Not since the 60s and early 70s

I haven't seen this much chaos in the world since the 60s and early 70s. This is a great time to reassess what role government plays in the lives of Americans. It's an interconnected world, much moreso than in the 60s. Now, when one country has problems it affects more than just that particular country. Many countries have many serious problems, and we all feel it, but what role does our government need to play?

The tragedy in Japan was caused by nature, but many countries will respond, and many countries will be affected. Especially financially, we're all connected in the global economy. In a good way, we're connected culturally and emotionally. At one time, when we heard about a natural catastrophe, it didn't quite seem real, because foreign was actually foreign, but now we're familiar with Japan and Japanese culture. Through industry and technology, Japan seems to be next door as we watch the tragedy on many tvs that were made by a Japanese company, maybe even in a factory that's here in America which workers drive to in their Japanese-company-made car. Plus, in America, we are perhaps the most diverse country in the world, so there's a good chance our neighbor or co-worker is of Japanese origin.

You would think that in a global economy, if more countries were as diverse as America, we could place less emphasis on State power and identity and begin realizing the benefits of an interconnected world. This is a good time to head in that direction. As Saudi Arabia has its problems, as China struggles to become a nation more globally integrated, and as Russia continues to battle between old forces and new, and all over the world nations try to find their place in the midst of major change, it would be good if we were coming to a better understanding of interconnectedness, human similarities, cooperation, competition and peacful trade.

Most of the world's major problems, other than natural disasters, are caused by State leaders vying for political or religious power on an international stage, but State power and religious domination are of the past and don't belong in what's developing outside the power struggles among nation-states. The Communication/Technology Revolution has connected ordinary people in ways those of past generations could have never dreamed possible, and the great majority of the world's people don't seek State power. I would say that the great majority of the world's people much prefer peace and economic growth and enough prosperity to live comfortably. It's always been a simple fact that global interaction in peaceful trade is the best way for the whole world to become better off. It's a very negative statement about the human race that anyone anywhere suffers from hunger, abject poverty or curable diseases.

The knowledge and the resources are available for everyone in the world who wants to apply their labor in freedom and peace to live a comfortable life, yet there's still so much distress and unrest around the globe. Even in a wealthy country like the US, there are people fighting one another over matters that would appear ludicrous to a starving African. Which advanced nations will lead the way? At one time America saw herself as the nation taking the lead. The French have felt the same way, as have the British, the Germans, and those in the Ottoman Empire, or the Roman Empire. 

We (humans) have so much knowledge and technological expertise now, that it's insanity to be struggling against one another. At some point, hopefully soon, the people of the world will advance to the point where we can clearly see the futility of power-seeking between nation-states and realize that if we head in another direction, we can apply what we know to create something much more life-nourishing, something much more peaceful, compassionate and productive. America can be one of the leaders, again, but this time not as Internationa Directors of Progress, just free people with integrity showing how we do it and offering our help when we can.

Nation-states on trial

The bigger issue which hovers over the Egyptian revolution is the history of nation-states. Just in Egypt's history, Nasser's takeover in the 50s is just another Egyptian example of how nation-states have been controlling the lives of the world's population, but this sort of thing has happened all over the world for a long, long time. Nasser's rise to power was due to prior nation-state interventions and strategies of the most powerful nation-states to control the direction of the weaker states. Because Nasser was then a threat to the economic interests of Britain and France, they formed a secret plan with Israel to stage an Israeli invasion of Egypt which Britain and France would then enter to bring "stability", in other words, control. When Washington DC discovered the plot, they forced Britain's hand to remove forces, and in the meantime Russia was flexing its muscles as the protector of Egypt, although while all this was going on, Russia had crushed Hungary. This is just a brief overview of one incident to show how nation-states have manipulated, formed alliances, jockyed for power, repressed and in general fought for control and power, either widespread control and power or regional influence or brokered agreeements to share power. The people of the world have been at the mercy of the leaders of nation-state with little say regarding what they want.

In the Information Age, for better or for worse, we might be seeing the unraveling of nation-state control of the world's population. What will replace the nation-state control is unknown. What is also unknown is whether nation-states will feel threatened causing a word-wide crack down on rebellion and information flow. The most powerful nation-states have power and control to lose, and the weaker nation-states have protection and aid to lose. 

Libertarian Preparation Part 8: 21st Century Transformation

The Tower of Babel called the U.S. Government is teetering - systemically, it's set to fall. Once unhooked from limitations, it's raw power is anathema to a 21st century mindset that requires the sustenance of reason, transparency, flexibility, dynamism, de-centralization and non-intervention. Technology frees the world to interact in an information bonanza which trumps propaganda. Libertarian ideas become more attractive. Nation-states which could once control information, thus control its citizens, are now revealed to the world so that true comparisons can be made by those who once were captive to the ideas the states approved. In the U.S., people are no longer captive to the information disseminated by the major media outlets, or government. The unofficial information floating around on the internet can be accessed by anyone with a connection, and it's like being able to listen in on global conversations.

