TPP leak: states give companies the right to repeal nations' laws

[enso]

[quote=“popobawa4u, post:38, topic:54380”]

No, I did not “talk around” 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.[/quote]
It isn’t a “pretense.” You’re sitting in a nation-state right now and you’re living under its laws, policing, military, taxes, etc. whether you want to or not. No pretension by the state involved. They have you, Neo.

If this centralized control is not present, then it is, by current definition, not quite a nation-state any more.

That’s the part where you “talk around it.” If the moon is made out of cheese, then I can eat it…but it isn’t. This centralized control is very much present unless you’re typing this from Somalia (and even then, there are factional governments).

[quote]
As far as “let you opt out”, this is again framing the scenario in entirely negative, reactionary terms. Because it’s not their choice?[/quote]

Oh really? Ok. Opt out, right now.

Because in a centralized system, there are always more of “us” than there are of “them”?

Who is “we,” kemosabe, because I just see you.

Because there’s not much of a future in how they do things? Because they failed to sell me on their way?

They don’t have to “sell” you. They are already there and they control things. See above statement about going ahead and opting out. Just, right now, quit paying any taxes on anything, quit following any laws, quit using their legal tender, etc. Let’s see how far it goes for you.

This is a classic thing I see you do here on the BBS. Just because you have an idea doesn’t mean it is (a) practical or (b) reality in any sense of the word. There is a world around you, full of people and systems, in which you are enmeshed. You have to take that into account.

[popobawa4u]

@albill

Oh really? Ok. Opt out, right now.

Again, that’s a negative. I am opting in to something else.

@albill

This is a classic thing I see you do here on the BBS. Just because you have an idea doesn’t mean it is (a) practical or (b) reality in any sense of the word. There is a world around you, full of people and systems, in which you are enmeshed. You have to take that into account.

Funny, I thought this was what I was arguing!

[enso]

@popobawa4u

Again, that’s a negative. I am opting in to something else.

Yes but you’re still a part of the state (required to live under its laws, pay its taxes, etc). So unless you’re thinking your new non-location cryptostate membership is in addition to whatever state membership you already possess and are in the territory of, you’re going to have to find a way to opt out. Any nation state is going to treat another state within its borders as either a joke or a threat. In the former, they’ll still expect you to pay your taxes, do jury duty, obey the police, etc. In the latter, you get all of those things plus the additional issue of being targeted by said state and possibly arrested or simply killed.

I’m not sure what “negative” means here in the way you keep trying to apply it. Am I grounded? Is there a minus sign somewhere?

As to what you’re arguing, no, you’re avoiding any discussion of the mechanisms of how the state you want to create would exist when everyone that would be in it is under the dominion of whatever government controls the physical land they’re standing on. You completely avoided actually discussing most of the things I actually said.

[popobawa4u]

@albill

I’m not sure what “negative” means here in the way you keep trying to apply it. Am I grounded? Is there a minus sign somewhere?

Opting-out is a form of negation, supposing the absence of a thing. While opting-in is position, bringing a situation into being.

@albill

As to what you’re arguing, no, you’re avoiding any discussion of the mechanisms of how the state you want to create would exist when everyone that would be in it is under the dominion of whatever government controls the physical land they’re standing on. You completely avoided actually discussing most of the things I actually said.

I am not working on creating another state specifically, but rather a sort of meta-state framework to make it easy for any people to create whatever sort of organizations they need. Many people I talk to seem to feel rather marginal, and find it difficult to negotiate the start of families, schools, businesses, etc. They lack social structure. I have spoken of it before, but like I said, I didn’t intend to go into much detail about it here, it wouldn’t be strategic.

[FoolishOwl]

@albill

It isn’t a “pretense.” You’re sitting in a nation-state right now and you’re living under its laws, policing, military, taxes, etc. whether you want to or not. No pretension by the state involved. They have you, Neo.

Stand ye calm and resolute,
Like a forest close and mute,
With folded arms and looks which are
Weapons of unvanquished war.

And if then the tyrants dare,
Let them ride among you there;
Slash, and stab, and maim and hew;
What they like, that let them do.

With folded arms and steady eyes,
And little fear, and less surprise,
Look upon them as they slay,
Till their rage has died away:

Then they will return with shame,
To the place from which they came,
And the blood thus shed will speak
In hot blushes on their cheek:

Rise, like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you:
Ye are many—they are few!

From The Masque of Anarchy, by Pierce Bysshe Shelley.

The police are quite material. But they, and the entire apparatus of the state, go about enshrouded in a penumbra of authority, legitimacy, and intimidation. The silhouette of the police nightstick is larger than the nightstick itself. Dispelling that is critical to overcoming them.

[enso]

and here I thought that state’s governed at the assent of the governed.

[lightningrose]

You are awesomely naive.

[popobawa4u]

@lightningrose

You are awesomely naive.

And you add to the surprisingly large list of people who instantly resort to making personal remarks instead of honestly refuting my views.

[WearySky]

I could have sworn I saw something about this already on BB, probably around the time of Stephen Harper’s visit to China last year. But I totally cannot find it. So I have no idea where I actually saw it, then.