The article seemed to be an ideological discussion of what a state is as an institution. I do not know how this is specifically pertains to economics directly, but I do see indirect relatedness between the two. Still, I felt as if the article was opinionated and opinions are simply opinions to me. It appears to be quite dangerous to believe something as given without a scientific backing for its validity. I understand that many would disagree with me, but reading articles that are so long and loaded in content can mislead the inexperienced reader to believe everything without given the right amount of questioning. My response to the article may deviate from what was discussed, but that is because I believe it is sometimes better to undisclose my beliefs about the matter. I would much rather discuss the impression the article had on me and the ideas it left me thinking about. This is why I really want to mention that the article was very interesting and reading it was definitely worthwhile, but there were elements that I had trouble agreeing with. Maybe I felt that there was bias present or it went against some of my ideological beliefs that I do not feel comfortable discussing online. One of the best parts of the article, in my opinion, discussed common fallacies or myths (whatever one wishes to label them as) did provide me with great insight with what the article was attempting to communicate. What is a state? To me it is an idea that unites or divides people, so to me a more basic definition or meaning is much more valuable than a multi-page article going into great detail discussing the anatomy of an idea. This is simply my opinion, but I believe it is easy to lose the big picture focusing too much on details that are not always as important as some wish they were. To me the aggregate opinion is much more important than that of someone with predispositions because all people have predispositions or prejudice on topics, so it's important to minimize those elements. I believe many do not minimize those elements because informational warfare created by the state for various reasons. Thus, it's nearly always possible to debunk any statement that is not entirely based on fact because those misinterpreted facts can be brought up as debunkers with sufficient work and intelligence. Thus, the main question I was asking myself and thinking about was whether the article was entirely based on fact, which is quite debatable.