a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by mk
mk  ·  3451 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Theopolitics in Amurica

    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 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.





kleinbl00  ·  3451 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Bitcoin provides a global transaction network and border agnostic purchasing power.

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.

mk  ·  3451 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

kleinbl00  ·  3451 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I think the trend is that the administration is going global.

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.

    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.

...but it still needs to go into someone's mouth at some point, and that point has a latitude and a longitude.

    Healthcare research, development, and testing uses increasingly global structures, and I don't think it will be too long before international healthcare providers emerge.

But they will still need to apply that research to real human beings standing on real soil in between real borders.

    Companies are choosing the countries they operate out, or the exchanges on which they are listed in a increasingly casual way.

But if they operate or trade within any particular nation, they are wholly bound by the laws of that particular nation.

    We have international courts with increasing jurisdictions, and international treaties and organizations that regulate resources and their use.

Key prefix: INTER not EXTRA.

    The World Bank, IMF, UN, WTO, all these arose in just the last century and would have been pointless in the one before.

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.

    IMO the granularity of global governance is going to increase much more over the next century.

Well hang on, though - this discussion started with

    the outright rejection of the current political system, and the rejuvenation of a new radical leftist movement

and

    the market and the state are both non-solutions

and

    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.

We're now at

    Companies are choosing the countries they operate out, or the exchanges on which they are listed in a increasingly casual way.

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.

b_b  ·  3451 days ago  ·  link  ·  

underpants gnome!