Will Digital Technologies Kill the Nation State? | Hacker News Reader

Will Digital Technologies Kill the Nation State?

pairagraph.com

72 pointsDocFeind85 comments

Both yes and no.

These technologies undermine authority but strengthen authoritarianism.

It will bring trouble to authorities and consensus that are not very authoritarian (e.g:EU vs Brexit, the polarization of politics leading to populism, gridlock and inaction in some democratic countries, the increase in brain drain from less developed countries, etc).

But, OTOH, very authoritarian regimes are clearly very capable of taming the internet (e.g: Russia, China) and harnessing it for their own propaganda and control.

For an example of undermining (and de-funding) central authority, if DeFi (crypto etc.) goes mainstream it will have a devastating effect on nations ability to track and tax commerce.

Mobile to mobile DeFi payments will basically enable a black-market economy where the 'cash' is issued by a foreign power and is much easier to hide.

> if DeFi (crypto etc.) goes mainstream it will have a devastating effect on nations ability to track and tax commerce

This gels with the parent comment. States which heavily restrict devices and connectivity will have no problem tracking and taxing. Those which rely on a progressive tax system, or feature privacy rights, will.

Keep in mind that, for most of human history, commerce was not traced by rulers. The simplest tax is a headcount tax. You pay the tax or bad things happen to you. That some people literally cannot pay is unfortunate but unavoidable.

But it doesn't take a genius to predict how governments would react to a technology that effectively prevented them from collecting taxes, even in relatively liberal and democratic places.

And how should governments react to people dodging taxes, really? Should they just stop collecting them and cease to exist?

The assumption here is that you have enough of a functioning state with enough security to have things like "cellphone towers" and "electricity" and "IC manufacturing" while not having the ability to tax economic activity within it.

Maybe converting over to a pure Georgian style land tax for all tax revenue. It would be a much better way to raise taxes in my opinion for many reasons. You will have a hard time hiding land.

Crypto still relies on the real banking system to feed real cash into and out of their system. States have tight control over the banks.

If crypto exchanges/standards don't want to do KYC, they won't be able to interact with the real economy.

I wonder if you are misinterpreting the dependency structure of the core action that powers the "real economy" which is the act of exchange.

Before state currencies, the barter system existed -- even today, it still does exist, and crypto in a lot of ways is in theory supposed to bring things digitally back to that age old system.

States have control over banks only so far as they maintain a /global/ monopoly over force and a mandate in popular support which they can practically demonstrate. What you're talking about is the distance between de facto and de jure, and I think what you're missing is how the former leads the latter, not the other way around.

This isn't to say that your second point is completely incorrect, I just think it misplaces the center of gravity -- I think that will practically lie with the merchant given that an exchange can be decentralized enough that there is no "neck to squeeze" when misbehavior occurs.

I think its important to note that while these things are largely true (though i'd say that banks have tight control over states [5+ time felonious JPM and friends, constant bailouts, etc]… esp weaker/smaller states…), there are instances today where people trade goods and services with crypto without "cashing out" (esp more so than a decade ago) through centralized exchanges.

A variety of credit/debt based decentralized stablecoins and dexes will take over in the long run from centralized exchanges and bank account onramp. Even centralized exchanges are trying to get exposure to defi protocols now that will eventually obsolete them for traditional functions for all but the tech laggards.

This is true in El Salvador, where bitcoin has the explicit endorsement of the state.

Elsewhere, other than dark web drugs and jpegs of apes, what exactly are people buying with crypto?

Just because some (most?) people now in most places may buy only drugs/nfts (and whatever real or imagined things of contested value [eye of the beholder…]) hasn't stopped me personally from accepting eth/btc for dev work and swapping for cash in my local jurisdiction(s) (or in some cases, paying in stablecoins [dai] for food from a friend who has a few of their own stores accepted it).

One of the sources of value for money is the fact that you can pay your taxes with it. Why accept a random symbol in exchange for goods? Today we put emphasis on value tax and income tax, but if those become unreasonable hard to collect, taxing observable properties would be the solution.

Imagine going to a restaurant and paying with untraceable bitcoin, the owner however has to pay a tax proportional to the number of chairs. In order to pay they have convert bitcoin to something the state accepts.

