Here’s a review from an anarcho-capitalist at Mises.org, and a summarised version given as a lecture to the Mises Institute.

Steve: The link is indeed interesting. Dynamic geography sounds like an extension of competitive federalism, which I think is a great advantage of federal states like the US and India, not that it works perfectly, especially when the Feds take more power than they need. And the deterritorialization of identity (sorry about the jargon, I mean that people increasingly aren’t tied to the land) will have many positive effects, even while causing a lot of tension. Like the exaggerated fear in the Western EU about migrant workers from the East taking “their” jobs.

The decline of the state, on the other hand, has quite a few negative effects for liberty, especially if you think global connectivity is a force for good. The main thing I don’t like about the perennial libertarian artificial-island schemes is the isolation – why cut yourself off from all the good things in the world? And what’s the economic rationale for moving to an offshore platform in the middle of nowhere? You have to make money to sustain such a project. If anyone would benefit from an isolated seastead type platform, its more likely to be organized criminals than libertarians.

Chirol: Thanks (and thanks for your comment on my ZenPundit post, too!). The EU is not sustained by any European nationalism, and a pan-European political elite hasn’t really materialised either. But it is an attractive platform and more like a market-state than a nation-state. The autonomous regions and small states seeking independence are in my opinion formed more out of a practical desire for control of local affairs, rather than nationalism.

a517dogg: Interesting comment (and a good blog).

You say that Spain is “less reliant on coercion”. But also, coercion is less effective. The decline of the state is caused by the increased power of individuals and small groups. Because these groups have more money, more weapons, and better communications (even compared to Franco’s time) government repression of them is much more difficult, too. The relative decline in power of the central state is part of what causes the decline in nationalism, and increase in decentralisation.

Yeah, Russia’s screwed.

I don’t agree that the Balkans and the UK are examples of nationalisms replacing each other. Nationalism is clearly far weaker than it used to be (think of the great European revolutions of 1848, and the bloody unification of Germany and Italy as examples). There is very little nationalism in the UK of any kind, IMO. I think the motivation for Scottish separatism is something distinct from nationalism, especially since the desire isn’t for a traditional nation-state, but greater autonomy within both the UK and the EU.

As for the Balkans, ethno-nationalism has been far stronger than Yugoslav nationalism. But even that has weakened since the 1990s. The most interesting point there, for me, was that the Kosovar Albanians, with less than a century of shared history, desire independence rather than unification with Albania, and Albania itself isn’t concerned either. That’s not normal for nationalists or nation-states.

UK: The replacement of British identity with English/Scottish/etc. identity does not represent the decline of nationalism, just the replacement of one with another.

Balkans: There has never been a strong Yugoslavian nationalism. Again, this is just the replacement of nationalisms.

Spain: Spain has always had internal problems. The fact that they don’t deal with their problems with the same repression as they did under Franco doesn’t mean states are declining, just that they’re less reliant on coercion.

Russia: … OK Russia’s screwed up, I got no answer.

Interesting post though.