It would be like this, I think.
When an assortment of states, like our 50 for instance, hold legal sway over a central government, like the fed for instance, a party seeking to take that union over and remake it would have to conquer and occupy each of those 50 states.
With a central government holding sovereign will over its member states, all such a party would have to do is take over the central government. Works the same on a global scale.
A global sovereignty, with all resources under a Hydraulic Empire, would be so much worse, we would lose the meaning of "bad". Power brings out the evil in men's hearts.
I'd just as soon give up any pleasant aspects of global sovereignty to avoid that one bad one. Man has not been able to govern himself for millennia, but to have him not be able to govern himself globally rises the stakes much too high.
Since when does globalization mean global
governance???
Heaven forfend! I am against any supranational organization which usurps sovereignity: UN, World Court... Globalization refers to the increasing economic interconnectedness inherent in widely practiced trade.
Consider this passage from the Englishman Sir Henry Parnell, who published a book entitled "On Financial Reform". A quote from this book:
"If once men were allowed to take their own way, they would very soon, to the great advantage of society, undeceive the world of the error of restricting trade, and show that the passage of merchandise from one state to another ought to be as free as air and water. Every country should be as a general and common fair for the sale of goods, and the individual and nation which makes the best commodity should find the greatest advantage."
And add to that this quote from Jefferson:
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."
And there you have it in a nutshell.