The state is the primary means by which wealth is siphoned from the public to private interests. You see it with lobbyists, Covid scams, politicians amassing millions on a 200,000 salary. The state is the enemy. If tech companies (and technology generally) are stripping power from the state, so be it. In 100 years we’ll look back at the carcass of the nation state the way we do the Catholic Church.
Wow. I feel the complete opposite. The state is the only thing that can fix things like climate change. Public companies cannot have ethics, they only focus on profits.
Not all are created equal. I do get the impression that the Nordic states maintain responsible governance and generally have a vested interest in the success of their people. But most Western states are a malignant plague of cronyism and theft with no hope of recovery. We are genuinely in the phase “steal as much as you can before the show is over”. Taxes will continue to rise, austerity will increase, and the state will oversee the continued transfer of wealth from the public to its corrupt benefactors.
Profits mean providing value to individuals. People more and more are valuing sustainability and spending their money to buy sustainable products. It might not be happening where you are yet, but in Seattle there are huge markets for plastic free goods, compostable packaging, farmers markets and locally sourced foods.
You seem to be suggesting that without the state companies would find it harder to extract wealth from the people. I really can't understand why this would be the case?
Any sufficiently large company could simply build their own private army and enforce whatever "law" they wanted. Essentially, this would result in a Mafia society which would seem way worse (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia).
No offense but this feels like a politically immature opinion. You could say "this implementation of the state". I also believe that the "less state, the better". But what about a state that is controlled by council composed of worker and citizen councils? Those types of states would explicitly NOT transfer wealth from public to private interests, since private property would not exist.
Liberal Nation States + Capitalist Corporations are kind of the same evil in different clothing. They are undemocratic. You either have capital and control the corporation, or you don't. You either have political capital and control the state and its violent mechanisms of control, or you don't.
> If tech companies (and technology generally) are stripping power from the state, so be it.
Could you explain to me what you think the difference would be between:
1. Living in an authoritarian city where the state has total control over your day-to-day life.
2. Living in an authoritarian company town where the company has total control over your day-to-day life.
(If your response is "the free market" please explain why we wouldn't just see anti-competitive behavior between the corporations in order to mutually supress workers and consolidate their control?)
I would say the main difference between (1) and (2) is the nature of the compulsion.
If my company town sucks and I’m talented, I can find a better company town.
But with the state, such agency is either high friction or downright impossible to achieve. For instance, if Im American living abroad, I still am required to file my taxes to the American state, even if my life and employment has nothing to do with my place of birth.
A company town never gains that much power.
I have a question for you, regarding
> I also believe that the "less state, the better". But what about a state that is controlled by council composed of worker and citizen councils?
Is this a system like in ancient Athens, where regular folk were basically selected at random to serve in govt for a rotation? I like it! But, I don’t understand how this system precludes private property.
> If my company town sucks and I’m talented, I can find a better company town.
What's stopping the company from hiring a private police force to prevent you from leaving?
> For instance, if Im American living abroad, I still am required to file my taxes to the American state, even if my life and employment has nothing to do with my place of birth.
I think you are looking at current systems as they exist and claiming that these are inherent properties of states/corporations. There is a broad spectrum of corporation. You could have a company that is a dual partnership between owners, or a corporation in a social democracy that is compelled to "behave well" by a strong liberal government. On the opposite extreme, you could also have the Dutch East India company which was basically a colonial administration with as much power as a state. The subjects of the VOC were equally as oppressed (if not more) as someone living under totalitarian state control.
There is no inherent benefit that corporate control has over state control. I think the metric to look at is how democratic the implementation of a system is. Sure corporate control of your life might have less friction in its current iteration, but what if they gain more control?
> Is this a system like in ancient Athens, where regular folk were basically selected at random to serve in govt for a rotation? I like it! But, I don’t understand how this system precludes private property.
I was thinking more along the lines of Russia after the abdication of the Tsar, prior to Boleshevik takeover. Worker's councils (soviets) controlled their factory, and a council of soviets controlled each region. The Supreme Soviet was basically a top-level council. There is no private property because the "means of production" was controlled democratically by a council of workers.
I'm not saying this was a good system of governance (it collapsed almost immediately when faced with a centralized force), but I am just giving a counter-example to the statement that "the state is meant to move public funds into private control". That statement needs some qualifiers since there are many different examples of states.
I think that a more universal description would be "the state controls the distribution of wealth (or power)". This can either be the distribution of wealth from many to few, or few to many.
