On one hand, I would like to see tech companies in my country (the USA) have access to all international markets, and vice-versa.
On the other hand, I understand why governments like China, USA, etc. would want to protect their local infrastructure and competitive advantages.
I listened to a good interview with Catherine Austin Fitts this morning and one of the topics she talked about was how corporations are becoming more relevant than governments. When I see how corporate (and I include the military industrial complex) interests have usurped control of my government I find it difficult to disagree with her viewpoint. Who knows what will happen in the next few years, but it will be interesting to see how much corporations publicly get in the face of governments who get in the way of their business interests. One example of this would be push back against central banks affecting the value of money, etc.
Well TTIP is intended to give corporations the Power of Profits (the governments can't impede the corporations' profit-making in many ways, such as stricter health regulations or whatever) over the governments of the world, so we're already rapidly heading in that direction.
On the other hand, I understand why governments like China, USA, etc. would want to protect their local infrastructure and competitive advantages.
From a humanistic perspective, I'm no more sympathetic to this arugment than I would be about protectionist measures enforced between neighboring states, provinces, cities, towns, or neighborhoods. The world gets smaller every year and that's a good thing in most respects.
I listened to a good interview with Catherine Austin Fitts this morning and one of the topics she talked about was how corporations are becoming more relevant than governments.
Governments murdered a hundred million of their own citizens in the twentieth century alone. I say let's give the corporations a turn.
(Yes, I'm being somewhat facetious. But like most snark there's a grain or two of reality behind it.)
There's a strong statist undercurrent on HN, which is somewhat hard to understand, as well as a low tolerance for trolling, which isn't. Sometimes telling the truth in an unexpected context is mistaken for trolling.
In general governments aren't exposed to the same criticisms as corporations, or held to the same standards, except when their actions directly impact IT and online rights (DRM, surveillance/security policies, and such.)
In general governments aren't exposed to the same criticisms as corporations, or held to the same standards, except when their actions directly impact IT and online rights (DRM, surveillance/security policies, and such.)
I don't think that's an accurate statement to make about HN. There are some high-karma users who seem to be very pro-government, and there's no doubt some astroturfing going on. But there is also a vocal population of people who want to see governments act in their people's interests and be accountable for their actions. It just so happens that, as an IT-focused community, HN talks about the IT aspects of government a lot more often.
But there is also a vocal population of people who want to see governments act in their people's interests
The problem is, it's becoming increasingly apparent (to me, at least) that this is motivation is not only ill-defined, but inherently self-contradictory. Those people are not going to get what they say they want, because it doesn't exist. Government is the ultimate zero-sum game: anything they give to someone, they have to take from someone else.
Ultimately, the only rational conclusion I've been able to reach is that the best government is the smallest one. Around here, saying so often gets one downmodded.
Ultimately, the only rational conclusion I've been able to reach is that the best government is the smallest one. Around here, saying so often gets one downmodded.
It could be because small government advocacy is often associated with dogmatic irrationality. Maybe there's a way to reword rational small-government arguments to make it more clear they have a rational, rather than dogmatic, basis?
It could also be because there's a path dependence issue; how does one actually get from where we are to where a particular argument wants us to be?
On one hand, I would like to see tech companies in my country (the USA) have access to all international markets, and vice-versa.
On the other hand, I understand why governments like China, USA, etc. would want to protect their local infrastructure and competitive advantages.
I listened to a good interview with Catherine Austin Fitts this morning and one of the topics she talked about was how corporations are becoming more relevant than governments. When I see how corporate (and I include the military industrial complex) interests have usurped control of my government I find it difficult to disagree with her viewpoint. Who knows what will happen in the next few years, but it will be interesting to see how much corporations publicly get in the face of governments who get in the way of their business interests. One example of this would be push back against central banks affecting the value of money, etc.