Stephen Miller Quotes

I think we should be less dependent on the outdated concept we call countries.

As we have seen, the wireless and the airplane have made the world so small and nations so dependent on each other that the only alternative to war is the United States of the World.

Just as the formation of the family is basic to the formation of the state, so the states themselves are the only units that can form the basic constitution of a viable international organization.

The most tragic paradox of our time is to be found in the failure of nation-states to recognize the imperatives of internationalism.

For virtually every area of public policy there is a globalist proposal, consistent with the overall objective of reducing individual nation-state autonomy, particularly that of the United States?

We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent.

It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

The nation-state has become too small for the big problems of life and too big for the small problems.

The Nation is ceasing to be the leading form off the world’s structure; organizations transcending national boundaries are becoming more and more numerous and effective.

It was in the 20th century that national sovereignty really ruled the roost, and the E.U. was formed to cure that.

Complementing the nation-state as it reaches its limits amid globalization: That is what Europe must offer.

To contrast national solidarity and international cooperation as two opposites seems foolish to me.

Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, 'We are above that now. We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something.' I mean, in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above - above the world. He's sort of God. He's going to bring all different sides together.

Today we stand on a bridge leading from the territorial state to the world community. Politically, we are still governed by the concept of the territorial state; economically and technically, we live under the auspices of worldwide communications and worldwide markets.

Today in the era of globalization there is no such issue as borders between states of the same nation.

I believe that national sovereignties will shrink in the face of universal interdependence.

I've always made it clear that I do not believe that global government is either necessary or feasible.

If the U.N. didn't exist, we'd be inventing it right now.

Community action is as valuable a principle on the international level as it has been domestically.

We are now physically, politically, and economically one world and nations so interdependent that the absolute national sovereignty of nations is no longer possible.

Here we encounter two conflicting concepts with which we must come to grips in our time: the idea of national solidarity and the idea of international cooperation.

As we realize that more and more things have global impact, I think we're going to get people increasingly wanting to get away from a purely national interest.

The current global landscape is quite different from the not-too-distant past. The process of globalization has intensified, and the world is moving towards new forms of governance.

In a shrinking world, the absence of order among nations is becoming less and less tolerable.

Among peoples who are geographically grouped together like the peoples of Europe there must exist a sort of federal link.