The kind of constitutional order I refer to when I say ‘the nation state’ is really only a little more then 100 years old. In my country it comes together with Lincoln and the reform of our constitution brought about by the civil war. In Europe it comes in with Bismarck and the change from the imperialist states like Britain and France that dominated the 19th century to the nation states that dominated the 20th. The constitutional order is defined by the promise, the covenant it makes, in exchange for power. It might say ‘give me power because my father had it.’ Right? ‘Give me power because the College of Cardinals has it to give and they’ve elected me.’ Fine. Constitutional order for the 20th century said ‘give us power and we will improve your material well-being.’ FDR said that, Joseph Stalin said it, Lloyd George said it, Adolph Hitler said it – they differed in how they got there. That was the fundamental policy.

We live in market states; we don’t live in nation states now. And I think you can see a transition beginning from the kind of constitutional order we had in the 20th century into a new form in the 21st century, and these are the reasons why, or a few of the reasons why:

A global system of communications that prevents any nation state from governing its culture, because it penetrates every society.

An international system and trade and finance that prevents any state from determining the value of international currency.

A system of international human rights that pre-empts any state’s national laws. The reason why Milosovich was tried was not because he violated Yugoslav or Serbian law.

Transnational threats like AIDS and SARS or climate change
And terrorism itself, that no state can hide from, and it leapfrogs national borders no matter what you do.

And finally the commodification of weapons of mass destruction, where crucial components can either be sold or bartered on the clandestine market or simply downloaded from the internet, a DNA starter-kit.

And the sort of signature, the trace, where you might see a trace in a cloud (…) to see what an electron does, the traces of this new order I believe you can see even today. You can see it here in Britain. When states go from reliance on law and regulation so characteristic of the nation state to deregulating not only industries but also women’s reproduction. When they move from conscription to an all-volunteer force, when states … you saw the top-up fees for college tuitions, you see it in America with welfare reform, when we go from direct transfers and workmen’s compensation to providing skills to enter the labour market, in all of these instances you are seeing the beginnings of a change in which the state says ‘give us power and we will maximise your opportunity. What you do with it that’s up to you. We will not assure you quality and we will not assure you steadily improving security, but the total wealth of the society will be maximised by these steps and that will improve opportunity.’ Now different cultures will do this differently. Some will have thicker safety nets then others, some will act in regions as Europe well may, others will be more entrepreneurial and act individually. And over time states may try more then one way of being a market state. But that’s the basic concept, and it’s a concept that Robert Cooper calls a post-modern state, people call it other things, but it rests upon the fundamental idea that the nation state has died but the state is doing very well thank you and has no intention of going away.

On 2010-12-13 18:13, Davit Sicseek wrote:

But, in terms of the states legitimacy stemming from ‘give us power and we will maximise your opportunity - is he right?

Of course, the market state requires less taxation - but in order to 'maximise opportunity' will still need to tax. So rather than the contest between nation states of which method of oraganising their states is best (fascism, communism, liberal democracy). In the future I see some potentially interesting developments as the market states compete amongst each other to determine how this opportunity can be best maximised. What level of taxation is the optimal level? How should that money be spent?

So market states will take over from nation states? What is a market state in this context, because I'm not clear on the terminology. Is it like the NAFTA group of nations, or the Eurozone?

On 2010-12-14 10:55, gdw wrote:

That being said, I imagine many WOULD agree that, to a point, the state should not be telling us what we can and cannot do with ourselves. Does anyone think the state should be the one's telling us what we can and cannot eat?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michelle......nutritio

On 2010-12-14 11:02, Destiny wrote:
she is saying if the government is going to pay for the food - they should pay for good food.

On 2010-12-14 11:29, Marlin1894 wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-14 11:02, Destiny wrote:
she is saying if the government is going to pay for the food - they should pay for good food.

Interesting. She want's to regulate the food in schools, but I have yet to hear anyone suggest restrictions on what can and cannot be purchased with food stamps. Soda, Ice Cream, Chips, TV Dinners etc are all elibible for food stamps. If health and obesity are issues for the taxpayer because of potential higher health care costs, and lower health of people in general, and if the taxpayers are paying for the food... Shouldn't they pay for good food?

Try floating that one out there and see what happens.

On 2010-12-14 11:33, Dannydoyle wrote:

Umm not so long gone. I live in a part of the country where you can still have a butcher show up in a special truck and butcher a hog, cow or whatever for you. Many local farms for dairy as well as for veggies. It is not that tough to do in many parts of America still.

On 2010-12-14 11:41, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-14 11:33, Dannydoyle wrote:

Umm not so long gone. I live in a part of the country where you can still have a butcher show up in a special truck and butcher a hog, cow or whatever for you. Many local farms for dairy as well as for veggies. It is not that tough to do in many parts of America still.

I understand, but for many people (I suspect most, though I have no figures to back that up - I am thinking about people living downtown in large urban centers) it is not really doable. Perhaps as a treat once in a while they can visit a 'local' farm (which might be an hour or two away), but I think not very often for most urban dwellers. Much of our food now comes from large production factory farms, which are typically located quite a distance from most big cities. Where I live, there is one guy who was recently in the news for having a truck operation like you describe. And it was big news, because he is the only one around.

On 2010-12-14 11:29, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-14 10:55, gdw wrote:

That being said, I imagine many WOULD agree that, to a point, the state should not be telling us what we can and cannot do with ourselves. Does anyone think the state should be the one's telling us what we can and cannot eat?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michelle......nutritio

As Destiny already pointed out, you misunderstood the article.

However, besides that, the days when most of us could grow all of our own food or buy it all from local farmers we knew and trusted are long gone. It's good that some agency regulates and oversees the food industry. Or else you would have stories like these happening regularly in the U.S. and Canada:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew......als.html

http://www.physorg.com/news184484149.html

On 2010-12-14 12:25, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-14 11:29, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-12-14 10:55, gdw wrote:

That being said, I imagine many WOULD agree that, to a point, the state should not be telling us what we can and cannot do with ourselves. Does anyone think the state should be the one's telling us what we can and cannot eat?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michelle......nutritio

As Destiny already pointed out, you misunderstood the article.

However, besides that, the days when most of us could grow all of our own food or buy it all from local farmers we knew and trusted are long gone. It's good that some agency regulates and oversees the food industry. Or else you would have stories like these happening regularly in the U.S. and Canada:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew......als.html

http://www.physorg.com/news184484149.html

From the second article:
"[this] highlights the challenges of policing the food supply in a country where close ties between local authorities and companies hamper regulation . . ."

Does this not describe EXACTLY what goes on with pretty much all attempts to regulate things in north america? Though the ties are not {just} on the local level, but far more entrenched on the federal level.