6 ms·

Arguably, we're already sailing past dominant nation states into uncharted waters in many respects. Just look at "free trade" treaties of the last couple decad

by beloch 9y ago

Arguably, we're already sailing past dominant nation states into uncharted waters in many respects. Just look at "free trade" treaties of the last couple decades. They're less about removing barriers such as tariff's, etc. and more about ensconcing the rights of corporations over states. e.g. Your constituents don't like pollution in their river and, playing to your constituents, you pass a law to ban dumping of chemical X, which was previously thought to be harmless but now appears to be not so harmless. Oops! Your government is being sued by foreign corporations impacted by this law, because a treaty you signed gives them that right. Bottom line, if we're going to continue eroding the power of nation states (and nation states really are doing it to themselves), we'd better be damned sure something representing and protecting the interests of people is there to replace it. Lots of science fiction dystopias feature corporate cleptocracy's as dominant forces, and that's for a very good reason!

friedman23 9y ago
> They're less about removing barriers such as tariff's, etc. and more about ensconcing the rights of corporations over states. This fud that has been spread by the illiterate folk of the internet has caused so much damage. ISDS is for enforcing agreements between states if they feel businesses from their countries are being unfairly discriminated against. Nation states are still perfectly able to leave the free trade agreements if the terms are not satisfactory because they are sovereign. ISDS is the mechanism by which free trade agreements actually ensure there is free trade. Don't join free trade agreements if you want to place tariffs on foreign businesses or enforce regulations selectively against foreign business. >e.g. Your constituents don't like pollution in their river and, playing to your constituents, you pass a law to ban dumping of chemical X, which was previously thought to be harmless but now appears to be not so harmless. Oops! Your government is being sued by foreign corporations impacted by this law, because a treaty you signed gives them that right. I love your example because it shows how little you even know about what you are spreading fear of. You clearly feel strongly about this but you were incapable of spending 5 minutes reading wikipedia to inform yourself about what you are writing about? >governments retain their regulatory ability, if the agreements in question specify that regulations protecting health, the environment, labour rights and human rights are allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Regulatory_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem... e.g. don't sign an agreement if you don't want to follow the provisions of the agreement. Otherwise don't expect other people to follow the stipulation of the agreement either. Why do you insist on commenting about something you are clearly ignorant about? I am willing to bet $1000 that you have not read a single word of these trade agreements you feel so confident to give lectures on. Bottom line, people that are ignorant and have no idea what they are talking about should not act as if they do.
- JetSpiegel 9y ago
  Sure, you can just not trade with the US, the richest country in the world. See how far that takes your economy. No one has read "a single word of those trade agreements" because it was all done in secret until it was already signed and there's nothing to do but sign it.
  - friedman23 9y ago
    >No one has read "a single word of those trade agreements" because it was all done in secret until it was already signed and there's nothing to do but sign it. THE AGREEMENT IS PUBLIC https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran... The reason it was negotiated in secret is because governments understand that there are large populations of easily influenced idiots that can be manipulated to be against these agreements even though they benefit the people on net.
- shoo 9y ago
  re: ISDS, one concrete example of is the case of Australian tobacco plain packaging regulation versus the tobacco company Philip Morris [1] [2]. In 2011 Australia passed legislation that "requires health warnings to cover at least 75 per cent of the front of most tobacco packaging, 90 per cent of the back of cigarette packaging and 75 per cent of the back of most other tobacco product packaging" [3]. Philip Morris restructured and moved the headquarters of their Australia and Asia operations to Hong Kong. By doing this they could take advantage of an earlier 1993 trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia, and launched an ISDS claim against the Australian government, claiming that the packaging regulation meant that their branding and trademarks had been confiscated. Say what you want about "free trade" agreements between states, it is pretty obvious that if these agreements can be potentially exploited as above then one of the outcomes of such agreements is the erosion of the rights of states and their citizens, and in increase in power and freedom to global capital. [1] https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging [2] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-versus-philip-morris-how-we-took-on-big-tobacco-and-won-20160517-gowwva.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/austra... [3] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-plain http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/conten...
fmjrey 9y ago
I have to agree, the key question here is where would the power go if nation states give it away. I can relate to the candidness in the article, but there is an equal amount of naivety. It's not because nation states exist that nations tend to fight for power, it's because we individually and collectively think about power in a certain way. As long as our main struggle is for power, whether by money or force, and as long as we see democracy as a process of giving our powers away to concentrate it, then nation states will reflect that reality of human thinking. In that respect nations are still useful to localise the blast impact of our collective stupidity. Globalisation today has nothing to do with economic wisdom and everything to do with power concentration.
Iv 9y ago
The most interesting development in that respect, IMO, is the shift towards groups of municipalities. When Trump decided to get out of the Paris Agreement, C200, a group of 200 of the biggest cities in the world coordinating climate actions, took the relay and the US cities in it decided to disregard the state's position. Fearless cities, http://fearlesscities.com/ http://fearlesscities.com/ is another one, more centered on Europe on the so-called "crisis" of refugees, opting for an approach putting human rights, rather than fear, in the center of their decisions. I predict that these federations will take over nation states first on issues that states are simply abandoning: environment and human rights issues. Maybe they will slowly grab part of state-level missions.
- zanny 9y ago
  City states would be wonderful. It even gives people the choice - a lot of people want to live in rural communities that are, in general, the ones holding back progressive agendas. Let the cities do their liberal thing independently of rural towns doing their conservative thing. As long as you have a mutual agreement to keep the borders open going in to the arrangement, people can go where their interests are best served.
  - bane 9y ago
    There's some modern precedent for operating large cities differently than the major territories in which they sit. For example, China runs its larger cities at the national level, while the provincial governments handle the rest of the territories at a local level.
    - Iv 9y ago
      Also a lot of European cities used to elect their leaders even under feudal systems.

