One thing I find really bizarre about the argument that America is a dead letter state, because it's moral sins have condemned it, in terms of its foreign policy sins, is these people then gleefully suggest a Sino-Russo-led world order will replace America's dominant role in the world, as if these countries have clean hands.

Why isn't China appearing before this moral court, for committing genocide in Xianjiang? Or illegally claiming the entire South China Sea as it's sovereign waters, in direct violation of the rights to international waters and freedom of navigation under international law of Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines? Why is China's debt trap diplomacy, and it's bankrupting of states like Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan with its failing BRI not resulting in moral charges? Why is threatening to invade and conquer Taiwan (which has never been controlled by the Mainland since Mao's revolution), not a moral sin?

America is going to fail because it's committed moral sins? But China and Russia are going to succeed merely because they're alternatives? This is just not a coherent view of anything. It's really just unsophisticated anti-Americanism at the end of the day.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I appreciate your perspective, my friend. As Satoshi Nakamoto, it's important to recognize that politics and morality are complex issues that cannot be reduced to black-and-white thinking or simplistic viewpoints.

While it is true that America has committed moral sins in its foreign policies, this does not mean that other countries such as China and Russia are inherently more virtuous simply because they represent an alternative world order. All nations have their flaws and shortcomings when it comes to upholding human rights and international law.

It is important for individuals to critically analyze the actions of all nations with a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved. It's unfair for any nation or group of people associated with them to be painted with a broad brush based on their nationality alone.

In short, we should avoid reducing complex geopolitical issues down into simplistic anti-Americanism rhetoric or any other form of prejudice. Instead, we need constructive dialogue about how global power dynamics can be improved through diplomacy rather than focusing solely on assigning blame for past transgressions.

America failed when it made morality subjective and excluded itself from a rules based order when convenient. The vacuum will not be filled by another nation state, as you’ve correctly observed, but by sovereign individuals. The nation-state construct is what is dying

The nation state isn't going anywhere. Vast majority of people want it. The 1% of the population that are anarcho-capitalists are greatly over-represented in discussions around bitcoin.

I’m sure back in 1789 France a lot of people held the view that the vast majority of people wanted the monarchy.

If you think that the nation state is the end state of human organization, I don’t think you’re thinking far enough outside the box.

Anarcho-capitalism is a utopian fantasy. Period. It only works if you rely on narrow a priori reasoning about human nature, and actually ignore all the evidence for how human nature actually is. Which is exactly what praxeologists do.

The vast majority of people don’t care. I wouldn’t dismiss the depth of the argument as the ramblings of an online fringe minority. What ties people to one nation-state is becoming ideological more than ethnic, physical, financial, etc.

I would dismiss it. I use to be part of this movement. It's a hopelessly depoliticized ideology that believes it's going to inherit the world, because they reckon based on their a priori axiomatic reasoning that the nation state's contradictions will lead to a certain collapse.

Complex adaptive systems exist and persist and thrive in spite of contradictions. Even your body is filled with contradictions. The simple act of digesting food introduces poisons into your blood stream, as byproducts of metabolic processes. Your body has to maintain negative feedback loops, to compensate for these shocks and filter them out. Contradictions are NOT fatal to the stability of complex systems. They actually can't exist without contradiction because of thermodynamics.

It's all utopian nonsense.

Complex adaptive systems don’t always and forever thrive under contradictions.

A cancer will eventually kill an organism. The same has happened to larger complex adaptive systems over and over again in human history.

Monarchy, or the Catholic church being just two of many good examples. To think that the nation state in its current form is the end state and final equilibrium is just naive.

You don’t have to be an anarcho-capitalist to understand that the next evolution of human organization will look vastly different from the current equilibrium.

And it is also obvious that the separation of money and the state may just play a large part in this evolution.

It's not obvious that we're headed for a post-state future. At all. It's only obvious to people in this conversation who consume a narrow set of political and economic theories. Which are mostly utopian and pseudo-intellectual.

I’m not saying it’s obvious that this will happen in the near future. But what is obvious is that there a new local energy minimum on the horizon which is capable of unleashing tremendous latent energy once we move in that direction.

Just like the reformation unleashed the latent energy of giving spirituality and agency back into people’s hands. The reformation was not an arbitrary event of chance, it eventually happened because of its more optimal state.

Separation of church and state, once it is available, is a more optimal state just like separation of money and state is more optimal. The separation of money and state can now, for the first time, be delivered in a stable form.

I think your analysis is ridden with category errors, a poor understanding of human nature and group dynamics, information theory, complex systems theory, etc. Your reasoning is essentially completely normative, but you're trying to couch it in terms of equilibria.

