I largely agree with this. However, I just badged this not for the conversation it begins about Conservatives or Liberals, but for the conversation it begins on the 'Nation State' as a cultural construct and the condition of its foundation. I'd hate to see this thread only focus on the former, as I see it as less compelling. Like you (I suspect), I do not see an fundamental difference between the American political left and the American political right, and I don't think that Cadell made a convincing case for one here, although I do think his 'Free Market' and 'State' gods analogy makes a convenient shorthand for their method of problem solving. But in the end, it's all the same buy-in now. We might even get Clinton vs. Bush in 2016. But, as I said, what really interests me here is the viability of the 'Nation State', and where we are all headed globally. There are countless developments suggesting cracks in its foundations, running from Wikileaks and Anonymous to Bitcoin, Tor, Bitnation, and Estonia offering e-citizenship. Even our cross-border conversations here run counter to what keeps a Nation State healthy. It's no wonder the most powerful democracies have taken a totalitarian turn when it comes to our communications. Terrorism is not the existential threat, we are the existential threat. I disagree with Cadell that the answer lies with the leftists. If anything, it's the libertarians that are doing the most damage to the Nation State as, unlike the left, they have more or less reached consensus that they want out. As I see it, the election is a debate over what's on the menu on the Titanic. (However, I've found some amusement in watching the talking heads avoid saying 'neoliberalism'.) This boat is going to sink, and technology is the iceberg. However, I disagree with Cadell that there is a right or left issue here. This is an issue of human nature. We have new tools that allow us to act as we are naturally inclined to, and while our political persuasions can provide context to talk about what is going on, they aren't what's driving this change. At any rate, that's the part of Cadell's essay that got my wheels turning.
This is a facile discussion. "Nation states" are contiguous, occupied geography. The advantage of geography is you get to exploit the natural resources of that geography, be they animal, vegetable, mineral or strategic. The disadvantage of geography is you become responsible to those that share the geography with you. If "nation states" didn't matter, we wouldn't worry about the government of Lebanon, we'd deal directly with Hamas. If "nation states" didn't matter, we'd treat with the Zetas Cartel rather than the government of Mexico. Unfortunately, political factions necessarily lack the political bargaining power to control territory by design - let's take ISIS for example. Back when they were al Qaeda in Iraq, they were a bunch of terrorists that blew up citizens and occupiers alike via IED. They were responsible to no one, they had no entanglements. Then they started seizing oil wells and became ISIS - now they've got troops to shelter, prisoners to feed, territory to hold, and find themselves a bunch of phatty, phatty targets out in the middle of the desert. If "nation states" were passe, the Jews wouldn't have incorporated the idea of Israel into their very culture going back to 400AD and they sure as fuck wouldn't be fighting so hard for it now. Every example you use - Bitcoin, Tor, e-citizenship - none of that shit provides any of the benefits of "citizenship" or even "resident alien status" that society has been built on since the Code of Hammurabi. And it never will.but for the conversation it begins on the 'Nation State' as a cultural construct and the condition of its foundation.
Bitcoin provides a global transaction network and border agnostic purchasing power. This is something that States work to provide, and bitcoin provides it without them. I know some Chinese that purchased US resident alien status for $500k. They live in China for part of the year, and live in the US for part of the year. I'm not saying that the State is dead by any means, but I do believe that it has an expiration date. My guess is that the story of the next 100 years will be largely about this shift. My parent's friends were mostly in Michigan, with a few outside the State. They had similar purchasing power as I do, but never left the US outside of my father fighting in Vietnam. My friends are mostly in the US with several outside the US. I leave the States on an annual basis, as do my peers with similar purchasing power. Hell, the EU is sharing a Central Bank. From my perspective, geography is becoming a diminishing factor in many equations, even in those of shared responsibility.Every example you use - Bitcoin, Tor, e-citizenship - none of that shit provides any of the benefits of "citizenship" or even "resident alien status" that society has been built on since the Code of Hammurabi. And it never will.
