31–40 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May i recommend Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong?
I'm sorry, but Uncle Enzo and I go way back, and I couldn't do that to him -- not after I already promised him I'd go to the job fair coming up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're saying the quiet part out loud... it's supposed to be the arbiter of civil rights, fairness, and enablement, with the convenient side effect of enriching a very small group of people who actually pull the strings
>it's supposed to be the arbiter of civil rights, fairness, and enablement, with the convenient side effect of enriching a very small group of people who actually pull the strings so the ends justify the means? Even the premise is wrong
edit: That also includes being stable against competing systems. A utopia that is conquered in 5 minutes and replaced with a dystopia is not a utopia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May i recommend Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong?
I'm sorry, but Uncle Enzo and I go way back, and I couldn't do that to him -- not after I already promised him I'd go to the job fair coming up.
To stop that would be incredibly disruptive.
Thats not to say it won't happen (history has plenty of examples. WWI is a recent one).
However for the "end of shipping" to happen we need those vested interests to stop being interested in literal trillions of dollars worth of trade.
I can see a few scenarios where that happens, but russian embargoes isnt one of them. China attacking Taiwan, perhaps. Again there is a huge amount of rich people who don't really want that to happen, both inside and outside of china.
Again, this isn't to say that Xi isn't stupid enough to try.
Interesting to combine this line of thinking with the transition from nation-states to market-states: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1744057060106386... The power vacuum that's arisen from populism & isolationism is about to create a gigantic untapped market for firms that provide the services of a state - defense, dispute resolution, and currency - for a fee, to gigantic multinational corporations. At t…
That's all government has ever been and will always be: a protection racket.
The US gains a lot through its ability to project power anywhere on Earth (including shipping). It's part of the total package that makes the US dollar the reserve currency for the world. There are simply too many vested interests in that status quo for the US to go full on isolationalist (aka "deglobalization").
Even if they do, China will step in to fill the void. This possibility alone will keep the US in the picture as it won't want to cede that ground.
What I really hope is with US foreign policy the left hand starts recognizing what the right hand is doing. For example, there is need for maritime esecurity in large part because of the regions the US has directly or indirectly destabilized to serve other goals.
Russia is of course the bad guy for invading Ukraine but the US sure did leave a lot of dry kindling lying around on a hot windy day (and is then shocked that a wildfire happened).
Take security around the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is a key US ally and is using US weapons to commit genocide on the Yemenese people and those that don't die from weapons are getting starved out by famine.
Maybe there wouldn't be such a need for maritive security if the US had a different foreign policy.
Interesting to combine this line of thinking with the transition from nation-states to market-states: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1744057060106386... The power vacuum that's arisen from populism & isolationism is about to create a gigantic untapped market for firms that provide the services of a state - defense, dispute resolution, and currency - for a fee, to gigantic multinational corporations. At t…
> Might we see the nation-state get replaced by a web of competing mercenaries, each of which effectively serves as a protection racket for their customers? How do you envision the deprecation of the nuclear-armed nation state unfolding? The USSR had a unipolar world outside to stabilize and manage its disintegration. How is this accomplished in a multipolar context, with tensions inflamed by intensifying scarcity, c…
I don't see nuclear-armed nations using private companies, but possibly being the source of troops and technology. Really I don't see U.S. citizens joining mercenary groups, quality of life is too good. I would imagine 2nd world nations like Russia, Iraq being the main source of these troops, backed by cheap advanced armaments from China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Might we see the nation-state get replaced by a web of competing mercenaries, each of which effectively serves as a protection racket for their customers? How do you envision the deprecation of the nuclear-armed nation state unfolding? The USSR had a unipolar world outside to stabilize and manage its disintegration. How is this accomplished in a multipolar context, with tensions inflamed by intensifying scarcity, c…
I would imagine that this would first manifest itself in smaller countries. For example Mali employs the Wagner group out of Russia as a supplement for its Army. And I believe they are used by other countries as well. I don't see nuclear-armed nations using private companies, but possibly being the source of troops and technology. Really I don't see U.S. citizens joining mercenary groups, quality of life is too good.…
Russia is using Wagner Group in Ukraine. Does that count as a private company?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all government has ever been and will always be: a protection racket.
> a protection racket. A racket implies they're 'protecting' you from themselves. I don't think that's true. If protection isn't important to you, you can give Somalia a try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all government has ever been and will always be: a protection racket.
> a protection racket. A racket implies they're 'protecting' you from themselves. I don't think that's true. If protection isn't important to you, you can give Somalia a try.