The nation-state model carried the seeds of its own destruction from the very start.
First of all, if the state is to provide for the welfare of the people, soon enough the people will clock on to the idea that there is no welfare without life and will become reluctant to lay down their lives to fulfill their part of the bargain. Thus, the basic social contract will be broken and the nation-state, frustrated in its central goal, will have no more reason to exist.
At the same time, by enhancing the well-being of the people, the nation-state created the perfect conditions for the flourishing of human creativity and the development of science. The neat, clear and impenetrable borders – one of the greatest inventions of the nation-state – could not resist the thrust of human talent.
These developments mean that both the form and the content of the nation-state were undermined. When a state form loses legitimacy, it is only a matter of time that a new model will arise. The new form of state is only now being created, so everything we can say about it – including its name – is still tentative.
Some people are referring to the new form of state as “market state.” This appellation makes me cringe because the word “market” had been overused to the point of being completely emptied of all meaning. This is why I want to leave the issue of naming this form of state aside for the moment and try to deduce its characteristics.
Let’s do this together. Once again, the nation-state strove to ensure that, in case of war, everybody would be involved on the war effort. Declaration of the Rights of Man, feminism, abolition of slavery, labor rights, civil rights, minority rights, the tiniest-minority-ever rights, the “let’s make sure nobody’s feelings are hurt” model of society – these are all results of the nation-state’s efforts to please and emotionally attach everybody to the state. What will happen when the state gives up on this goal?
Clarissa's Blog 
May be, a state simply doesn’t need anymore millions of people, who are ready to die for it. New technological capacities and the nature of modern warfare (evasion of open conflict between powerful states in post-nuclear age, the focus on stateless terrorist organizations) could be just as important as the two developments you mentioned. Haven’t many Western states ended the draft while the concept of the nation state was still strong? I predict that armies of the future will need even less people. A few well-paid professionals will create new weapons, which’ll become increasingly independent, not needing “soldiers on the ground” at all. Armies of robots, not people.
I previously thought to write about the world without social safety nets, in which impoverished population would dream of joining army for a few benefits, similar to USA army now. However, once robots are even more sophisticated, armies wouldn’t need those people. The few professionals, that will still be needed, will be more than capable of succeeding outside army in the market.
For clarification: you write
“The nation-state arose to satisfy a very specific goal. In order to wage war on a massive scale, it was necessary to find a way to get people to die enthusiastically and for free.”
Of course, there is no central planner of society, who sets goals, (in the atheist worldview) and “a person on the street” doesn’t think about his nation-state as a tool to achieve this goal. Weren’t wars on a massive scale waged before nation states arose? Why were people so enthusiastic about them suddenly? Is it also connected to scientific and technological developments, discovery of new continents and the rise of Western colonialism?
Most people want to live well and quietly inside their nation states, not die for free or for pay. I love the idea of a nation state and suddenly hearing – “do you think your state is a tool to serve your people? Ha,ha,ha. It’s main goal is using you as cannon fodder…” – is horrible.
The question is *who* is this agent desiring the tool of the nation state to kill millions for free. Except biological explanations of human aggression and inherent to mankind wars over resources, I can’t think of anything. Makes one think where / if free will exists (if you think about humanity as a whole, not an individual.)
LikeLike
Before the nation-state, wars were fought by unwilling and indifferent mercenaries who cost enormous amounts of money. The nation-state uses a variety of means to create an emotional attachment of people to the state. Different senses are impacted to make the attachment stronger. Eventually, people get so attached that they run towards death, screaming cheerfully and joyfully. When you say “I love the idea of the nation-state,” you need to be aware that this love was manufactured using very specific mechanisms and with a very specific goal in sight. And that goal was achieved.
We all understand that I haven’t invented this, right? The mechanisms of nation-building have been studied for a long time and at length. I’m only retelling the most well-known commonplaces.
LikeLike
Is there a good “Introduction to the basics” book on the issue?
On another issue, just read it via Mike’s blog:
A Tale of Two Markets: One for Wealthy Insiders, And Another For the Rest of Us
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/a-tale-of-two-markets-one-for-wealthy.html
What do you think about it?
LikeLike
…and conscripts (before the nation-state). And US has gone back to using mercenaries, in part because it is cheaper.
LikeLike
Curiously, the same explanation is being given for the rollback of the welfare state: it’s cheaper not to have it.
LikeLike
Well, mercenaries are a lot less regulated than the regular armed forces which is perhaps one of the more “real” reasons. And they may actually be cheaper which I am not convinced dismantling of welfare state is.
Are you not conflating nation state and welfare state too closely here?
LikeLike
Welfare state is not the only way nations employ to provide for the well-being of the citizens. But they all at least try to do what they can to bring “the good life” to the citizens. Even Stalin did it. And Franco.
Stalin’s famous phrase “Life has become better, life has become more fun” is about that. And he wasn’t lying. It had become better and more fun for the majority. He wouldn’t have been able to go ahead with just the terror.
LikeLike
I think we’re less headed toward something new and more headed toward a reconstitution of pre-nation-state organization. It will be different in some surface details but substantively the same as what came before the nation state.
LikeLike
No, the return to the past is impossible. Technology has changed everything. Plus, of course, the legacy of the nation-state will never be forgotten.
LikeLike
\\ Curiously, the same explanation is being given for the rollback of the welfare state: it’s cheaper not to have it.
1. Cheaper for whom?
2. Do middle classes buy it’ll be cheaper for them?
LikeLike
The welfare isn’t aimed to help the middle classes. Middle classes pay higher taxes to subsidize the welfare state. The stronger the welfare state is, the heavier the burden on middle classes. My sister in Quebec (where they have the strongest welfare state on the continent) pays more than my entire salary in taxes and obviously uses none of the services the welfare provides.
LikeLike
\\ The welfare isn’t aimed to help the middle classes.
Welfare states do help by providing a safety net, which is also used by middle class people who fall on hard times. Government can also help more people join the middle class via various programs, f.e. subsidizing college education.
When we immigrated, Israeli welfare policies let my mother study and get Israeli teaching license, instead of going to full time work.
See how both the rise and the destruction of welfare states and of middle classes go together. Long-term, today’s middle class libertarians, who are cheering on destruction of welfare state, are fools, cheering on their own future fall.
LikeLike