Some things that alternatives to nation states are going to have to work out.

- They are going to have to figure out how to cater for nation states monopoly on violence and all the coercive power this gives them. I think this is a bigger thing than some people realise.

- One way of demonstrating this might be to demonstrate they can deliver outcomes that are better for people than the efforts of nation states can provide. I don't think we have seen this so far and I am skeptical that this will ever be the case.

Diffusion of power amongst international corporations? I think we are experiencing the high tide of powerful corporations that can play one jurisdiction over another. I think nation states will increasingly and successfully to defend themselves, in groups if need be, against these players. For similar reasons, I don't think we will see change coming from the crypto currency movement, or for other decentralising technologies to make this happen. I think the only alternative in the short to medium term for competent national governance is a failed society and regression in measurable human outcomes.

Supranational bodies? The authority of UN bodies seems to be draining away, they are hollowed out and their purpose become obscure.

Also citizens participation and democracy.

Neither private corporations nor supranational orgs have something like a parliament, checks and balances or elections.

Global connectivity is alright, but I'd rather not have my ability to take part in democracy replaced with the ability to make memes and like random stuff on twitter.

And if this guy believes we won't need any method for organising and distributing power in the future, because it'll all be distributed ancap magic on the blockchain, I'll have some bridge NFTs to sell to him.

A public company's board of directors don't look too dissimilar to a body of elected representatives, if you squint really hard.

Memes in the larger sense of contagious ideas are as political as it gets and have been driving social action for millennia.

If Martin Luther's time used TikTok, his 95 Theses might've been set to a catchy dance routine.

> A public company's board of directors don't look too dissimilar to a body of elected representatives, if you squint really hard.

If you squint really hard. I think this overlooks the following points:

- The "election" is not fair: It's extremely easy to buy additional votes (i. e. stock) and extend your influence - this results in certain investors having orders of magnitude more voting power than others. On the other hand, when you don't own stock, you don't have any voting power at all, even though the company can very much affect your life.

- There is no clear process to appoint candidates. In a parliamentary democracy, potential candidates can choose between different parties to try and run for - or even found their own party. In a corporation, candidates for the board are chosen from within the company.

- There are no checks and balances and no constitution. The C-suite and the board are maybe comparable to a government, but there is no equivalent to a parliament or an independent judiciary. The board has no other obligation than ensuring revenue.

And in the end, a very small proportion of society participate in any aspect of the corporate governance.

Good critiques, which also apply to democracies.

1. "The election is not fair/can be bought" Democracy's got that one all right.

2.a. "no clear process to appoint candidates" I'm sure the process is explicit in company bylaws or country laws.

2.b. "In a corporation, candidates for the board are chosen from within the company." Hmm, I thought public company board members were typically chosen from outside the company but I could be wrong.

3. "There are no checks and balances and no constitution." Most companies have "bylaws" which govern their operations.

The biggest difference between company and government is that companies are subordinate to governments while governments (or confederations like the EU) are only ever have peers, there is no higher entity to which they answer. And that in turn allows companies to somewhat outsource enforcement of (by)laws and contracts to governments. The sci-fi trope of trans-national mega-corps answering to no government puts companies at the level of, or even higher than, countries, and then they need private armies of soldiers, not just of lawyers.

Yes, terribly important. I think participation and feedback loops are what keep nations from falling into internecine violence. But I also think that these are under much strain at the moment, and provide the most pessimism when thinking about the future of nations. I think more new thinking and innovation needs to happen to engage us our own affairs and to remind us how much we depend on one another.

There’s a book called the Sovereign Individual co-written by William Rees Mogg - he picked up the moniker “Mystic Mogg” in his lifetime on account of his penchant for predictions that turned out false (but he’s probably more likely to be known today as the father of UK politician Jacob Rees Mogg).

The book’s central thesis is an expansion of the ideas in TFA. He predicted something like bitcoin in the book and opined on how a supranational currency would inevitably lead to something of an anarcho-capitalist existance. He spends a lot of pages on the loss of nation’s monopoly on violence.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Sovereign_Individ...

In his view, countries would ultimately be forced to bid for citizens to choose to put down roots there. The would become more akin to privately owned and run civic service enterprises.

