ju'iblex

oh goodness, im posting in the upper fora. IIRC, isnt this a sign of the apocalypse?

whilst i havent read the book nor do i claim to be much more than a youngun behind a laptop, im inclined to agree however i would not go that extreme.

yes, im not a concrete kind of person

the nation state is still alive, and i feel it will continue to be however it is taking the second role as market-states come in to play. and im more than inclined to agree with the statement about low-level armed conflict, i think we can see that with the consequences of trade embargos and the like today.

i will also in part disagree with your 3 points gurdur.

but is this a practicality in a globalised world? absolutely not, and arguably cultures are becoming less meaningful. we can see this one certainly all around us as cultural 'barriers' are being broken down and replaced by the demands for us to consume. and that is the point of a market state.

whilst the nation up til now has had a reason to exist, and it still does for the meanwhile, as globalisation and mass-consumerism takes over, nations and these different ways of thinking <which do indeed exist> will be seen to hinder 'progress'. and you are right, different ways of thinking are very practical, but they also create mainly barriers which are not helpful to market-states so they will sacrifice this.

for example, we can look at China. Very traditional, still clings to tradition and trys to live by Kong Fu Zi's example. But it too has become a kind of market-state, Shanghai is now quite like many major western cities for example. and the import/export business is massive and thriving.

i sincerely hoping youre not saying the thoughts of some <or most> are indicative of all, Gurdur, that would be a big no-no.

true, yes, but i doubt they would do it for the sake of the theory, i doubt they would be aware of it even happening.

but as we become more market-states, this no doubt will still exist but be severly diminished. and considering this is a gradual take-over, not a sudden bang, it becomes less and less likely anyone would a) notice b) care c) be able to act.

i agree, it will still exist. but i believe it will no longer play anywhere near as much of a role as it has previously. nowhere near.

perhaps for now, but given more time i can see market-states being the dominant of the two.

eh, im not going to proof-read this...

Gurdur

--->Ju'iblex:

Ju'iblex, I've just woken up after recovering in part from a hard, long day letting in windows into my attic roof, and I'm not quite sure I have the brain cells handy to do this, but a couple of points concern me here:
They're not my three points, I tried summing up the thesis of the book, a book which I dont happen to agree with terribly much, but it provides a handy springboard for discussion of some important present-day trends.

Ju'iblex, why did you say this ?
I mean, I try hard to be precise in my writing; if I meant "some or most are indicative of all", I would have bloody well said so, and I don't believe the degeneration of my brain has yet reached such a point that I would say such a silly thing.

Thanks for the rest of your input; I'll answer your points and bring in some new info here as soon as more than one neuron of mine starts functioning.

hinduwoman

on the other hand, Corporates go all out in promoting brand loyalties. Supporters of Linux and AppleMac attack Microsoft with as much passion as in a war.
Still looking at India or Asian countires, I really do not think that nations will wither away. Political boundaries might shift, but tribal codes will still command first loyalty.