4 ms·

Some things that alternatives to nation states are going to have to work out. - They are going to have to figure out how to cater for nation states monopoly on

Some things that alternatives to nation states are going to have to work out. - They are going to have to figure out how to cater for nation states monopoly on violence and all the coercive power this gives them. I think this is a bigger thing than some people realise. - One way of demonstrating this might be to demonstrate they can deliver outcomes that are better for people than the efforts of nation states can provide. I don't think we have seen this so far and I am skeptical that this will ever be the case. Diffusion of power amongst international corporations? I think we are experiencing the high tide of powerful corporations that can play one jurisdiction over another. I think nation states will increasingly and successfully to defend themselves, in groups if need be, against these players. For similar reasons, I don't think we will see change coming from the crypto currency movement, or for other decentralising technologies to make this happen. I think the only alternative in the short to medium term for competent national governance is a failed society and regression in measurable human outcomes. Supranational bodies? The authority of UN bodies seems to be draining away, they are hollowed out and their purpose become obscure.

xg15 5y ago
Also citizens participation and democracy. Neither private corporations nor supranational orgs have something like a parliament, checks and balances or elections. Global connectivity is alright, but I'd rather not have my ability to take part in democracy replaced with the ability to make memes and like random stuff on twitter. And if this guy believes we won't need any method for organising and distributing power in the future, because it'll all be distributed ancap magic on the blockchain, I'll have some bridge NFTs to sell to him.
- mLuby 5y ago
  A public company's board of directors don't look too dissimilar to a body of elected representatives, if you squint really hard. Memes in the larger sense of contagious ideas are as political as it gets and have been driving social action for millennia. If Martin Luther's time used TikTok, his 95 Theses might've been set to a catchy dance routine.
  - xg15 5y ago
    > A public company's board of directors don't look too dissimilar to a body of elected representatives, if you squint really hard. If you squint really hard. I think this overlooks the following points: - The "election" is not fair: It's extremely easy to buy additional votes (i. e. stock) and extend your influence - this results in certain investors having orders of magnitude more voting power than others. On the other hand, when you don't own stock, you don't have any voting power at all, even though the company can very much affect your life. - There is no clear process to appoint candidates. In a parliamentary democracy, potential candidates can choose between different parties to try and run for - or even found their own party. In a corporation, candidates for the board are chosen from within the company. - There are no checks and balances and no constitution. The C-suite and the board are maybe comparable to a government, but there is no equivalent to a parliament or an independent judiciary. The board has no other obligation than ensuring revenue.
    - hardlianotion 5y ago
      And in the end, a very small proportion of society participate in any aspect of the corporate governance.
    - mLuby 5y ago
      Good critiques, which also apply to democracies. 1. "The election is not fair/can be bought" Democracy's got that one all right. 2.a. "no clear process to appoint candidates" I'm sure the process is explicit in company bylaws or country laws. 2.b. "In a corporation, candidates for the board are chosen from within the company." Hmm, I thought public company board members were typically chosen from outside the company but I could be wrong. 3. "There are no checks and balances and no constitution." Most companies have "bylaws" which govern their operations. The biggest difference between company and government is that companies are subordinate to governments while governments (or confederations like the EU) are only ever have peers, there is no higher entity to which they answer. And that in turn allows companies to somewhat outsource enforcement of (by)laws and contracts to governments. The sci-fi trope of trans-national mega-corps answering to no government puts companies at the level of, or even higher than, countries, and then they need private armies of soldiers, not just of lawyers.
- hardlianotion 5y ago
  Yes, terribly important. I think participation and feedback loops are what keep nations from falling into internecine violence. But I also think that these are under much strain at the moment, and provide the most pessimism when thinking about the future of nations. I think more new thinking and innovation needs to happen to engage us our own affairs and to remind us how much we depend on one another.
CraigJPerry 5y ago
There’s a book called the Sovereign Individual co-written by William Rees Mogg - he picked up the moniker “Mystic Mogg” in his lifetime on account of his penchant for predictions that turned out false (but he’s probably more likely to be known today as the father of UK politician Jacob Rees Mogg). The book’s central thesis is an expansion of the ideas in TFA. He predicted something like bitcoin in the book and opined on how a supranational currency would inevitably lead to something of an anarcho-capitalist existance. He spends a lot of pages on the loss of nation’s monopoly on violence. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Sovereign_Individual.html https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Sovereign_Individ... In his view, countries would ultimately be forced to bid for citizens to choose to put down roots there. The would become more akin to privately owned and run civic service enterprises. For what it’s worth, i finished the book thinking he underestimated the desire for many humans to live near where they were born but i was impressed that he predicted bitcoin about 30 years ahead of its time.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Was it him that proposed that we should abolish national currencies, and allow people to accept whatever currency they see fit? People would accept the most stable or well-managed currencies (or switch into them quickly, if they're using currency as a store of value), and so deter chancellors from debauching their national currency.
- xg15 5y ago
  > In his view, countries would ultimately be forced to bid for citizens to choose to put down roots there. The would become more akin to privately owned and run civic service enterprises. I mean, the first part of that prediction seems desirable and increasingly reality. Already today, it's gotten a lot more common to migrate between countries (at least if you're rich and/or qualified enough and have the right country of origin...) As for the second part, I'm continuously amazed how free-market fundamentalists seem to view "my way of the highway" as a viable way to run a state. If I get to choose in which one of three authoritarian countries I want to spend my life, this will not magically make the countries stop being authoritarian due to some nebulous competition.
- 5y ago
dredmorbius 5y ago
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to a legitimate use of force. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is the condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. A "non-state" actor would ultimately need some recourse to compulsion to avoid the 2nd condition being elected by some other power.
- emteycz 5y ago
  Interesting thoughts, could you please point me to the definition of state you're using? I'd like to read more.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54. https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use...
scotty79 5y ago
Armies are the only thing that matters. If any entity arises that works better for feeding armies then nation states will be immediately abolished by the military. The only reason civilian governments exist is thei are best way of extracting value out of economy to be spent by armies. Armies don't serve governments and people. We all serve the armies. And if somebody stops, armies take over and mix things up so they can keep exctracting value, being powerful and doing nothing of economic utility.

