A comment on The perseverance of the nation-state

 A comment on the article The perseverance of the nation-state by by willjgrant which advocates for the persistence, in terms of relevance, of the nation-state.

I'm a little short on time so just a brief comment without any supporting references. More of a gut feeling I suppose. Talking just about city-states or nation-states or multi-national-entities (corporations?) I think is too simplistic. Think of each of these entities (and they are dynamic rather than static) as interacting actors in an environment. Depending on the scales, interaction & actors being talked about, there will be different social, legal, physical and practical issues that are relevant. In a sense, I think, each of us are city-states (or nation-states) in microcosm. In terms of the issues we have, we have wants and needs - how to define the distinction is a fun exercise. I don't see we can ever satisfy all wants - possibly most of all needs - but at the very least we can hope to balance the issues important to all of the actors. Of course, being a biased human entity, I would think that entities such as people and collections of people are more important than legal and corporate entities. Of course, there are issues about the needs of the individual versus the needs of the many  - Spock versus Kirk dilemma - (Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan) - but one would hope we can - especially in the era of social media - make sure that everyone has a continuing voice. Whether we listen and understand and act is another question!
P.S. Of course I have used one supporting reference above - beam me up Scotty!