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.
