Will they float in international waters?
Since most âwealthâ is now information, I thought a more interesting approach would be to decouple them from geography. Not unlike how one can be a member of any number of web communities, and even create their own. Being networks of affiliations, they are not separate, they overlap.
Anyway, my point with regards to this topic was that some people might overlook the obvious choice of simply not belonging to a signatory of the TPP or similar treaties.
1 Like
According to this article the choice is between agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and letting China dictate ad hoc rules to the detriment of genuine US interests.
The United States would lose the ability to make the rules in international trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been unable to update the multilateral rules on trade and investment for the past 20 years. In the meantime, global supply chains have profoundly altered patterns of international production and trade. Deep free trade agreements (FTAs) like TPP seek to provide new rules that match the realities of 21st century trade. They focus on the liberalization of services that are critical to the efficient management of dispersed production chains (telecommunications, transportation, etc.), the protection of foreign investments and intellectual property rights, and avoiding predatory market behavior of state-owned enterprises. With the stagnation of the WTO, we have moved to a system of decentralized competition where different clusters of countries seek to define the standards for economic integration. As President Obama has warned, if we donât write the rules on trade, China will. Moreover, we will have no way to encourage China to move away from its mercantilistic practices.
If Trade Promotion Authority is extended, Congress could redefine the US Trade Representativeâs negotiating objectives to suit. I have heard that the current US negotiating positions are still guided by the Trade Act of 2002 â Division B, even though the TPA has expired.
The problem, of course, is that Congressâs positions are unlikely, in the end, to reflect the positions of the âlittle guyâ
1 Like
Thatâs quite an interesting take. I had been puzzled why the ruling class was so uniformly keen on TPP.
Iâm not. I donât need to, not when you write stuff like
So? Itâs still a vast minority. At least it makes the fight more honest.[/quote]
Yes, but itâs about consolidation. Myriad lobbyists, graft managers, and stacked policy committees is just plain inefficient. Once repealing nationsâ laws is streamlined, they can go on to writing the laws.
2 Likes
Replying to Shaddackâs comments doesnât imply that I agree with them. My point was that the strategy of avoiding meaningful actions, conceding to political impotency/insolvency because otherwise âsomebody might complainâ is not any sort of viable strategy. He mutters something about tear gas, I say âso?â, and this implies âcivil warâ somehow? No, this is not what I was getting at. My project is to do things more fairly, and giving in to threats (in this case imagined threats, aka self-censorship) seems rather unlikely to result in anything more equitable.
1 Like
[quote=âpopobawa4u, post:28, topic:54380â]
My project is to do things more fairly, âŚ[/quote]
⌠and if that fantasy doesnât work out then trigger a mass uprising agains the state security forces and see how that works out?
Cool plan, bro.
1 Like
Theyâll lobby to get rid of it too. Thatâs how fascism is formed.
Iâm detecting a trend here. So whatever I do is âfantasyâ, but other peopleâs BS is automatically fine, regardless of what it is. But hey - at least we can complain about it. I am not doing anything against anybody elseâs state.
Whatever. For somebody who complains that I tend towards fantasy and daydream, all of your âcriticismâ has been product of your own imagination. I respect you enough to assume you might not be a lemming.
Well, since all of the geography is owned by a nation state, that kind of presents difficulties. I can tell Oakland PD that Iâm a citizen of a crypto state all I want but if I break local law, theyâll still arrest or shoot me.
I hope youâve read this since youâre cribbing its ideas, basically: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IM5EM7W/
Nation states (and business corporations) being based upon the notion of âterritoryâ is part of my motivation behind starting this project. Territory reenforces selfish behavior in states and people alike, and contributes to the manufacture of scarcity in a mostly post-scarcity era.
There is a contradiction inherent to this. The contemporary nation-state is, by definition, the exclusive control of territory and population. Yet, being a nation-state is supposedly their authority to institute and enforce law. It can be argued that lacking exclusive control undermines their perceived right to do anything about it. This is one way to deal with pervasive corruption - instead of challenging each of their policies or laws, challenge their jurisdiction.
