The common theme is decentralization of government power, i.e., “the center cannot hold.” But Bennett’s vision of a network commonwealth differs greatly from TSI’s emphasis on individual people liberated from allegiance to a single nation-state. As I recall, TSI recommends you either become a John Galt-like superman who shops in the global mall for services from competing governments – for example, signing a private tax treaty with your Swiss canton of residence, and outsourcing your retirement portfolio management to Singapore – or become indispensable to such a person. Things will fall apart, and your best bet is to ally yourself with the modern equivalent of a feudal warlord.

Bennett’s view is less atomistic; it focuses on individual people who share a common culture and work together to achieve common ends. I find it more plausible and more compelling. Why shouldn’t the residents of Point Roberts, Washington arrange to share health care services with Tsawwassen, B.C., or send their kids across the border to play intramural cricket, or help create the vibrant Asian/North American hybrid culture developing in Vancouver and especially Richmond? (Kaplan, “An Empire Wilderness”, p. 318: “The Asian/British – that is to say, Asian/WASP – cultural mix is the most potent in the history of capitalism.”) I never used to think this way until I read Mr. Bennett’s wonderful book.

Kaplan’s work is brilliant and hard to summarize, but one thing I notice is that he travels to distant, chaotic places, then discusses how matters might improve if the Anglosphere projects its power there – for example, by patrolling national borders or faciliating a nation’s entry into NATO.