For what it’s worth, i finished the book thinking he underestimated the desire for many humans to live near where they were born but i was impressed that he predicted bitcoin about 30 years ahead of its time.

> In his view, countries would ultimately be forced to bid for citizens to choose to put down roots there. The would become more akin to privately owned and run civic service enterprises.

I mean, the first part of that prediction seems desirable and increasingly reality. Already today, it's gotten a lot more common to migrate between countries (at least if you're rich and/or qualified enough and have the right country of origin...)

As for the second part, I'm continuously amazed how free-market fundamentalists seem to view "my way of the highway" as a viable way to run a state.

If I get to choose in which one of three authoritarian countries I want to spend my life, this will not magically make the countries stop being authoritarian due to some nebulous competition.

That's one of the references in Andrew L. Sullivan's The Control Revolution, a 1999 book which explored the (then future) prospects of pervasive information networks.

Sullivan does a pretty good job (and a much better one than I'd thought reading through the first part of the book) of predicting and laying out the fault lines of our present Internet, including some eerily accurate scyring of our present wars on facts and institutions, as well as the rise of monopolies and the fall of traditional journalism.

Was it him that proposed that we should abolish national currencies, and allow people to accept whatever currency they see fit?

People would accept the most stable or well-managed currencies (or switch into them quickly, if they're using currency as a store of value), and so deter chancellors from debauching their national currency.

The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to a legitimate use of force.

That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state.

Absent this, one of three conditions exist;

1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.

2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is the condition of tyranny (unaccountable power).

3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.

A "non-state" actor would ultimately need some recourse to compulsion to avoid the 2nd condition being elected by some other power.

Interesting thoughts, could you please point me to the definition of state you're using? I'd like to read more.

Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54.

https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use...

Armies are the only thing that matters. If any entity arises that works better for feeding armies then nation states will be immediately abolished by the military.

The only reason civilian governments exist is thei are best way of extracting value out of economy to be spent by armies.

Armies don't serve governments and people. We all serve the armies. And if somebody stops, armies take over and mix things up so they can keep exctracting value, being powerful and doing nothing of economic utility.

>> 2. As problems become international, supra-national organizations grow to solve them: from the UN or the EU after WWII, to the WHO, WTO, IMF, WB, and all the other global coordination bodies absorbing national sovereignty.

Many nations (e.g. UK, US, China, Russia, etc.) would not accept the UN or EU as a sovereign body that would supercede national sovereignty.

The governments of such nations would have to fail before the UN or EU could establish a government described here.

In fact, the Catholic church (as described earlier in the argument) came into power because the Roman empire (or at least some parts of it) failed.

You can be "as sovereign" as you want and other countries are free to keep you insulated as much as they want.

There is no fundamental sovereignty once you have to trade with anyone. Just ask any country that sells to the US for example. Or Iran.

Not surprising the average person is completely ignorant of how much of what even they eat is imported or relies on imports.

You can bully smaller countries through trade, but when US, Russia and China violate international law, they escape scott free.

Russia has a smaller GDP than Japan or Germany, and a 1/10th of that of the EU. If Russia further invades Ukraine, there will be a return to containment, and not much that Russia can do about it. China is in a whole other category.

due to years of poor decisions (and corrupt politicians [1]): the EU is now completely reliant on Russian gas

it will be able to do absolutely nothing of consequence when Russia further invades Ukraine

[1]: Gerhard Schröder (former German chancellor) ended up employed by the Russian pipeline company Nord Stream's board immediately after leaving office (when in office he approved it), and this week it was reported former French Prime Minister Fillion is now employed by two Russian gas firms

I suspect Merkel will end up in a similar position after pushing though Russian gas pipeline #2 (NS2)

Russia has completely neutralitzed the EU through energy dependence. They have more power over the EU in that sense than OPEC ever had over the US and we were completely cowed in that era.

This short article offers wild opinions with no understanding of history or any meaningful analysis. The authors also clearly have an ideological axe to grind (I mean, come on… the CATO Institute?)

If there were any facts presented I’d say they lie, but since they’re just talking about a made up fairy tale, it’s only a silly piece of fiction. I feel stupid leaving a comment warning others.

