2 ms·

I would argue that in the western world, especially the US, corporate power and the deep state are intertwined for their mutual benefit. Separation as radical a

by rl3 12y ago

I would argue that in the western world, especially the US, corporate power and the deep state are intertwined for their mutual benefit. Separation as radical as you describe is unlikely due to the force each exerts over the other. In other words, no way would the US government let Apple play nation state or otherwise shift the bulk of its loyalty elsewhere. That said, the notion of Elysium-style humanoid robots resolving modern regional conflicts on behalf of Apple is an appealing one. No longer would violent extremists have to suffer the indignity of being put down by conventional means. Instead, they would have the priviledge of being destroyed by the pinnacle of sleek, elegant industrial design. As far as AGI, if done properly it may resolve such things peacefully. Sadly, that would mean no robotic Apple armies.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
I would argue that in the western world, especially the US, corporate power and the deep state are intertwined for their mutual benefit. That's true until it isn't. qed It also assumes the company is a U.S. company - implicit in my statement I concede - not necessarily the case. I can see a situation in which the company and the USG have different interests, but the company has enough power that there is little the USG could do to it without massive loss in legitimacy. For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The USG can't do shit without either and together no government could take it on. That would be by far the largest company in the world and would have the resources to raise whatever kind of military it chose with the requisite manufacturing and logistics imbedded. I don't see that particular chain of events, because it would probably not be in the long term interest of either but there is likely a scenario in which it makes sense.
- rl3 12y ago
  >For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The USG can't do shit without either and together no government could take it on. A large percentage of Lockheed Martin employees hold high-level security clearances. This effectively cements their loyalty to USG and by extension the company's as well. My point was that, barring some sort of stereotypical dystopian scenario where large conglomerates literally are the state, governments will, at least in a foreign policy sense, continue to serve as a legitimate front for corporate interests, and a vessel through which corporate power is channeled.

by rl3 12y ago

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

I would argue that in the western world, especially the US, corporate power and the deep state are intertwined for their mutual benefit. That's true until it isn't. qed It also assumes the company is a U.S. company - implicit in my statement I concede - not necessarily the case. I can see a situation in which the company and the USG have different interests, but the company has enough power that there is little the USG could do to it without massive loss in legitimacy. For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The USG can't do shit without either and together no government could take it on. That would be by far the largest company in the world and would have the resources to raise whatever kind of military it chose with the requisite manufacturing and logistics imbedded. I don't see that particular chain of events, because it would probably not be in the long term interest of either but there is likely a scenario in which it makes sense.

rl3 12y ago
>For example, what if Exxon (403B cap) bought Lockheed Martin (64BN)? The USG can't do shit without either and together no government could take it on. A large percentage of Lockheed Martin employees hold high-level security clearances. This effectively cements their loyalty to USG and by extension the company's as well. My point was that, barring some sort of stereotypical dystopian scenario where large conglomerates literally are the state, governments will, at least in a foreign policy sense, continue to serve as a legitimate front for corporate interests, and a vessel through which corporate power is channeled.