5 ms·

At this point we should be considering Amazon et al as a new kind of States that supercede the existing national states, with the latter increasingly weakening

At this point we should be considering Amazon et al as a new kind of States that supercede the existing national states, with the latter increasingly weakening to the point of becoming completely absorbed. I 'm surprised there isn't yet a global giant Security corp that will replace armies, the last function that states still have a monopoly on.

lolive 5y ago
You played the Cyberpunk RPG in the past, didn't you?
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Extranational MegaCorps aren't a new idea in SciFi, heck Star Frontiers in the 80s had them, and I'm sure that was ripped off from Traveller, and the Alien movie of course had the bigbad corporation.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  no, what about it?
  - k8sToGo 5y ago
    Because in that game society is "owned" by mega corps that exceed national states, like you described.
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      oh well, that's a game we live in, every day
    - hericium 5y ago
      So... something like Second Life?
    - callahad 5y ago
      The progression from international to multinational to transnational corporations is also a prominent theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.
      - greedo 5y ago
        Snow Crash as well...
      - lolive 5y ago
        I had heard about it but never read it. A new item in my Christmas wish list ;)
    - lolive 5y ago
      And especially wars are purely private in that game. Which sounded like complete fantasy when the game was released some 30+ years ago.
aceazzameen 5y ago
Private contracted armies already exist. Weapons manufacturers are publicly traded and I'm sure could buy out all the PMCs when the timing is favorable. So yeah, maybe one day we will see a global giant security corp. I really don't need to think of this.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  I just wonder if people will confuse AWS with the other AWS, Amazon War Services
remram 5y ago
They do collect taxes (Prime subscription, cut from sellers), enforce compliance (sellers can't sell cheaper elsewhere), provide infrastructure (own delivery network), and "nationalize" services (start selling common items from Amazon Basics while delisting the originals). It's always felt weird to be that people in favor of small governments want to let them go rampant.
- zo1 5y ago
  I would be one of those "small government" people. And it's not so black and white. Just because we see private organizations becoming huge behemoths running rampant in the market, doesn't mean that we want that from a small-government perspective. If anything, this is 100% a failure of government if we collectively agree that Amazon shouldn't be that big or behaving in a certain way. Why haven't we had a referendum about breaking up Amazon? Or any other hot-topic for that matter. We barely have one every few decades and still can't seem to make our minds up (e.g. Brexit or the Catalonian referendum for secession). Right now, there are huge swaths of government laws and regulations that prevent the market from adjusting to Amazon becoming so large. Even something as simple as copyright laws that affect the legality of scraping data has an effect of propping up Amazon. You have to look N-levels away from Amazon and their lack of competition to appreciate how we are effectively promoting/allowing something like Amazon to occur.
Dumblydorr 5y ago
There is historical precedent here: the Dutch East India company. There are times where certain commercial, for profit companies gain so much power that they become effective states. DEIC had military forces and projected power quite far abroad. One can only hope no such development of Amazon's powers occurs. Another example would be the railroad and oil monopolies of the late 1800s USA. To own the tracks and oil, the transportation system itself, and dictate terms without negotiation, that is no free market, that is despotism by another name.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  I don't think those are comparable as they were clearly less powerful than the kingdoms they served. If amazon moved their HQ outside the US it would be a major problem
- zelias 5y ago
  I think the analogue would be Amazon Logistics projecting their power into _space_ in order to protect their eventually-patented Planetary Logistics Ships
- tomjen3 5y ago
  The Dutch East India company had their own army. Does Amazon?
- toss1 5y ago
  Re security and the railroad and oil monopolies in the late 1800s, go look up Pinkerton [0]. On their own website, they mention "establishing the first criminal database" — a private company not the state. "From our roots serving as an intelligence agency during the Civil War, Pinkerton has continued to build an impressive track record establishing the first criminal database, being the first company to hire a female detective, and being a forerunner for the secret service. Discover how Pinkerton has played a historic role in the risk management industry for over a century by following our company and our accomplishments through the years in the timeline below...." [0] https://pinkerton.com/our-story/history https://pinkerton.com/our-story/history
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lolive 5y ago

You played the Cyberpunk RPG in the past, didn't you?

