The world is an anarcy.

International society as always been anarchy. However global instant communication gives us a consciousness as global citizens, which did not previously exist. It also makes us more aware of the lack of control and standards in international relations which previously did not exist

Yes, but it changes nothing. If we see the international society as one state that state is an anarcy. Our many democracies are merely buffers, making it harder for one man or a select few to assume control, but it is by no means impossible.

Also, the instant global communication you mention makes me see how illogical it is that we still have many states. The whole earth should be one nation.

Re: The world is an anarcy.

Political scientists routinely describe the realm of international relations as an anarchy. Indeed, the first person who thought in those terms was probably Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century. You're not saying anything that hasn't been said thousands of times before.

See, e.g., Rethinking the Hobbesian Metaphor for International Politics

Three hundred years since the first one? And it still holds true... Hmmm... Don't know what to make of that.

Alternatively, one might conclude that anarchy isn't all that bad, and that it ought to be introduced within nations too. David Friedman once wrote an interesting and provocative book about the subject called The Machinery of Freedom -- a Guide to Radical Capitalism. Among other things, the book explores how people in an anarchy may go about doing just what you describe: "Grouping together, forming their laws and rules within their groups, competing with other groups". Friedman argues that the institutions emerging from that competition may well be as attractive as democratic nation-states, perhaps even more. Friedman did not convince me entirely, but I found his "anarcho-capitalism" a fun system to contemplate and think through. You might enjoy reading "Police, Courts and Laws -- on the Market". In this chapter, Friedman describes how those may emerge under anarchy. The chapter is webbed on his homepage here.

It is a good thought. I believe that the problems arise when one group is much more successful than another. If that group is intent on world domain, then a dictatorship is what we'll get. If that group is intent on success but not at cost to the others, then we'd be ok.

And thanks for the link. I've bookmarked it for later digestion.