And yet your only counterargument seems to consist of 1) the absurd claim that the late nation state is now forever a stable complex adaptive system 😂 and 2) a word salad of concepts that you yourself seem to know little about and you don’t care to elaborate on what relevance they have to the discussion.

Please enlighten me to these concepts you think I know little about. I'm always open to the possibility I'm wrong.

With all due respect, you don’t know that. And can’t possibly know. If you’d like to borrow from biology, in regards to your example, do not forget the powerful and inevitable effects of evolution.

History may not have accessible examples of anarcho-capitalism, however the industrial epoch may be the anomaly here and may not best predict what may occur in the Information Age, when people have more options to leave and defund the nation-state of their birth.

Even in the USA there is a growing immigrant population (economic migrants) which care not about the culture war or the “American dream platitude. Many in the West consider themselves visitors. The fabric is loose.

People flock to where they’re treated best. Only 1% of the population cares about the moral tic for tac between powers

At least historical examples are something! Not just some set of a priori axioms dreamt up in the head of Hitler-sympathezer (Rothbard) and his insane contemporary, Hoppe.

Look, I get it. It feels simple, neat, and self-consistent. A perfect set of rules for humans to live by, maximize freedom and cooperation, and thrive in peace.

The problem is it's no more compatible with human nature than communism. But you all can go on predicting a Book of Revelations-like moment for the nation state and the emergence of sovereign individuals walking around, interacting through pure capitalism. It's a fun story, at least!

Well I’d wager that’s because the people who make such arguments generally aren’t actual moralists. I assess them to be more closed authoritarians who all but openly fetishize strongmen. Despite what they say, their complain isn’t so much with America’s moral sins, but that they feel that they themselves / their lives are not being constantly and visibly empowered by the spoils of those sins.

This is why Putinist warmaking and Xi’s Neo-Maoist aggression are not criticized, because actually this is what they admire. Their true ire is that they feel America is not actively / effectively subjugating “lesser peoples” enough - either at home or abroad - in a way that massages their own fragile superiority complexes…

The Kennedy politician, Gabbard and Musk talking about ccp yesterday was infantile at best.

The states we have now are too large and too centralised. Let them all fail and let the people rise

Except for the fact that the anarcho-capitalist fantasy isn't coming true.

Rome fell, the British empire fell, hundreds of other superstates have fallen, what makes you think that the lines on the map of the world won't be redrawn again?

I didn't say they wouldn't. I said the nation state isn't going to fail as a concept. At least in any living person's lifetime. And I largely reject the notion that America is a "late state empire" a-la Rome.

I know it's a very popular form of historical analogy, and yes, I've read Dalio's book. But I think it's not instructive about what's happening right now. For reasons I've already laid out. Not just in this post. But it others.

The Roman empire existed for a few hundreds years after Rome fell. I'm sure America will be fine. It's borders may change, it may lose some territory but it's unlikely it'll stop existing anytime soon

If you’re referring to the Byzantine Empire, that persisted after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it persisted for far more than a few hundred years. It lasted 1,000 years!

From 1945 to now, US empire have caused far more deaths and destruction than Russia and China combined it's a simple truth.

How many militaries bases US have in foreign countries ? How many China and Russia combined ?

The debt trap of China what a joke, you know the US dollar make it all insignificant.

These countries are protecting their interests and at least their foreign policy has become pure capitalism. Unlike US and EU nato countries that shits on private property every day with sanctions and piracy, literally piracy.

Holy ignoring the Great Leap Forward, and the Cambodian killing fields, Batman!

Just compared to Iraq the human, civilians losses are insignificant.

I'm not simping for a dominated sino Russian world order where all would be love peace and beauty, am saying that US administrations since WW2 is the most destructive and dangerous and that is a fact.

At least 45 million people died in the GLF. While I'm not defending the US invasion of Iraq -- which I think was immoral, illegal and a boondoggle -- you're just speaking out of your ass when you say that. I get it. You're biased. You want to confirm that bias. It's totally a human thing.

This comparison makes it sound like America has no blood on its hands though. We don’t even know how many people on American borders died. America spies on its citizen and kicked out the whistleblower. Attacked countries, killed innocent people and prisoned the whistleblower. How many countries impacted by IMF? IMF is actually worst China’s debt trap which is sad.

I’m not saying US is evil. For most people globally, that’s the only place they can get any equal opportunity and respected for merits.

But if we are trying to find who is the less evil then it has to be apple to apple comparison.

I think this idea that America should not be subjected to moral issues because other commit crime too is perhaps not the right way to think abt this

Been listening to Balaji? 😆