Are they? You buy a japanese television...

The act of you buying that television set may seem independent of geography, but only because you're overlooking all of the geographically-dependent steps in the process. Your ability to buy that set is premised on your having a job, which depends on local availability. If you even want a television, then you most likely have a house or apartment, which is also dependent on the local availability of land. Assuming you bought the television at a store, the store also depends on the availability of land, as does the factory in China that produced the television, not to mention the mines in South Africa from which the precious metals were culled, and the oil fields in Saudi Arabia from which the petroleum used to ship it were extracted. Of course, if you ordered it off of the internet, petroleum becomes even more integral to the process, and the affordability of the internet shopping model is premised on companies like Amazon having strategically placed warehouses, so even there don't suppose that the geographic location of resources like land doesn't matter. And in every step of that process, those regions protect those resources (the most basic being land) by the assertion of rights as a nation. Each of those nations wants its share of the cost you paid for that television, and they protect that share by observing national borders. Even the fact that you have money to blow on a new television is a function of your geographic proximity to resources that aren't available to someone in another part of the world.

The idea that globalization has eradicated the need for geopolitical borders is a myth, built on a misunderstanding of how globalization functions. The interest of a resource diverse and wealthy nation like the U.S. in a nation with limited resources is predicated on the fact that the geographic distribution of those resources will make it cheaper to import those materials and employ their labor than it would be here. The entire economic system of globalism is premised on the exploitation of unequal distribution between nations, so the observation of geographical frontiers is implicit in the concept. Those borders are, to a great degree, permeable, but the regulation of that permeability is essential to globalization.

Imagine if you have the ability to go anywhere on earth, without needing visa, in very little time and with a small cost. You can do that inside the EU for example.

The EU is essentially a remapping of a particular distribution of resources. Western European nations recognized that they'd have more global leverage is they consolidated their economic power, but that doesn't amount to an abdication of geopolitical borders. It's just an emphasis on some borders over others. And nationalism still plays a crucial role in the operation of the EU.

Rich people already do this.

Yup. And what does it mean to be rich? It means that you've expanded the range of resources that you're able to command.

The cosmopolitanism of the rich is a function of the geopolitical distribution of resources. Their interest in Germany, New York and Japan is predicated on their stake in the resources of those regions, not to mention in the comparatively poorer regions where their exploitation of cheaper labor stands in support of their wealth. The rich have the luxury of behaving as though national borders are no borders at all precisely because they resources that contribute to their wealth are demarcated by those very borders. If the cost of labor were the same in Malaysia as it is in the U.K., do you think as many people would be getting rich off of the production of athletic shoes? If certain regions of the world didn't depend more on their local stores of gallium than on other resources, do you think there'd be as much money to make on the production of consumer appliances? If certain countries didn't depend on the importation of basic necessities like grain, would the resources they produce be as cheap and readily available for the cosmopolitan rich to sell elsewhere in the world?

The super-rich are rich in part because they've learned to exploit national borders, not because those borders are an anachronism of a former age.