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.