Indeed, to write an article with "rise of transnational corporations" without a mention of East India company takes the cake for historically illiterate corporate propaganda.

Yes. It's also very US-centric.

China has four times the population of the US, a comparable GDP, and isn't finished industrializing yet. If anything, digital technologies have strengthened the nation-state in China. China used to be too big for detailed central government control. "The mountains are high and the emperor is far away." Today, high speed rail and networks cut through the mountains, and Beijing definitely is monitoring what's going on in the outer provinces.

Fifty years out, the US may be a comfortable but lagging backwater like the UK, living on memories of empire.

Not particularly thought-provoking or insightful.

Though it would be nice if IR/geopolitical thinkers finally incorporated (pun intended) corporations into their lenses.

The nation state fell into decline around the time the corporate trading companies came into being.

Digital technologies have simply side-stepped states "getting their fill" via tariffs, taxes, and such.

Supra-national organizations/NGOs "solve" international problems only in name. They're mostly there for the power-hungry to fill the power-vacuum in a new domain.

My disjointed thoughts.

"The nation state fell into decline around the time the corporate trading companies came into being."

Mind elaborating a bit? Not quite sure what you mean.

Not sure I agree - no company has surpassed the scale or power of the early modern ones like VOC.

The FAANGs might be getting closer by some measures, but thankfully still lacking in military strength.

> Supra-national organizations/NGOs "solve" international problems only in name.

The EU for its many faults has solved a lot of international problems - taking a fairly hard line on the environment, workers' rights, privacy and monopolies.

That remains to be seen, particularly on the environment.

I tend to think of the following as "states-in-waiting" -- centrally organized groups that can fill political vacuums.

- Several large religions (Catholics, Mormons, certain Baptist conventions)

- Mexican drug cartels

- Several multinational corporations (though internal bureaucracies of many in F500 are stagnate and wouldn't respond quickly to a power vacuum)

- Certain sub-divisions of governments (in the US: states, large municipalities, military bases, land managers)

- Certain volunteer organizations, like Civilian Air Patrol, Girl/Boy Scouts

These organizations have strong hierarchy, clear incentive constructs to align to their mission, and can typically respond quickly to external opportunities.

Books like Dies the Fire by S.M. Stirling walk through sort of an uber-case of this kind of scenario from a scifi/fantasy perspective. And that another organization fills a void is not crazy -- we've seen it in history (Catholic -> Roman empire, post-American revolution, KKK and fraternal orders like Masons/Elks post-US civil war, several places in the Philippines, France, and others in response and following WWII occupation, and so forth).

Power is slippery. There is no divine right to it. People do well when it is held stably and respected for what it is. People do poorly when it is mismanaged, and will tend to support the strongest claim when there is a vacuum.

The article is interesting but what stood out for me was the Pairagraph format.

I’m a big fan of that format - the idea of two experts having a well-considered back and forth on a complex topic. Pairagraph reminds me of the evolved child of twitter and medium.

I like the format as well, but I'm having trouble understanding what Mr. Pueyo is an expert in.

The analysis is very questionable - Latin was not used to disseminate information as widely as possible, it was used to exclude common man from even being able to read the bible, and to keep the church in power and let them make up rules as they go.

This is why Protestantism has emerged, and wars have been fought over the issue.

As powerful as a catholic church was, it was never comparable to a nation state - it never had a standing army, the pope was regularly in conflict with various kings and didn't always come out on top.

Nothing on the list is new: East India Company was the original transnational corporation that had won wars against countries, supernational organizations like the League of Nations have existed for hundreds of years, and private currencies existed before bitcoin and blockchain.

Corporations will never supersede governments because they benefit from them. Governments bail out corporations every time they fuck up - and I am not talking about 2008, the British Empire bailed out East India Company in 1857 when they pissed off everyone in India and could not deal with a rebellion, US bailed out the coal companies in 1921 when they executed several miners for unionizing and miners started shooting back.

Most folks clamoring decline of a nation state seem to know nothing about past experiments in private policing, private currencies, private armies and others. Inevitably someone starts fighting back, or a natural disaster strikes, and then companies run for protection of a nation state.

To put a line under it all, nation states have armies and people willing to die for them, I have never met anyone willing to die for Wallmart, and I don't think I will.

It's not just once-in-a-decade bailouts, nation-states have all the responsibilities no one wants. "Superseding them" is jumping in front of a bullet

The analysis is also questionable - Latin was used to disseminate information as widely as possible because Rome was based on Latin. It was used because of the expense of paper/time and the fact it required a lifetime to copy slowly by hand.

After the Roman Empire, the Church worked to translate it into the working language of the common man so they could all have access in the local church where it was stored. Education levels at the time were low so few could read…

I am not a religious scholar, but from all the reading I've done it appears that translating the bible was considered heresy, and punished harshly.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/02/23/bible-translators/

https://www.virgosacrata.com/vernacular-bible-translations.h...

Keep in mind that much of the Bible was originally written in Greek. (Well, that and Hebrew.) So that translation into Latin was originally an a16y feature.

> the Church worked to translate it into the working language of the common man

No it didn't; the translation was specifically a Protestant project. The Catholic Church kept services in English until the mid-20th century.

Your statement regarding Latin fails to account for the phenomenal expense of books, copying, and distribution.

The total production of individual manuscripts as of the 12th century in all of Europe was under 1 million. There are over that many titles printed each year today. A single book would have cost the equivalent of about a half-million to a million dollars, much of that in the calfskin hide for the vellum alone (there's a reason palimpsests were so common), let alone the scribe labour. The University of Paris had a library ~1200 with 2000 total volumes. A slightly bookish household today could easily top that count.

Books were written in Latin because it was less expensive, and less error-prone, to bring the reader to the book (teaching scholars Latin) than to bring the book to the reader (by translating it into the vernacular).

Gutenberg utterly changed the economics of print media, with implications that shook Europe (and the rest of the world) for centuries. See Elizabeth Eisenstein's The Book as an Agent of Change for that story.

Only tangentially related, HN's favorite historian wrote about the concept of nation state a few month ago: https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-...

I agree with others that hard power - the monopoly on violence possessed by states - is a big stumbling block to visions of declining state power. I think however that hard power is more brittle than we appreciate.

The US military runs on technology. It seems as if the defense sector is struggling compared to the past to release new hardware, to say nothing of software. I think that's in part related to the salaries offered by defense contractors, which have not kept pace with industry. Defense contractors used to pay very well; now they are second tier at best. Why build weapons for less when you can build apps for more? Less moral compromise and better pay.

I doubt a privatized defense sector would be allowed. But by siphoning talent from the defense industry with better pay the technology industry could come to an arrangement with the state that constrained the state's ability to use hard power against tech.

Defense is already private - the government doesn't own Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, etc. (Only speaking for the US - I don't know about defense in other countries).

I know Amazon, Microsoft, Intel, etc have current projects working directly with the state (Not sure if Google has one, haven't kept up with that saga). There's no "tech/hard power" duality - they all have projects for, and exist in the framework of, the State's monopoly on violence.

The "tech" the state doesn't have a lock down on appears to be weak tech - the stuff that doesn't even really qualify as tech. If it can be used to make weapons, radios, high powered lasers, etc., the state has a direct line to the largest commercial operators, and has its own labs as well (AFRL, FFRDCs, etc).

There is no "division" between "hard tech" and the state. The only people who seem to think so...probably build web apps and call it "tech".

My use of the term privatized means a defense sector that can sell its weapons to anyone who can pay for them. I think that's far-fetched.

Rather I'm arguing that the person capable of building hard tech might be lured to build dumb tech if the pay is better. Some people do it for patriotism, some for the challenge, but some just do it for the money.

My use of the term privatized means a defense sector that can sell its weapons to anyone who can pay for them.

Been reading Major Barbara?

CUSINS. What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer?

UNDERSHAFT. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman, to black man, white man and yellow man, to all sorts and conditions, all nationalities, all faiths, all follies, all causes and all crimes.

Somehow DAOs remind me of hives in "Terra Ignota".

But in the books, they still had Europe as one nation state left. The rest was consolidated into a handful hives, virtual nations with specific agendas.

I can only hope so. This is a problem that has been on my mind for well over two decades.

I want to create a technology that will directly assist in the overthrow of every existing nation state. I would see each replaced with a smaller coalitions of independent states. Repeat until we get down to relatively local government. Any larger state should exist only as an emergent property of said local governments.