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Extranational MegaCorps aren't a new idea in SciFi, heck Star Frontiers in the 80s had them, and I'm sure that was ripped off from Traveller, and the Alien movie of course had the bigbad corporation.
cblconfederate 5y ago
no, what about it?
- k8sToGo 5y ago
  Because in that game society is "owned" by mega corps that exceed national states, like you described.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    oh well, that's a game we live in, every day
  - hericium 5y ago
    So... something like Second Life?
  - callahad 5y ago
    The progression from international to multinational to transnational corporations is also a prominent theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.
    - greedo 5y ago
      Snow Crash as well...
    - lolive 5y ago
      I had heard about it but never read it. A new item in my Christmas wish list ;)
  - lolive 5y ago
    And especially wars are purely private in that game. Which sounded like complete fantasy when the game was released some 30+ years ago.

aceazzameen 5y ago

Private contracted armies already exist. Weapons manufacturers are publicly traded and I'm sure could buy out all the PMCs when the timing is favorable. So yeah, maybe one day we will see a global giant security corp. I really don't need to think of this.

cblconfederate 5y ago
I just wonder if people will confuse AWS with the other AWS, Amazon War Services

remram 5y ago

They do collect taxes (Prime subscription, cut from sellers), enforce compliance (sellers can't sell cheaper elsewhere), provide infrastructure (own delivery network), and "nationalize" services (start selling common items from Amazon Basics while delisting the originals). It's always felt weird to be that people in favor of small governments want to let them go rampant.

zo1 5y ago
I would be one of those "small government" people. And it's not so black and white. Just because we see private organizations becoming huge behemoths running rampant in the market, doesn't mean that we want that from a small-government perspective. If anything, this is 100% a failure of government if we collectively agree that Amazon shouldn't be that big or behaving in a certain way. Why haven't we had a referendum about breaking up Amazon? Or any other hot-topic for that matter. We barely have one every few decades and still can't seem to make our minds up (e.g. Brexit or the Catalonian referendum for secession). Right now, there are huge swaths of government laws and regulations that prevent the market from adjusting to Amazon becoming so large. Even something as simple as copyright laws that affect the legality of scraping data has an effect of propping up Amazon. You have to look N-levels away from Amazon and their lack of competition to appreciate how we are effectively promoting/allowing something like Amazon to occur.

Dumblydorr 5y ago

There is historical precedent here: the Dutch East India company. There are times where certain commercial, for profit companies gain so much power that they become effective states. DEIC had military forces and projected power quite far abroad. One can only hope no such development of Amazon's powers occurs. Another example would be the railroad and oil monopolies of the late 1800s USA. To own the tracks and oil, the transportation system itself, and dictate terms without negotiation, that is no free market, that is despotism by another name.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cblconfederate 5y ago
I don't think those are comparable as they were clearly less powerful than the kingdoms they served. If amazon moved their HQ outside the US it would be a major problem
zelias 5y ago
I think the analogue would be Amazon Logistics projecting their power into _space_ in order to protect their eventually-patented Planetary Logistics Ships
tomjen3 5y ago
The Dutch East India company had their own army. Does Amazon?
toss1 5y ago
Re security and the railroad and oil monopolies in the late 1800s, go look up Pinkerton [0]. On their own website, they mention "establishing the first criminal database" — a private company not the state. "From our roots serving as an intelligence agency during the Civil War, Pinkerton has continued to build an impressive track record establishing the first criminal database, being the first company to hire a female detective, and being a forerunner for the secret service. Discover how Pinkerton has played a historic role in the risk management industry for over a century by following our company and our accomplishments through the years in the timeline below...." [0] https://pinkerton.com/our-story/history https://pinkerton.com/our-story/history

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]