4 ms·

I suppose this article puts into words something that I (and I suspect many others) 'feel' without articulating: That we're a global community now and I can't p

I suppose this article puts into words something that I (and I suspect many others) 'feel' without articulating: That we're a global community now and I can't possibly think any other way now†. The things that happen in America or Syria or Egypt or New Zealand or Australia affect me emotionally and they feel personal. They affect me because the web makes me feel like the person who's experience or opinion I an listening to is my neighbour. On the Internet, Syria is a few doors down from my house. And I think this is a good thing. We all individually exist on a web in which we are all compatible. But we live on a planet of nation states that are incompatible with each other. And if anything had to change in this scenario, I would personally rather see the nation states disappear. But then (in my opinion) there do need to be laws, and there has to be a model for those laws. So now there's another problem, whose ideals and morality should win out? The USA's? The UK's? China's? The fact that the web is largely lawless is what I think makes it work. So perhaps the global community can prescribe it's own laws. But this is getting off my point. My point is, perhaps it should be less about "how governments control the web" and more about "How do we transition to a world without governments". If I'm right in that thinking, the web is not just a threat to nasty nations, it's a threat to the good ones too (if there are any). If there is a transition from nation states to a planet unified by the web, with a governance that is an emergent property of the web, then there will be pain associated with that transition. But considering the shit we put up with these days, I think it's a price worth paying. † If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor.

Gormo 13y ago
> And if anything had to change in this scenario, I would personally rather see the nation states disappear. I'd agree with you here, but what I'm afraid is that with the absence of modern nation-states, we'd get a fewer number of more centralized political institutions, rather than moving towards the ideal of more numerous decentralized and autonomous polities. When you say: > And I think this is a good thing. We all individually exist on a web in which we are all compatible. I get what you're going for here, but there's a great danger that this could be misinterpreted as a call for universalism, as some sort of idea that everyone's the same and distinctions should all be flattened or ignored. If we treat the world as an open space within which we can coordinate our own ad-hoc communities and polities based on mutual compatibility, where it exists, without being constrained by artificial boundaries, we'll all be better off. But if we don't have the facility for mapping out and adhering to natural social boundaries that emerge from manifest differences in worldviews, values, intentions, and ambitions, then we'll end up with lots of incompatible ambitions attempting to realize themselves in the same space, and that can only lead to stasis and conflict. > whose ideals and morality should win out? Everyone's. If the interconnected world isn't a platform in which everyone can construct their lives on the basis of their own values, and evolve new communities whose boundaries are defined by something more substantive than mere geographical proximity, then it just becomes an impetus to all-or-nothing conflict, which will surely ruin the world for everyone.
- tomelders 13y ago
  > we'd get a fewer number of more centralized political institutions, rather than moving towards the ideal of more numerous decentralized and autonomous polities. I don't agree with you on that point I'm afraid. There is nothing more corrupt than local politics. Backhanders, bribes, virtually no transparency. I personally prefer to have my politicians in one place where a lot of people can keep an eye on them. Here in the UK, when I see people campaigning for devolution, or independence, I can't help but wonder who is going to keep an eye on these smaller, more secretive and ultimately more powerful political terror cells. I wouldn't look after a hundred kittens by having them scattered all over the place in pods of five. It would be an unmanageable task and they'd run riot. If you start start with the assumption that every politician will abuse their power, you will a) probably be right and b) have to think differently about how best you can efficiently keep track of thousands of them. When you describe "a platform in which everyone can construct their lives on the basis of their own values, and evolve new communities whose boundaries are defined by something more substantive than mere geographical proximity" I can't help but think think of African Warlords who have done exactly that, and it's horrific. There must be free and fair debate, there must be the opportunity for everyone to participate equally in that debate and most importantly everyone should have a say in the administering the decisions that impact on their life. Take for example the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran etc. Their lives literally hang in the balance based on US elections, and yet they have no say in those elections. That is not fair. It is not right. I could argue that people in the middle east have a bigger right to vote in US elections because they are at greater risk form those election results, but i'd settle for them at least having an equal say as everyone else. Your idea is essentially just a lot of smaller nation states acting in their own blinkered interests, which is the worse than what we already have. People will behave badly. People will give way to hatred. People will cheat and lie and steal and murder. And while I don't endorse a world governed by paranoia about these things, I do endorse a world where we all get an equal say in how we react to these things. I'm not trying to aggressively shoot your comment down, so please don't imagine me sat at the other side of the internet hammering out an angry rebuttal, I thank you for taking the time to put your view out there, but we do have a clear difference of opinion and we shouldn't shy away from that. I hope I've raised my counter view with respect to you, even if I don't see the logic in your worldview.