BItcoin does not (and cannot) provide the following: - roads - streetlights - sidewalks - fire departments - police departments - health inspectors - hospitals - courts - grocery stores - runways - walkways - the roof over your head - the ground under your feet - the air you breathe - the water you drink - etc. Both you and Cadell are ignoring the stultifying number of things in your life that are tied to place that Bitcoin (or any other similar process) can never provide. These processes are transactional - they are a shorthand for the exchange of something intangible, such as value or votes. They have absolutely no handle on the physical - yeah, you can buy US resident alien status for $550k, but you have to buy it from a physical country with physical borders and physical infrastructure. That physicality will never, ever go away. Even if you decide to live forever on a perpetually alight thermonuclear zeppelin, you will always be in someone's airspace, even if it's "international" airspace. International airspace is governed by international treaty, which is cosigned by good, old-fashioned earth-bound nations. You can spend Bitcoin anywhere you want, but you can only stand where your shoes are. No amount of wishing will make it any different.Bitcoin provides a global transaction network and border agnostic purchasing power.
While service providers will necessarily be local, I think the trend is that the administration is going global. Of course, this isn't the case for everything on the list, but for many of them. When it comes to food, you have global systems of production and distribution in which states play a role often overshadowed by the global agents. Healthcare research, development, and testing uses increasingly global structures, and I don't think it will be too long before international healthcare providers emerge. Companies are choosing the countries they operate out, or the exchanges on which they are listed in a increasingly casual way. We have international courts with increasing jurisdictions, and international treaties and organizations that regulate resources and their use. The World Bank, IMF, UN, WTO, all these arose in just the last century and would have been pointless in the one before. IMO the granularity of global governance is going to increase much more over the next century.
I know you think that, but neither you nor Cadell have made a cogent argument to back it up. All the examples you list are of lateral moves from one national government to another, or between national governments operating via intergovernmental treaty. Nothing listed is extragovernmental. ...but it still needs to go into someone's mouth at some point, and that point has a latitude and a longitude. But they will still need to apply that research to real human beings standing on real soil in between real borders. But if they operate or trade within any particular nation, they are wholly bound by the laws of that particular nation. Key prefix: INTER not EXTRA. All but one of which governs trade, not law, and all of which are comprised of members selected via their national affiliations, not their corporate ones. Well hang on, though - this discussion started with and and We're now at So on the one hand, we've got "government by Internet." On the other hand, we've got "The Nikkei may be just as important as the Dow in a hundred years." They're not comparable. You can't get there from here. Thus my argument against this entire train of thought - the basis of the argument a sock gnome step 2.I think the trend is that the administration is going global.
When it comes to food, you have global systems of production and distribution in which states play a role often overshadowed by the global agents.
Healthcare research, development, and testing uses increasingly global structures, and I don't think it will be too long before international healthcare providers emerge.
Companies are choosing the countries they operate out, or the exchanges on which they are listed in a increasingly casual way.
We have international courts with increasing jurisdictions, and international treaties and organizations that regulate resources and their use.
The World Bank, IMF, UN, WTO, all these arose in just the last century and would have been pointless in the one before.
IMO the granularity of global governance is going to increase much more over the next century.
the outright rejection of the current political system, and the rejuvenation of a new radical leftist movement
the market and the state are both non-solutions
Enough with politicians. They once served a function, but don't anymore. We can organise collectively using the Internet. People think this is a dream but it is not. We can design large-scale decentralized argumentation systems.
Companies are choosing the countries they operate out, or the exchanges on which they are listed in a increasingly casual way.
The nation-state is probably going to collapse. At least that is the suggestion of a theory I developed in a recent working paper to understand the evolution of control system transitions. This is also the general prediction of metasystem transition theory, which focuses on understanding the nature of control in living systems. I don't think we are serious about the future until we re-think the structure of the nation-state, it is inadequate to deal with globalisation. It is pretty obvious that the historical division between the left and the right has been the difference between the role of the free market and the state in public life. Although I agree that the distinction is now breaking down as America turns into an Oligarchy, it is a useful way to realise that neither the free market, nor the state, is the answer going forward. I said that the answer lies with a new left because the radical left has historically always dreamed of the dissolution of state power and a move towards a cooperative international community directed by "the people" (which in the 21st century could be a type of distributed governance).conversation it begins on the 'Nation State' as a cultural construct and the condition of its foundation.
I do not see an fundamental difference between the American political left and the American political right, and I don't think that Cadell made a convincing case for one hereI don't think that Cadell made a convincing case for one here.
I disagree with Cadell that the answer lies with the leftists.
