3 ms·

Interesting. Net-states is a useful term, but it might be useful to not make too strong a separation between them and all of the multinational corporations that

Interesting. Net-states is a useful term, but it might be useful to not make too strong a separation between them and all of the multinational corporations that came before. The Dutch East India Company, for example. Multinational corporations have always been little non-democratic kingdoms. It's my understanding that our modern view of sovereign states is due to the Peace of Westphalia, so maybe in some sense we are just reverting to the norm where states don't have all the power. Also, even with separate states, families like the Hapsburgs did really rule the world in ways Facebook never can. Finally, the US (and other superpowers) have historically struggled in places where they don't have boots on the ground. It's too hard to uproot local traditions and you don't really have a base of support. These net-states have an even weaker claim to power. If ISIS can wage a guerrilla war with limited physical resources (and a much greater power differential vs the US), anyone can take down Facebook or Google. They are a massive, slow-moving target that is already under attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor

chillingeffect 9y ago
Agreed. The history of power is church->liberal democracies and republics->corporations. The net-state is a great term! but it refers to the medium through which the corporate state is projecting power, akin to the social contracts and armies of the papal and liberal states. We definitely need a bill of rights and constitution under the net-states. One that our liberal institutions can defend.
- danarmak 9y ago
  > We definitely need a bill of rights and constitution under the net-states. One that our liberal institutions can defend. A constitution, and institutions that may uphold it, would be internal and specific to a particular net-state. Just like with real states, they can't be enforced on a net-state from outside except by extreme use of force. This is a good thing: I don't want a single Net-wide constitution for all present and future net-states, because I don't trust any single body to write or enforce it! Variation between net-states is broadly good, as long as emigration is easy. So I'm not sure what you mean by "our liberal institutions", but if you mean "our US non-net liberal institutions", then as someone who's not a US citizen I don't want them to have power over me.

chillingeffect 9y ago

Agreed. The history of power is church->liberal democracies and republics->corporations. The net-state is a great term! but it refers to the medium through which the corporate state is projecting power, akin to the social contracts and armies of the papal and liberal states. We definitely need a bill of rights and constitution under the net-states. One that our liberal institutions can defend.

danarmak 9y ago
> We definitely need a bill of rights and constitution under the net-states. One that our liberal institutions can defend. A constitution, and institutions that may uphold it, would be internal and specific to a particular net-state. Just like with real states, they can't be enforced on a net-state from outside except by extreme use of force. This is a good thing: I don't want a single Net-wide constitution for all present and future net-states, because I don't trust any single body to write or enforce it! Variation between net-states is broadly good, as long as emigration is easy. So I'm not sure what you mean by "our liberal institutions", but if you mean "our US non-net liberal institutions", then as someone who's not a US citizen I don't want them to have power over me.