Gormo 13y ago

> And if anything had to change in this scenario, I would personally rather see the nation states disappear. I'd agree with you here, but what I'm afraid is that with the absence of modern nation-states, we'd get a fewer number of more centralized political institutions, rather than moving towards the ideal of more numerous decentralized and autonomous polities. When you say: > And I think this is a good thing. We all individually exist on a web in which we are all compatible. I get what you're going for here, but there's a great danger that this could be misinterpreted as a call for universalism, as some sort of idea that everyone's the same and distinctions should all be flattened or ignored. If we treat the world as an open space within which we can coordinate our own ad-hoc communities and polities based on mutual compatibility, where it exists, without being constrained by artificial boundaries, we'll all be better off. But if we don't have the facility for mapping out and adhering to natural social boundaries that emerge from manifest differences in worldviews, values, intentions, and ambitions, then we'll end up with lots of incompatible ambitions attempting to realize themselves in the same space, and that can only lead to stasis and conflict. > whose ideals and morality should win out? Everyone's. If the interconnected world isn't a platform in which everyone can construct their lives on the basis of their own values, and evolve new communities whose boundaries are defined by something more substantive than mere geographical proximity, then it just becomes an impetus to all-or-nothing conflict, which will surely ruin the world for everyone.

tomelders 13y ago
> we'd get a fewer number of more centralized political institutions, rather than moving towards the ideal of more numerous decentralized and autonomous polities. I don't agree with you on that point I'm afraid. There is nothing more corrupt than local politics. Backhanders, bribes, virtually no transparency. I personally prefer to have my politicians in one place where a lot of people can keep an eye on them. Here in the UK, when I see people campaigning for devolution, or independence, I can't help but wonder who is going to keep an eye on these smaller, more secretive and ultimately more powerful political terror cells. I wouldn't look after a hundred kittens by having them scattered all over the place in pods of five. It would be an unmanageable task and they'd run riot. If you start start with the assumption that every politician will abuse their power, you will a) probably be right and b) have to think differently about how best you can efficiently keep track of thousands of them. When you describe "a platform in which everyone can construct their lives on the basis of their own values, and evolve new communities whose boundaries are defined by something more substantive than mere geographical proximity" I can't help but think think of African Warlords who have done exactly that, and it's horrific. There must be free and fair debate, there must be the opportunity for everyone to participate equally in that debate and most importantly everyone should have a say in the administering the decisions that impact on their life. Take for example the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran etc. Their lives literally hang in the balance based on US elections, and yet they have no say in those elections. That is not fair. It is not right. I could argue that people in the middle east have a bigger right to vote in US elections because they are at greater risk form those election results, but i'd settle for them at least having an equal say as everyone else. Your idea is essentially just a lot of smaller nation states acting in their own blinkered interests, which is the worse than what we already have. People will behave badly. People will give way to hatred. People will cheat and lie and steal and murder. And while I don't endorse a world governed by paranoia about these things, I do endorse a world where we all get an equal say in how we react to these things. I'm not trying to aggressively shoot your comment down, so please don't imagine me sat at the other side of the internet hammering out an angry rebuttal, I thank you for taking the time to put your view out there, but we do have a clear difference of opinion and we shouldn't shy away from that. I hope I've raised my counter view with respect to you, even if I don't see the logic in your worldview.