliatory tariffs hurt both sides. Even unilateral free trade regimes benefit both sides for slightly counterintuitive reasons that are most convincing with a little effort. Yet Europe is still in a mercantilist mood, where trade with the outsiders is a zero-sum game. This looks bad.

Second, CAP.

Third, it is nitpicking which countries to let in. It’s great that Poland is in. But Turkey should be next, and Israel, and why not Lebanon, and Palestine (now there is an incentive) and those countries ringing the Mediterranean? Giscard d’Estaing argues they are not Christian enough. That is such a silly argument it deserves no retort, but I couldn’t help myself. If Europe wanted to be a real good cop, it should allow in contiguous countries based purely on standards of democracy and human rights. Anything else is beneath contempt.

And yet, EU architects are queasy. Such an EU would be too big to govern effectively, they sayThe only reason I can think of why they might think a big EU is “too big to govern” is that they mean, “too big to govern by the current big countries in the EU.” That, however, is not a very democratic impulse.. Such an EU would have a diluted sense of identity, it would no longer be Europa Universalis. No it would not. But their concerns do raise the question of what the EU should be: the embryo of a future ideal global society? Or a fortress, defending our Christian heritage from the barbarians at the gate?

Obviously I much prefer the first option. The EU as an embryonic global society is also the reason why I don’t think political unions should dictate currency areas: as the EU grows, it would be economic suicide to get every new member to join EMU. Using the slippery slope argument here is a no-brainer: If a single currency is not enough for a growing EU, when do you add another, and on what basis? Obviously not out of political considerations; the answer, of course, is optimal currency areas. I, for one, think the eurozone has already expanded beyond its ideal size.

Others prefer the second option — Fortress Europe — and in many ways it is a lot simpler and more reassuring. One continent, one history, one nation, one currency… I unfortunately have a deep mistrust of nationalism, including the common European garden variety. Other might not. Well, then, if they must have a European club, at least make sure it is not at the expense of the rest of the world. At the very least, scrap CAP, trade barriers, and barriers to labor mobility for those outside the EU.