To what extent is it justifiable to extend considerations of

distributive justice beyond the borders of a single country?

Distributive justice can be defined as: a fair distribution of all of societys
benefits and burdens. This basically means that all the good things in society,
such as money, goods or resources, should be distributed evenly between all
people. This also applies to bad things, so we cant choses someone unfairly
who has to clear up societies refuse. In the circumstances of this question, it
applies to the entire world instead of one society; all of the worlds benefits
and burdens distributed across the population.
The basic idea behind this argument is a concept called cosmopolitanism.
This argues that individuals have intrinsic moral value, and people have duties
to one another. The fact that we are in a specific country with certain people
does not mean that we have specific duties to ensure their welfare
specifically. We must treat all people equally, distance or group no matter.
An argument that summarises this well is Utilitarian Cosmopolitism; it was put
forward by Peter Singer in 1971. It is fair to accept that the resources of the
world are distributed evenly; there are many, many people in the world living
in poverty; approximately 80% of people live on less than 10 dollars per day.
This is wrong, from both a moral and a utilitarian perspective; as there are
more than enough resources on earth for the same standard of living to be
appreciated by all people. Singer states that, if it is in our power to prevent
something wrong from happening, without sacrificing anything of
comparable moral significance, then we really should do it: consider the
following example: If we are walking along, and we see a child drowning in a
pond near the path, then we should, as it would not endanger our own life,
as the pond is shallow, wade in and rescue the child. The only loss would be
the ruining of our shoes. We compare the loss: we lose our shoes, but the child
gains its life. This is a ratio that shows that the happiness gained far eclipses
the loss. If we consider an alternative solution, where the loss eclipses the
gain: suppose if, encountering the same situation as above, we were
travelling on our way to a situation where we were about to save the lives of
10 children; and if by stopping to save the drowning child, we let the other 10
die, then the benefits do not eclipse the loss.
The thing here is that it should not matter that the child drowning crosses our
path; we have the same obligation, no matter the distance. If a child is dying
in Africa, and the cost of a new pair of trousers is enough to save them, then
following the same principle, we should give up our trousers and save them.

According to singer, and really when you think about it, there is no
difference.
Or is there? A nationalist might say that Citizens have duties to those in their
own states, in a similar way that we would have a legitimate bias towards
those we love. We should still show some partiality, but we should seek to aid
those in our gang, before strangers (or in this case those form other
countries). If we were to equally distribute goods and show equally to all,
then states would disappear: it would undermine self determination, it would
threaten a resources connection to the state, and Solitary states provide
moderation for this distribution.
I would reply to this that it is better to have a less defined state and equal
opportunities for all, than close knit states with massive differences of wealth
between them. It seems that singers Utilitarianism can be applied here also: It
is better to save a country worth of people than have a whole state. The
benefits do not exceed the worth gained.
On that point, what are the significant benefits of a close knit, self determined
state? Too often this is precisely what leads to a country threatened by
poverty, when a corrupt leader takes over, and cannot be moderated by
other countries. It seems ridiculous to claim that a strong, insular state is worth
the lives of so many.
So what about getting rid of the state all together? Marxism