Thanks for the link. Iâm not sure why you hope Iâve read it already, but it sounds interesting. Maybe it will be my first Kindle.
See, this is why we have a hard time talking. You seem to think that âterritoryâ is an abstract whereas Iâm pointing at a very practical concern, which you then gloss over: you canât start a new state without it being within the territory and laws (as they enforce them) of another state and theyâre not going to let you opt out of their laws. They will enforce them on you. There are whole groups of Americans in various states (see Texas) who have tried the tactic of âI donât recognize your laws and authority.â Strangely, they wind up in prison or in police confrontations (and shot).
As to the book, I would hope that youâve read books by others already written that are espousing the very same ideas you are.
P.S. We donât live in a post-scarcity era. There are strong limits on resources. Look to oil and fresh water for examples.
2 Likes
Of course. This relates to what I was saying in the second paragraph of my previous post.
Sure, but thatâs reactionary, and typically without having replaced them with anything. Iâd rather provide something for people to opt into. I do recognize peopleâs laws and authority, and think it is the entrenched nation states which are refusing to do the same.
That would be convenient! Having searched around quite a bit, I have not been encountering these ideas elsewhere. Many BBers have linked me to biggish idea, and now I know of the Polystate book. Itâs not been exactly an easy area for me to even find websites or discussions about, and less so books.
Oil is a great example of a scarcity which is manufactured. Itâs not necessary for survival. And when people find this interesting and valuable substance, they often burn it. There are entire cultures organized around exploiting its scarcity. Similarly, market factors dictate the use of rare minerals in electronics because the âincentiveâ is not there to use newer techniques. Consider lamebrain speculation about how it would take decades to convert automotive technology and infrastructure to hydrogen when this obscure stuff is only the most plentiful molecule in the universe.
Itâs not that there isnât any scarcity. I think the more pressing problem is that there is an economy which is driven by and profits from scarcity. The more resources dwindle, the more people profit from whatever is left to fight over. This outlook also discourages people from thinking in terms of open systems, what else might be available on this world and others. As well as discouraging people from solving problems with what they already have, because this doesnât contribute to economic activity.
And your solution is? You think the states are going to let you opt out while living in their territory? You havenât really answered this question but just talked around it.
Depends how keen you are on the wholesale elimination of tariffs, I suppose.
This is a big enough question to be a topic in itself, or even several books. I donât intend to go into much detail here.
No, I did not âtalk aroundâ it. Within the current nation-state model, the authority of the state is based upon the pretense of its control of the territory, and population. If this centralized control is not present, then it is, by current definition, not quite a nation-state any more. This can mean that their authority and jurisdiction are not absolute, even without claim. Of course this is not the whole story, itâs IMO an antiquated outlook. I donât imagine that most countries would choose to be limited by their textbook definition.
As far as âlet you opt outâ, this is again framing the scenario in entirely negative, reactionary terms. Because itâs not their choice? Because in a centralized system, there are always more of âusâ than there are of âthemâ? Because thereâs not much of a future in how they do things? Because they failed to sell me on their way? Because I would be a completely ineffective person if I decided to not do something precisely because it would be that which actually changes things? Because I havenât encountered anything more realistic? I prefer to put old-style power struggles to bed, and one canât do that whilst assuming them to be the bedrock of society.
The wholesale elimination of tarriffs which hurt their profits, and the wholesale creation of tarriffs [intellectual property/robbery] and rent-seeking opportunities [structural adjustment] which help their profits.
1 Like
But the whole thing is supported by a monopoly on violence too. And while the monopoly on violence of the nation-state was never perfect and still isnât, it has grown, especially over the past decade or so of the militarization of the police.
I think that thinking through issues like this are important. I think utopian thought are important, and we need to incorporate that into our political and social discourse more. If we have a utopian vision, we have something to strive for. However, I think @albill is correct in that you are glossing over HOW you get there in terms of practicalities. The fact is that people who have attempted to create alternatives within the current system we all live in (the nation-state system), have either had to seriously compromise and work within existing systems of law/governance, or theyâve faced violent opposition from the state. That really needs to be taken into account when discussing this practically.
3 Likes
