4 ms·

Why do we need nation states?

p_l 7y ago
Nation in nation state is pretty recent addition and already dying off (fortunately), but the state owing allegiance to its citizens (ever imperfect) is better than slide back to feudal-authoritarian corporation that is in no way on the hook for anything towards the common man.
- wyoh 7y ago
  At least you can choose the corporation you want to deal with, unlike the nation state you live in.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Only because the nation states force this on the corporations. Do you really think the corporation would let you choose anything if they were let unchecked? You'd have to pick your allegiance and then face the consequences. Or they'd pick you before you had a chance to choose yourself. Do you think the lords of old let the serfs have a say in whether they wanted to leave or stay? No. It would be the same for us. Going to digital lords and barons and no states to rein them in would be regressing.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      It’s actually the opposite. States reduce choices available to customers. See my sibling comment for an example: the cable industry.
      - wolco 7y ago
        It is not that simple. Policy can increase or decrease competition. Breaking up Ma Bell as an example. Overall governments increase standards which can lead to few players but it can also help an industry grow quicker and allow for more complex/value products/services which creates an industry around it helping support it (shopify)
        antidesitter 7y ago
        > Breaking up Ma Bell as an example. The Ma Bell monopoly was created by government in the first place.
        jacobush 7y ago
        And this fact is supposed to support what argument exactly?
        antidesitter 7y ago
        Read the grandparent comment.
  - Terretta 7y ago
    Just like choosing your cable company... or wait, that’s chosen for you based on where you live. Hmm.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      > chosen for you based on where you live That’s right. By the government [0][1]. [0] https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... [1] http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/02/19/whos-afraid-of-comcast/ http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/02/19/whos-afraid-o...
- antidesitter 7y ago
  > corporation that is in no way on the hook for anything towards the common man. It is, because corporations have stronger incentives than governments to benefit the common man.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Megacorps only need to benefit a large number of people, where democracies need to benefit a majority. In theory.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      > democracies need to benefit a majority Not at all. See “concentrated benefits and diffuse costs”.
carterehsmith 7y ago
What do you propose instead?

p_l 7y ago

Nation in nation state is pretty recent addition and already dying off (fortunately), but the state owing allegiance to its citizens (ever imperfect) is better than slide back to feudal-authoritarian corporation that is in no way on the hook for anything towards the common man.

wyoh 7y ago
At least you can choose the corporation you want to deal with, unlike the nation state you live in.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Only because the nation states force this on the corporations. Do you really think the corporation would let you choose anything if they were let unchecked? You'd have to pick your allegiance and then face the consequences. Or they'd pick you before you had a chance to choose yourself. Do you think the lords of old let the serfs have a say in whether they wanted to leave or stay? No. It would be the same for us. Going to digital lords and barons and no states to rein them in would be regressing.
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    It’s actually the opposite. States reduce choices available to customers. See my sibling comment for an example: the cable industry.
    - wolco 7y ago
      It is not that simple. Policy can increase or decrease competition. Breaking up Ma Bell as an example. Overall governments increase standards which can lead to few players but it can also help an industry grow quicker and allow for more complex/value products/services which creates an industry around it helping support it (shopify)
      - antidesitter 7y ago
        > Breaking up Ma Bell as an example. The Ma Bell monopoly was created by government in the first place.
        jacobush 7y ago
        And this fact is supposed to support what argument exactly?
        antidesitter 7y ago
        Read the grandparent comment.
- Terretta 7y ago
  Just like choosing your cable company... or wait, that’s chosen for you based on where you live. Hmm.
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    > chosen for you based on where you live That’s right. By the government [0][1]. [0] https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... [1] http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/02/19/whos-afraid-of-comcast/ http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/02/19/whos-afraid-o...
antidesitter 7y ago
> corporation that is in no way on the hook for anything towards the common man. It is, because corporations have stronger incentives than governments to benefit the common man.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Megacorps only need to benefit a large number of people, where democracies need to benefit a majority. In theory.
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    > democracies need to benefit a majority Not at all. See “concentrated benefits and diffuse costs”.

carterehsmith 7y ago

What do you propose instead?