Where as once most people were dependent on information coming from government, which free thinkers rightly received with scepticism, now people can read the direct thought of other people from all regions-- a more natural conversation has developed. Psychologically, this begins to weaken national borders, allay fears of differences, better understand the differences and increase a common recognition of the connections that bind us. This should continue to have a dramatic effect on mobility and peaceful, free trade.

The nation-states will appear out of sync with this increasing freedom of information and global interaction, as they attempt to control the process and limit information, or spin it to their advantage. Interventionist governments will be seen as the problem rather than the solution, when the global connections become more natural and mutually beneficial at the level of people to people, individual to individual. If governments aren't promoting global interaction and free trade, they will be seen as petty and reactionary, attempting to protect power, resticting a movement that seems inevitable and positive. The human connection which happened through Twitter during the Iran protest made clear the difference between people-to-people and government-to-government or government-to-people. The governments were involved in political games and strategy while the people from both countries were simply talking to one another -- the common participants were ridiculed by the political-thinkers as being naive and politically unsophisticated, but they, the people, understood what motivated them - the unofficial human connection.

When you begin to talk about the "people" you run the risk of being framed as a pitchfork-waving populist, anti-intellectual, whining about the elite's patronizing treatment of the unwashed masses, but the transformation I'm suggesting makes the old, silly battle of elites vs the common folk obsolete. As more and more people receive information, and technology creates a brain-economy of specialization and new rules of the game, the old divisions don't make any sense -- they are only useful in the political realm. The transformation is taking place outside the political realm. If there's a division, it's between governments of nation-states, along with their special interest dependents, including anti-capitalist coporations dependent on government protection, and the connected, technologically astute who are moving toward transparency, flexibility, direct communication, de-centralization and global interaction below, or above, or outside, the nation-state propaganda. 

Free trade of goods, services, ideas and culture are the future and I don't think state reactions and attempts to control the movement will stop it. In a very real way, the movement is apolitical, and this might be a cause of the rise in the numbers of independents. I believe this movement will lessen the need for people of different cultures to fight and kill one another -- war will not make sense at a human to human level. The old national concepts will not hold up to the movement toward human connections, abolished boundaries and free flowing information. Libertarian ideas are consistent with this transformative movement and powerful nation-states bent on central control are inconsistent with it. This movement is a great example of spontaneous order.

The movement also opens up the possibility of free zones created around the world where people can avoid central control. This possibility has been discussed -- seasteading and capitalist centers such as Hong-Kong, and such. I predict that statism and the new, technologically-inspired, information movement will clash and people will begin seeing the state for what it's become, overbearing nannyism, and that there will be a push to limit state power to the orginal responsibilities. Younger people will better undertsand spontaneous order, because they've been raised participating in the basically uncontrolled development of the internet and its amazing organic growth. When this principle is applied to the global economy, the beauty of the connections will be understood in a deeper way, and libertariansim could be the philosophical underpinning to provide the framework for understanding. Yes, these are my predictions, and it may be a long time in coming, if it even happens -- back in 1996, Peter Pitsch wrote a book, The Innovation Age, in which he made some of the same predictions:

 Although the societal transformations that are occuring are profound and knowledge-driven, it would be a mistake to view them as discrete, predictable, or a ontime phenomenon. Rather, the defining feature of this new era will be continuing and accelerating change. Thus, the Information Age could be more appropriately termed the "Innovation Age". The new era of change will be increasingly complex and uncertain, dynamic and unpredictable. Standard "statis" economic analyssis will become less useful. Understanding and living with this era of change will require us to come to terms with the resulting complexity and dynamism.

That was 13 years ago and government still resists complexity and dynamism, but not without consequences. Government's attempts to deal with the complexity and uncertainty are working against spontaneous order, creating consequences which they address with more tinkering, which causes more consequences, thus more tinkering, until now we begin to see the loop in which they're caught and a dangerous spiral downwards. I predict that this will change as people begin to realize that government is a major cause of our crises, and that a better understanding of spontaneous order will develop -- not a spontaneous order of dog-eat-dog, but a morally inspired freedom which addresses societal problems as we go along the dynamic, ever-changing path to the future. 

It's actually a more natural, organic way to live, but natural in the sense that reason and compassion are natural manifestations of thinking human beings. Greed and violence and power-mongering are also realities, but reason and history show us this is not the way to the future, that if all of us are free to act without fear of coercion, with our basic rights protected, we work together and build wonderful things -- we innovate and find ways to progress without destroying one another. We know this is possible.