Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoughtyOne
I think where we disagree on this - and it's a fundamental disagreement I've mentioned before is whether or not the whole concept of the nation-state as we know it is a viable model for the future.

The concept of the nation-state and nationalism are only a few centuries old. Before that we had feudalism, based in a set of intertwining personal loyalties rather loyalty to the state or nation as an abstract concept. In other words, the nation-state is not an organic part of human society but rather a construct created to meet certain needs - mainly economic ones and control of resources. However with the rise of capitalism, there really is less of a need to a state control resources. For example, France doesn't need to invade Germany to get German lumber - it can buy German lumber on the open market and Germans can buy French coal on the open market as well.

The side effect is that you don't have the nationalist wars you had in Europe during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries which killed millions of people. So is the tradeoff of nationalism for peace and prosperity a good one?

You tell me.

270 posted on 01/03/2002 6:44:52 PM PST by garbanzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies ]


To: garbanzo
While we disarm and dilude ourselves as to the future prospects of war, China sets up alliances for the future and arms at an interesting rate. The middle east sizzles as India and Pakistan contemplate nuclear exchanges even as we converse. Peace? Sorry, that's a fantasy as far as I am concerned. The disolution of borders is the United Nation's number one goal. No, it's not a good thing.
271 posted on 01/03/2002 7:24:00 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson