> I didn't mean to suggest that non-territorial states work well
> in a world of nation-states, just to suggest them as a possible
> alternative/future structure, which has the advantage of having
> been known to exist and function successfully in the past.
The idea itself of a non-territorial state is definately an interesting
one, if not practical. The problem with this theory, as with
most political ideas, is that in the current world, it is simply
not a viable option. Many theories base assumptions upon human
nature that simply aren't true (Anarchy, Communism), while others
propose states set up from nature, which is long gone, and that
state will never be attained again.
Pity really.
> On the other hand...there's an interesting interaction, in some
> cases, between people's loyalty to a particular religion or
> language and their loyalty to a country.
I agree.
> This shows up, for
> example, in people pressuring their governments to pass
> certain laws for reasons that are essentially religious:
Laws based on morals?
> Vicki, thinking out loud
I can hear you from here :)
Drakir
------------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
------------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
------------