Yes but it's not 1865 anymore. That matters.
-
-
This is obvious to everyone except tech-fantasists.
-
How is it controversial? The question is about integration or disintegration of territory, not the necessity of security.
-
My point is that examples of decentralisation taking place outside the sphere of territorial sovereignty are of limited relevance.
-
Over the long term, it looks like a metabolic-catabolic cycle. That's certainly what the Chinese think. Empires don't grow to the sky.
-
Decentralisation happens, and will happen, no question. But it happens because the centre dies (like the USSR did).
-
It didn't die because anyone believed in decentralisation. It's nearer the truth that it died because people believed in centralisation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.