I can see that. However, I think it can be argued that the mantle has been largely assumed by the libertarians. I do not see communism as aligned with decentralization, although there are overlaps. Whereas communism charges the governance structure with the task of public good, libertarians tend to argue that the public good ought to be a byproduct of a system. There is a lot of shared ground, yet I think libertarians are more closely aligned with what technology is making possible, at least in the short term. But, really, what I am arguing, is that we needn't look to the left or to the right. Because they are reflections of a system that is becoming unstable. IMHO we are seeing left/right political dissonance because those views don't reflect the possibilities of a new framework.I said that the answer lies with a new left because the radical left has historically always dreamed of the dissolution of state power and a move towards a cooperative international community directed by "the people" (which in the 21st century could be a type of distributed governance).
I can agree with that. My call for the "new left" was mostly because, in my lifetime, the only time I have seen the foundations of society really challenged was with the Occupy Wall Street movement. The Occupy movement can be rejuvenated, the structure is basically still there, and they are attacking precisely what needs to be changed. Also, they have international appeal as it spread to over 90 countries.But, really, what I am arguing, is that we needn't look to the left or to the right. Because they are reflections of a system that is becoming unstable. IMHO we are seeing left/right political dissonance because those views don't reflect the possibilities of a new framework.
OWS failed because they railed about problems without presenting a cohesive solution. The Arab Spring wanted an overthrow of dictators; OWS, depending on who you asked, either wanted a higher marginal tax rate, stricter inter-bank lending laws or something-something-welfare. There shall be no protestant movement until OWS can present its 99 theses in a concise manner.The only time I have seen the foundations of society really challenged was with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
I think, by their nature the leftists look more populous, but a large portion of the tools and communities that are enabling the growth of State-independent culture have been generated by folk that probably identify more with libertarians or perhaps see themselves as neoliberals.
Yes; I've read every post in this thread and the insistence that it's the "radical left" that will overthrow/rebuild the state is confusing me a bit. If anything the members of the radical left as it existed 40-60 years ago have migrated to left-libertarianism (which may be the term you're searching for, because it's where the so-called neoliberals might intersect with classical liberalism). Nowadays, I associate the phrase radical left with extreme socialism. The furthest left political parties in the world are all in essentially socialist countries.
To be honest, that is a development that I am completely unaware of, although I should read up on it. But it's clear that the state is getting pulled apart from many different movements. Although it is not clear yet how it will happen, I think it is now safe to say that the liberal democracy as manifest in the nation-state does not represent any type of an "end of history".
Perhaps. I do think it is inevitable at this point, and it will definitely be a big part of how things play out, but as fast as the climate is changing, the rate of technological change is even faster. Therefore, it's my guess that technology will play the larger role in the undoing of the Nation State.
Climate change, however, will largely impact the sensitive populations and sensitive climes around the world, leaving the wealthy, northern-hemisphere 1st world a little warmer but no worse off. This is one reason why you see so few conservatives concerned with global warming - for them, "water wars" are an abstraction. A navigable Northwest Passage? Now we're talkin'.
The reason they aren't concerned about global warming is that they haven't used their brains. Self-interest is a powerful argument, always, but this is what they think is true. What is actually true is that climate change (and broadly, our impact on the environment) will end most ocean life. It will do things to biodiversity that we don't fully understand yet. When those rich conservatives get cancer and learn that the cure they need was eradicated along with some species of ivy in central Brazil 20 years ago, they may regret their naivete. And so on. Foreign Affairs has been hitting the arctic passage "benefit" of global warming pretty hard lately. I get it. It's short term profit (huge profit). And in the very short term, "a little warmer but no worse off" is probably accurate for just about everyone in America. So fuck Tuvalu. But in the not so long term, say 50-75 years, the northern hemisphere is going to feel major lifestyle changes (unless technology somehow saves us again, as mk mentions above). EDIT: I should clarify that I don't really disagree with you but I thought what you said needed a small caveat.Climate change, however, will largely impact the sensitive populations and sensitive climes around the world, leaving the wealthy, northern-hemisphere 1st world a little warmer but no worse off.
This is one reason why you see so few conservatives concerned with global warming - for them, "water wars" are an abstraction. A navigable Northwest Passage? Now we're talkin'.