Ideally, this transition would be orderly and peaceful, but that’s not strictly necessary at this point. I would gladly suffer a period of violent anarchy than continue to suffer the global tyranny that currently defines human existence.

Unfortunately, I expect this comment does not reflect the majority view and will summarily be downvoted here. The governments of the world continue to provide either enough “bread and circuses” to placate those populations capable of such an uprising, or they already have implemented sufficiently overbearing authoritarian polices (e.g. gun confiscation, restrictions on speech) that it will never be an issue.

A lot of harm in US is caused by some states having abysmal standard of law in some domains. A lot of people would benefit if there were federal standards introduced in those domains.

Power must be smart. Making it more distribute doesn't make it smart. It makes it smarter in some places and dumber in others.

And since people don't choose smarter people for their leaders, just louder ... Smart leaders are rare.

It's better to draw people to become leaders from larger pool of people and let them govern more people.

I do not believe that any nation's constitution or government was designed to handle modern communication, polarization, encryption, privacy, and other technological issues. And that, judging by the increased polarization in the United States and elsewhere, I expect further division to occur. Some blame social media for this, but I think that blaming social media alone is a very narrow view of recent events.

I expect that this division will start manifesting itself with defiance in the political sphere than actual violence. An example of this on the left was with sanctuary cities in defiance of ICE and the Police stand-down over CHAZ/CHOP in Seattle. An example of this on the right would be the creatively-designed abortion ban in Texas and Texas's announcement that they are building a border wall themselves, or the announcement they will not enforce and will actively try to prevent enforcement of OSHA vaccine/testing requirements.

In both cases, you have states increasingly acting in defiance or in a passive-aggressive noncompliance with the Federal government, and I expect this trend to continue.

Polarization was very much a thing before modern tech.

Religious wars were very ideologically polarized. So was the U.S. about the question of slavery.

Early Medieval Byzantium had massive violent riots of polarized citizen factions that stemmed from ... chariot race fanclubs. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

Modern tech can polarize us again precisely because we (collectively) have the mental "receptors" for polarizing ideas.

It took less then 2 days to shutdown chaz/chop once it became politically feasible to do so.

As soon as those 2 kids were shot (1 killed) in the jeep by chop's security and the whole thing was caught on surveillance footage [1] it was over. It's hard to watch that footage and come away with "yeah lets keep this exactly the way it is".

[1] https://youtu.be/_K0tXOBPMHA - 12th and Pine in Seattle if you want to lookup the area on google maps.

No. Why? Men with guns.

That's not a particularly persuasive answer. Men with guns have killed nation states before, and digital technologies have influenced men with guns.

Right answer. Wrong reason.

Conventional armed might grows much more slowly than does economic productivity and trade. The relationship and relative power have shifted. "Men with guns" and "killing a nation state" that has a modern economy is a fantasy.

This is not to say there is no reason why the fantasy persists: Men with poor social and economic prospects will harbor that fantasy. But they are powerless, and guns will not change that. It just makes their fantasy uglier when they try to make it real.

Guerrilla warfare stands a real chance to disrupt any nation state. Do not discount a bunch of men with guns.

That is not really very true and in most cases those men had support of another government. The idea of a guerilla revolution is mostly a fantasy since the invention of semi automatic weapons.

Men with guns are an important factor, but the question remains: where to send them, and with what orders.

Thus information is a critical factor. Doubly so because information generates the money used to pay the men and buy the guns.

Despite all the clueless politicians you see on tv the actual commanders of the people with the guns have a very clear idea of where the guns need to go and what to do when they get there. Civil power centers, production factories, shipping/trucking/train ports, power plants, water processing. That is where guns go all else is secondary.

The guns decide what money holds value in the first place. The best technology will ever do is play second fiddle to the guns. If you don't agree the guns will shoot you and now your opinions and tech don't matter. Also other people will fall in line once they see the guns doing their job.

> Decentralization, led by blockchain’s technology and ethos

Richard Stallmann, Sir Tim Berners-Lee (and Jimmy Wales ?) would probably like to have a word with this guy...

