The idea of a flattened world government is an interesting one. It only makes sense that as the world becomes flatter and more integrated that a more powerful governing force would step in to enforce laws and regulations. A country can make all the rules it wants and a neighboring one could make laws that are either stricter or more liberal. This, in a way, makes the law of one county ineffective. After all, if I do not like the laws governing prescription medications in the United States, I could go to Mexico and get any drugs I wanted, no questions asked. Also, say I wanted to buy a Cohiba or bottle of Havana Club, I can go to Canada where there are no trade sanctions with Cuba. This undermines the laws of the United States, but there is little that can be done to stop me.

This same problem is seen on a larger scale in countries with differing foreign policies. The United States and the United Arab Emirates are friendly countries. However, the United Arab Emirates and Iran are also friends. This them in a difficult position because our county has placed certain sanctions on products imported from Iran and will not allow us to visit the country. The world cannot be flat if different countries have so many differing opinions of other countries. The world may be getting flat, but certain individuals do not want it to get too flat. There is still a list of countries that Americans are not allowed to visit or buy products from: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. There are some interesting places in those countries we will never be able to see. Additionally, the State Department compiles a list of countries it does not want Americans to travel to, for security reasons. Obviously, the world cannot be too flat if there are so many places we cannot go and trade with.

The other set of complications arising from so many different governments arises from the different environmental policies. The United States banned the use of the pesticide DDT in 1972 because it was weakening the eggshells of the bald eagle leading to their precipitous drop in population size. In the years following the decision, bald eagle numbers have risen. However, the chemical is still in common use in Mexico. Is it too far fetched to think that some of it is still affecting animals in America? Of course not.

There are other examples of conflicting environmental regulations. In most of the world, whales are protected by numerous marine laws, yet in Japan, there is still a viable whaling industry. Also, sea turtles are another endangered species that are protected by most countries. However, there are some that still allow the eggs and turtles to be harvested for food, jewelry, et cetera. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has laws that state what can and cannot be brought back into the country as an effort to curtail some of the killing of endangered species, but it is rarely enough. Until marine animals either learn to stay put or all the countries band together, there will always be threats to endangered species.

There have been efforts to try to flatten the world governments such as the United Nations and the European Union; however the UN has been shown to be relatively ineffective as certain countries choose whether to obey decisions or not. I am not advocating a worldwide government, but I do think that there need to be some regulation in certain laws or else the country with the most liberal laws will set the standard.