xg15 5y ago

Also citizens participation and democracy. Neither private corporations nor supranational orgs have something like a parliament, checks and balances or elections. Global connectivity is alright, but I'd rather not have my ability to take part in democracy replaced with the ability to make memes and like random stuff on twitter. And if this guy believes we won't need any method for organising and distributing power in the future, because it'll all be distributed ancap magic on the blockchain, I'll have some bridge NFTs to sell to him.

mLuby 5y ago
A public company's board of directors don't look too dissimilar to a body of elected representatives, if you squint really hard. Memes in the larger sense of contagious ideas are as political as it gets and have been driving social action for millennia. If Martin Luther's time used TikTok, his 95 Theses might've been set to a catchy dance routine.
- xg15 5y ago
  > A public company's board of directors don't look too dissimilar to a body of elected representatives, if you squint really hard. If you squint really hard. I think this overlooks the following points: - The "election" is not fair: It's extremely easy to buy additional votes (i. e. stock) and extend your influence - this results in certain investors having orders of magnitude more voting power than others. On the other hand, when you don't own stock, you don't have any voting power at all, even though the company can very much affect your life. - There is no clear process to appoint candidates. In a parliamentary democracy, potential candidates can choose between different parties to try and run for - or even found their own party. In a corporation, candidates for the board are chosen from within the company. - There are no checks and balances and no constitution. The C-suite and the board are maybe comparable to a government, but there is no equivalent to a parliament or an independent judiciary. The board has no other obligation than ensuring revenue.
  - hardlianotion 5y ago
    And in the end, a very small proportion of society participate in any aspect of the corporate governance.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    Good critiques, which also apply to democracies. 1. "The election is not fair/can be bought" Democracy's got that one all right. 2.a. "no clear process to appoint candidates" I'm sure the process is explicit in company bylaws or country laws. 2.b. "In a corporation, candidates for the board are chosen from within the company." Hmm, I thought public company board members were typically chosen from outside the company but I could be wrong. 3. "There are no checks and balances and no constitution." Most companies have "bylaws" which govern their operations. The biggest difference between company and government is that companies are subordinate to governments while governments (or confederations like the EU) are only ever have peers, there is no higher entity to which they answer. And that in turn allows companies to somewhat outsource enforcement of (by)laws and contracts to governments. The sci-fi trope of trans-national mega-corps answering to no government puts companies at the level of, or even higher than, countries, and then they need private armies of soldiers, not just of lawyers.
hardlianotion 5y ago
Yes, terribly important. I think participation and feedback loops are what keep nations from falling into internecine violence. But I also think that these are under much strain at the moment, and provide the most pessimism when thinking about the future of nations. I think more new thinking and innovation needs to happen to engage us our own affairs and to remind us how much we depend on one another.

CraigJPerry 5y ago

There’s a book called the Sovereign Individual co-written by William Rees Mogg - he picked up the moniker “Mystic Mogg” in his lifetime on account of his penchant for predictions that turned out false (but he’s probably more likely to be known today as the father of UK politician Jacob Rees Mogg). The book’s central thesis is an expansion of the ideas in TFA. He predicted something like bitcoin in the book and opined on how a supranational currency would inevitably lead to something of an anarcho-capitalist existance. He spends a lot of pages on the loss of nation’s monopoly on violence. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Sovereign_Individual.html https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Sovereign_Individ... In his view, countries would ultimately be forced to bid for citizens to choose to put down roots there. The would become more akin to privately owned and run civic service enterprises. For what it’s worth, i finished the book thinking he underestimated the desire for many humans to live near where they were born but i was impressed that he predicted bitcoin about 30 years ahead of its time.

denton-scratch 5y ago
Was it him that proposed that we should abolish national currencies, and allow people to accept whatever currency they see fit? People would accept the most stable or well-managed currencies (or switch into them quickly, if they're using currency as a store of value), and so deter chancellors from debauching their national currency.
xg15 5y ago
> In his view, countries would ultimately be forced to bid for citizens to choose to put down roots there. The would become more akin to privately owned and run civic service enterprises. I mean, the first part of that prediction seems desirable and increasingly reality. Already today, it's gotten a lot more common to migrate between countries (at least if you're rich and/or qualified enough and have the right country of origin...) As for the second part, I'm continuously amazed how free-market fundamentalists seem to view "my way of the highway" as a viable way to run a state. If I get to choose in which one of three authoritarian countries I want to spend my life, this will not magically make the countries stop being authoritarian due to some nebulous competition.
5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago

The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to a legitimate use of force. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is the condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. A "non-state" actor would ultimately need some recourse to compulsion to avoid the 2nd condition being elected by some other power.

emteycz 5y ago
Interesting thoughts, could you please point me to the definition of state you're using? I'd like to read more.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54. https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...
- pessimizer 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use...

scotty79 5y ago

Armies are the only thing that matters. If any entity arises that works better for feeding armies then nation states will be immediately abolished by the military. The only reason civilian governments exist is thei are best way of extracting value out of economy to be spent by armies. Armies don't serve governments and people. We all serve the armies. And if somebody stops, armies take over and mix things up so they can keep exctracting value, being powerful and doing nothing of economic utility.