I believe Trump's administration ended the "globalisation project" by promoting China as the No1 US adversary. While Russia was the ideal "bad actor", China manufactures everything for everyone, so there's a catch-22[^1].

Similarly, the 10+ years EU German-driven austerity essentially killed social-democratic parties in Europe. The left did not come up strong (Podemos and Corbinstas did not manage to gain real power and Syriza capitulated), so all the gains went to alt-right (see Poland, Italy, Hungary, Greece, etc.). These alt-right parties are not pro-EU, by any stretch.

Tech is really good at categorising, quantifying, etc. If anything, the "nation state" can become over-reaching using these new technologies. I don't see how tech is weakening the nation state nor I see how the Catholic Church is a good analogy to the nation state. Maybe megacorps (directly or indirectly driving wars to take over resources scarce natural resources like, oil, lithium, cobalt, etc.) would be a better analogy.

[^1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18 - Australia's Defence Policy Explained (satirical)

So-called “free market” business relations already destroyed the western nation-state.

This analysis is shallow and relies far to much on history repeating rather than rhyming.

The Catholic Church's role in pre-Gutenberg Europe is not strictly analagous to a modern nation state, either in its power, or in the strengths, function, and interaction of the Church.

The Church itself had, as others note in this thread, few overt tools of force. Its principle weapons were ... no, not the Montey Python sketch litany, but faith, and control over education, banking, commerce, and political legitimacy. Above all, pre-Gutenberg Europe was a profoundly information-poor time. There was very little of it, what there was moved slowly with poor fidelity, and was subjected to only the very most limited of processing and analysis.

(In writing that paragraph, I'm realising of course that a future civilisation might look on my words and laugh at my inability to contemplate the possibility that information's future role won't be primarily for human consumption or comperhension but for that of machines, and yes, that's a possiblity that's worth keeping in mind. Let's stick to the human-scale for now.)

A human in Europe circa 1400 was most probably illiterate (even a fair number of nobility and merchants), had access only to village gossip, a town crier (the modern incarnation is the television presenter, or TikTok influencer), and weekly church service, which functioned as the key central information dissemination mechanism, among its other ritualistic roles. In business and politics, the presumption was that one sent an emissary, merchant, or general on a mission and they were incommunicado for weeks, months, or even years during which one had to rely on them to act in the interests of their monarch, investors, or empire. Looking over the florid and obseqious language of the time, I've come to feel that these expressions of loyalty and faith served principally as attestations of trust. (See James Beniger's Control Revolution (1986) for the evolution of communications in business and government over this period. https://archive.org/details/controlrevolutio0000unse/page/n5...)

(I'm not saying the system worked well. I'm saying it was the best that could be had.)

Today, at the human scale we are operating at near-total information saturation. Alvin Toffler's five-decade-old Future Shock is prescient and worth revisiting (I read it last year, for the first time), and makes many observations I think are on point.

Modern nation-states operate principally through a vastly expanded trade, a small set of military giants (the US, and the less-formidable but still daunting Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, amongst others) capable of force projection to any metre of the globe, and the ability to monitor activities, individuals, and organisations to an utterly unprecedented degree. Where trust exists, it's not in the autonomous behaviour of long-isolated agents, but of the couriers, curators, and guardians of information stores --- that they faithfully transmit, equitably allow access, and dont abuse positions of privilege in their own accumulation of and ability to divine insights from data, as well as to act in the common weal on such resources.

Another book also titled The Control Revolution, this one by Andrew L. Shapiro in 1999, addresses many of the risks of this world. Power devolves to points of control, and the ones Shapiro sees (and I tend largely to agree) are in commerce, finance, media and communications, and data storage. The one recent development Shapiro doesn't anticipate is the rise of machine-learning artificial intelligence, and the algorithmic processing of vast troves of data which this presents. I see these as shifts in the landscape of nation-states, but not an overturning of those states. The biggest challenge though may be to premises and foundations of liberal democracy, several of which are rather terrifying to contemplate.

Shapiro on the Net and politics: https://archive.org/details/controlrevolutio0000shap/page/15...

I wonder if a political party or movement could be constructed as a for profit e-gov tech corporation.

There are so many API's that still need to be written. We can do specs and have governments implement them but it would be much much easier if a single company created the API's for all countries.

