RE TERROR AND CONSENT

RE pages 11 to 13, I could not disagree more with this vision of past or future states of affairs.

The concept of market states, whatever those things may be, being better able to do what nation states signally failed to do, protect civilians, is a frank chimera.

Nation state nationalism is still the bogey of Western nations, among the misguided liberal establishment, long after the intra Western civilizational underpinnings for critiquing it have vanished, ironically, in Western lead globalization. Professor Kaiser apparently shared this liberal, post Milner Group, globalist view, at least back when he wrote Politics and War. See p. 410. 

Unfortunately, Bobbitt's account of his concept of the emergence of the market state or of market states, in Shield, does not make sense either. See eg Ch 10. Weaker states with a stronger presidency, less government but more, a stronger presidency, a new state committed to protecting its civilians, (notice he goes to civilians rather than citizens), all this is not merely paradoxical, as he admits, but frankly nonsensical as an improvement on a nation state concept. 

Rodrik's account of keeping the nation state, over against the onslaught of globalization, flawed as it has been, makes more sense in context, and at least has more of a sense for economic realities than Bobbitt's, which has almost none, even though he calls the emerging order of states market states.