: Samuel, my dear chap,: The premise of your entire programme is thinly veiled imperialism. Let us review this rather remarkable admission.
: : "Personally, I am and always have been an anarchist; biased towards Schumacher-like "small is beautiful" communities based around voluntary co-operation; I believe the nation state to be an artificial and unwieldy construction."
: : Any suggestions?
SDF: Robert, this is my quote of Gideon Hallett, not me. I'm discussing the reform of the university. If you want to debate the shape of the modern university, respond to one of my posts. If you want to debate Hallett, respond to his posts. No?
: As Lord Acton so aptly noted, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". So here, the call for the abolishment of the nation-state is, by default, an insistence on a world-state.
SDF: Robert, this is completely unsubstantiated. You haven't even told us what evidence makes you believe this to be so. Early in human history, the world didn't have nation-states. Was it ruled by a global dictator? No. Furthermore, today, there are a plethora of unions (WTO, NATO, UN, European Union) that supercede the nation-states joining them. Are they ruled by global dictators? No. So what makes you think that nation-states or a global dictator are the only two possible alternatives, since this assertion of yours is clearly contradicted by world history?