by beloch 9y ago

friedman23 9y ago

> They're less about removing barriers such as tariff's, etc. and more about ensconcing the rights of corporations over states. This fud that has been spread by the illiterate folk of the internet has caused so much damage. ISDS is for enforcing agreements between states if they feel businesses from their countries are being unfairly discriminated against. Nation states are still perfectly able to leave the free trade agreements if the terms are not satisfactory because they are sovereign. ISDS is the mechanism by which free trade agreements actually ensure there is free trade. Don't join free trade agreements if you want to place tariffs on foreign businesses or enforce regulations selectively against foreign business. >e.g. Your constituents don't like pollution in their river and, playing to your constituents, you pass a law to ban dumping of chemical X, which was previously thought to be harmless but now appears to be not so harmless. Oops! Your government is being sued by foreign corporations impacted by this law, because a treaty you signed gives them that right. I love your example because it shows how little you even know about what you are spreading fear of. You clearly feel strongly about this but you were incapable of spending 5 minutes reading wikipedia to inform yourself about what you are writing about? >governments retain their regulatory ability, if the agreements in question specify that regulations protecting health, the environment, labour rights and human rights are allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Regulatory_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem... e.g. don't sign an agreement if you don't want to follow the provisions of the agreement. Otherwise don't expect other people to follow the stipulation of the agreement either. Why do you insist on commenting about something you are clearly ignorant about? I am willing to bet $1000 that you have not read a single word of these trade agreements you feel so confident to give lectures on. Bottom line, people that are ignorant and have no idea what they are talking about should not act as if they do.

JetSpiegel 9y ago
Sure, you can just not trade with the US, the richest country in the world. See how far that takes your economy. No one has read "a single word of those trade agreements" because it was all done in secret until it was already signed and there's nothing to do but sign it.
- friedman23 9y ago
  >No one has read "a single word of those trade agreements" because it was all done in secret until it was already signed and there's nothing to do but sign it. THE AGREEMENT IS PUBLIC https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran... The reason it was negotiated in secret is because governments understand that there are large populations of easily influenced idiots that can be manipulated to be against these agreements even though they benefit the people on net.
shoo 9y ago
re: ISDS, one concrete example of is the case of Australian tobacco plain packaging regulation versus the tobacco company Philip Morris [1] [2]. In 2011 Australia passed legislation that "requires health warnings to cover at least 75 per cent of the front of most tobacco packaging, 90 per cent of the back of cigarette packaging and 75 per cent of the back of most other tobacco product packaging" [3]. Philip Morris restructured and moved the headquarters of their Australia and Asia operations to Hong Kong. By doing this they could take advantage of an earlier 1993 trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia, and launched an ISDS claim against the Australian government, claiming that the packaging regulation meant that their branding and trademarks had been confiscated. Say what you want about "free trade" agreements between states, it is pretty obvious that if these agreements can be potentially exploited as above then one of the outcomes of such agreements is the erosion of the rights of states and their citizens, and in increase in power and freedom to global capital. [1] https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging [2] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-versus-philip-morris-how-we-took-on-big-tobacco-and-won-20160517-gowwva.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/austra... [3] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-plain http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/conten...

fmjrey 9y ago

I have to agree, the key question here is where would the power go if nation states give it away. I can relate to the candidness in the article, but there is an equal amount of naivety. It's not because nation states exist that nations tend to fight for power, it's because we individually and collectively think about power in a certain way. As long as our main struggle is for power, whether by money or force, and as long as we see democracy as a process of giving our powers away to concentrate it, then nation states will reflect that reality of human thinking. In that respect nations are still useful to localise the blast impact of our collective stupidity. Globalisation today has nothing to do with economic wisdom and everything to do with power concentration.

Iv 9y ago

The most interesting development in that respect, IMO, is the shift towards groups of municipalities. When Trump decided to get out of the Paris Agreement, C200, a group of 200 of the biggest cities in the world coordinating climate actions, took the relay and the US cities in it decided to disregard the state's position. Fearless cities, http://fearlesscities.com/ http://fearlesscities.com/ is another one, more centered on Europe on the so-called "crisis" of refugees, opting for an approach putting human rights, rather than fear, in the center of their decisions. I predict that these federations will take over nation states first on issues that states are simply abandoning: environment and human rights issues. Maybe they will slowly grab part of state-level missions.

zanny 9y ago
City states would be wonderful. It even gives people the choice - a lot of people want to live in rural communities that are, in general, the ones holding back progressive agendas. Let the cities do their liberal thing independently of rural towns doing their conservative thing. As long as you have a mutual agreement to keep the borders open going in to the arrangement, people can go where their interests are best served.
- bane 9y ago
  There's some modern precedent for operating large cities differently than the major territories in which they sit. For example, China runs its larger cities at the national level, while the provincial governments handle the rest of the territories at a local level.
  - Iv 9y ago
    Also a lot of European cities used to elect their leaders even under feudal systems.