to complement/in response to rkmoore's recent reply to chris chase-dunn:
i can't help but agree with most of rkmoore's criticism of a single global
state; but i would also question whether the nation-state does/will do much
to control for many of the problems created by a globalised capitalist
economy. it seems that increasingly, the idea of a nation-state is becoming
irrelevant given 1) the challenges to the nation-state from without by the
larger world economy; and 2) the challenges to the nation-state from within
by ethnic groups that had never considered themselves fully part of that
state (see the scottish or welsh in the uk, the basques, catalonians, and
the comunidad valenciana in spain, etc.) and what of those "nations" still
without a "state"?
my question is not posed so as to reject either alternative, but rather to
examine the extent to which it is possible to escape the either/or
distinctions made when theorising international cooperation; and also to
perhaps solicit comments about efforts to turn the European Union into a
federal structure... does the concept of subsidiarity help to control for
some of these problems simultaneously?
surely you know, rkmoore (richard is it?), that ireland has benefitted
tremendously from considering itself as "european"...
michael kennedy
mkenne05@ucis.vill.edu