Currently the qualification for e-gov is if a citizen obtained information from a government website.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/...

Not everything needs to be born out of need, we can do ambition too! Moldova did some fun stuff out of need. Corona created a lot of need.

We don't really want to be reading laws (specs) we much prefer good goal oriented documentation or a tutorial. It would be even more practical if we could feed the applicable laws into the application and have automatic constraints, updates and a warning in advance if new constraints are coming. All legal jurisdictions implemented the same way.

The instance can be configured for- and hosted by each customer government and the for profit corp can simply aggregate the API's and validate(!) If the government service returns different results loud alarms should go off.

A list could be made of possible modules (or saas products) governments could offer, they could pick the ones that seem useful to them and buy a quote that reflects the complexity of the laws involved in that jurisdiction.

If the budget is there a for profit could easily venture far outside politics and organize supply chains, payments, investments, training etc etc

Besides funds and products it some how needs to get the citizens involved in a legally binding way. The automation would inevitably end up choosing directions that may or may not fit our personal ideology. (There is a blurred line between what should quite obviously be automated and what should not.) Politics would be a highly limiting factor which seems to suggest there should be a market in delivering the limits to the politician and the voter.

The politician is also trying to construct something. While offering a similar api for the construction of laws seems a tad over ambitious it would be very helpful to provide them (and the voter) with existing implementations in other countries.

There is also an infinite amount of work to be done in gathering real time data and making useful visualizations.

Anyway, some practical ideas are needed and some hands on action rather than everyone observing the situation while pretending they cant do anything. Its our nation state and it will die only when we want it to.

The nation-state (in the sense of “Westphalian sovereigns”) will survive as long as (1) global capitalism survives, and (2) nation-states are convenient tools for the capitalist class to exercise power through while distracting from their own role.

So far, digital technology seems to be reinforcing both rather than undermining them, so the nation-state seems secure.

> nation-states are convenient tools for the capitalist class

I hate this kind of Marxist lazy explanations. For Marxists everything happens because of "the capitalist class". It sounds as lazy, ideological and ignorant as Christians explaining that all evil things happen because Adam and Eve ate an apple.

Truth is that the Westphalian sovereignty is actually a precious concept. It implies in itself the right to self determination for the peoples of some place. Yes, I know how much European Imperialism mocked that. But the idea is still there and it was powerful when dismantling the European empires on the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Regardless of how much the Marxist arrogance despises them, many classical liberal concepts such as Westphalian sovereignty, rule of the law and open societies are really precious achievements.

> For Marxists everything happens because of "the capitalist class".

No, for Marxists in the period of developing capitalism the main driving force was conflict between the capitalist class and the pre-capitalist aristocracy, and after that through the present the main driving force of change is the conflict between the capitalist class and the laboring class.

> Truth is that the Westphalian sovereignty is actually a precious concept.

“Precious” is subjective; it means nothing without qualifying to whom.

> It implies in itself the right to self determination for the peoples of some place.

It justifies itself that way, and yet is, in practice, the most formidable barrier to self-determination that exists in the modern world.

> Regardless of how much the Marxist arrogance despises them, many classical liberal concepts such as Westphalian sovereignty, rule of the law and open societies are really precious achievements.

Marxist theory doesn't despise them so much as despises the quasi-religious end-of-history view of them; classical Marxism views them as important steps of progress that nevertheless aren't the end of progress and must be transcended.

> For Marxists everything happens because of "the capitalist class". It sounds as lazy, ideological and ignorant as Christians explaining that all evil things happen because Adam and Eve ate an apple.

Are you asking people to debate with your "sounds"? Could you say the same thing about the germ theory of disease?

I get that you think Marxists are arrogant, lazy, ideological and ignorant and liberalism is precious, but as an argument it fails to convince.

I know Marxism/communism is supposed to create a union of the global proletariat that transcends nationalism, but has that ever actually got anywhere? Communist states seem to me just as fragmented and independent as any others. There was the eastern bloc dominated by the Soviet Union, sure, but that was straightforward imperialism enforced by military power. Similarly the Chinese hegemony over Tibet, Xinjiang etc seems straightforwardly imperialistic based on enthnographic domination. Marxist movements seem just as prone to factionalism and division as any other, if not more so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com