CHAPTER THIRTEEN: THE WARS OF THE MARKET-STATE

 

1. Machiavelli, Discoursi (Modern Library, 1950), 104.

2. Bodin, 200.

3. See Hume's remark that the “greatness of the state” and “the happiness of its subjects” had become interdependent. David Hume, “Of Commerce,” in Essays, Morals, Political and Literary (Oxford University Press, 1963), 1753.

4. Pole, Political Representation in England, 441.

5. Burke and Napoleon, Lenin and Wilson: how surprised they might be that, in retrospect, they were struggling to give pre-eminence to the same constitutional order.

6. See Charles Tilly, European Revolutions, 1492 – 1992 (Blackwell, 1993), which focuses on the role of revolution in state formation. See also Michael Richards, “How to Succeed in Revolution without Really Trying,” Journal of Social History 28 (1995): 883.

7. Howard, “War and the Nation State,” in The State, ed. Stephen Graubard (Norton, 1979), 101 – 110.

8. Geoffrey Parker, “Continuity and Change in Western Geopolitical Thought during the Twentieth Century,” International Social Science Journal 43 (1991): 21.

9. Friedberg, “The Future of American Power,” 1.

10. Anthony Giddens, The Nation State and Violence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).

11. Peter Mancias, The Death of the State (New York: Putnam, 1974).

12. D. Beetham, “The Future of the Nation-State,” in The Idea of the Modern State, ed. Gregor McLennan, David Held, and Stuart Hall (Open University Press, 1984), 208 – 222.

13. Hans Mark in his commencement address at St. Edwards University, Austin, Texas, Saturday, May 8, 1993.

14. See John Lynn, “Clio in Arms: The Role of the Military Variable in Shaping History,” Journal of Military History 55 (1991): 83 – 95. See also Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and the European States, A.D. 90 – 1990 (Blackwell, 1990); David Kaiser, Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler (Harvard University Press, 1990); Brian M. Downing, The Military Revolution and Political Change in Early Modern Europe (Princeton University Press, 1991); Geoffrey Parker, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500 – 1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1988); and David Ralston, Importing the European Army: The Introduction of European Military Techniques and Institutions into the Extra-European World, 1600 – 1914 (University of Chicago Press, 1990); Jeremy Black, War and the World: Military Power and the Fate of Continents, 1450 – 2000 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).

15. See e.g. Norman Angell, The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage (Heinemann, 1910); Arthur Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (Macmillan, 1947), 238 – 247.

16. Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72 (1993): 22.

17. “Insights and Action Items for U.S. Global Relations in the 21st Century,” Report of the Project on the Future of Global Relations, 1997.

18. Bill Clinton, “Remarks on the Reinventing Government Initiative,” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 30, 1994, 1763.

19. Bill Clinton, “Remarks to the Joint Session of the Louisiana State Legislature in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 32, 1996, 969.

20. Ibid.

21. Bill Clinton, “Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union,” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 33, 1997, 136.

22. Bill Clinton, “Inaugural Address,” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 33, 1997, 60. Nor is the executive the only branch of government leading the movement toward the market-state in the United States. As Mark Tushnet has observed, the U.S. Supreme Court's “federalism decisions are the most obvious examples…. United States v. Lopez, which struck down the Gun-Free Zones Act as beyond the power given Congress in the Commerce Clause; Printz v. United States, which invalidated the Brady Handgun Control Act because it forced state executive officials to implement a national program; City of Boerne v. Flores, which invalidated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for exceeding the scope of Congress's power to remedy court-identified violations of the Free Exercise Clause; and a series of deci-sions restricting Congress's ability to impose retroactive monetary liability on states because such remedies violated the Eleventh Amendment.” Mark V. Tushnet, “The Supreme Court 1998 Term, Foreword: The New Constitutional Order and the Chastening of Constitutional Aspiration,” 113 Harvard Law Review 26 (1999).