Skeptic Project

One example: Many people are burdened with laws that change based on the state they're in. This seems unnecessary if there's no practical reason to keep the borders.

That's the status quo, yes. But is that the most efficient and effective solution? Would it be less efficient and effective to disband the state sovereignties?

I was asking about efficiency. I know state laws are the law; but why? What is the practical reason today for maintaining a system where each state has its own legislation? Is that reason significant enough to use as evidence for why the state sovereignties will never be eliminated?

These laws were made 200 years ago in a much larger and different world.

In regards to the practicality of state laws?

Probably because people in different states have different cultures and don't want to lose that regardless of how inefficient it may appear to be as long as civic infrastructure is maintained at a reasonable efficiency.

This entire conversation hinges on states having sovereignty in the first place, which they do not, as court cases concerning nullification show.

The concept of "state's rights" has much more to do with culture than it does any real applicable laws. It is intangible, which makes it even less likely to go away.

Only if a Supreme Court majority interprets the Constitution in a way that would allow them to eliminate state's rights altogether, which I don't think is possible. If they were that radical, they'd never be appointed.

I agree with Matt. One world government is impossible, and undesirable by anyone who's realistic about how the world works. What would there be to gain from such a system?

We've had nation-states and borders of one form or another for thousands of years, since the beginning of human civilization. Expecting that to go away within the blink of an eye in historical time that is 50 to 100, or even 500 years, is silly. It just won't happen.

Because, as I said, I don't think global government can happen if the above cannot. Since I think global government is inevitable, I don't see why the states are going to remain, either.

Why that? I don't think that a central (whether national or global) government should have any more influence than needed. And even if I'm wrong and central government was more efficient, I don't think that the USA will have any exemplary value for the feasibility of such form of global governance.
If this kind of political structure is wanted, it will most likely be achieved through external political pressure, not by some radical form of political awakening, although the latter seems to be expected not only by all TZMers, but also a huge part of the left crowd.

Why that?

Especially in the US, I think multicultural efforts will expedite the desire to wipe away Anglo hygemony. A revolution in culture will act as a catalyst for this transition. As such, the cultural and historical reasons for maintaining state borders will erode, leaving only the most practical reasons for maintaining their existence.

Other countries will take longer due to their more solidified cultures and enduring history.