I just read a review on the nature of States and how they have changed over the last 500 years. The premise is that we have evolved from the Princely State of 1500 through to the Kingly State; the Territorial State; the State Nation followed by the Nation State and that we are now entering the time of the Market State.
The article described the various State types and the causes/stimuli for their evolution over the last 500 years. Although there were many interesting points I was struck by two specifically.
The first is that the constitutional order of a state and its strategic posture towards other states form an inner and outer membrane of a state.
So far so good. It wents on to explain that these membranes of States are secured by violence, without which a State cannot exist, and that the violence a State deploys must be viewed as legitimate.
Now throughout history there have been innumerable cases of the private sector exercising violence on behalf of the state. I think of the privateers Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh as perfect examples of how the State allowed the private sector to further its goals through the use of violence.
This is not to say that the private sector wasn't involved previously, nor that it has been dormant since Elizabeth I.
The military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned against didn't occur overnight. Weapons, ammunition, vehicles etc have been supplied by the private sector for centuries.
But the assumption of many activities by the private sector, be it a Burger King on Haliburton built army bases in Afghanistan, Iraq or even in the USA to the hardly discernible division between "Security Services" and mercenaries not only reflects the old adage that War is Good Business, but also portends to a more sinister transition.
For if we are indeed morphing into the next state of Statehood, and that is indeed the Market State,
do we now have the private sector determining the use of violence, externally as well as domestically?
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) hints at the first step of removing legal responsibility from the State to the private sector. Rather than turning to the legal system to solve disputes TTIP will bring in "corporate courts" which will follow guidance written by corporations for corporations.
These courts will be controlled by arbitrators who oversee proceedings undertaken in a closed "court" focusing on questions of free trade and (quite probably) disregarding issues such as public health, environmental protection, employment rights and other social rights in favour of maximizing profits.
Nothing wrong with maximizing profits.
But something very wrong with corporate kangaroo courts. And those "courts" will be the basis for Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) which allow un-elected transnational corporations to sue governments if the policies of those governments cause a loss of profit.
This is already happening to an extent for example in Germany Vattenfall, a Swedish company operating nuclear facilities in Germany is suing Germany for its decision to exit from nuclear energy in favour of renewable energy. But it is being discussed within the confines of the German Constitutional Court. Not a private ISDS forum.
This sort of snowballs into my second point.
Privatization has been the battle cry of the Chicago School of Economics. Free Marketeers are the modern version of privateers. Market decisions are always right, and although initially the neo-classical economists were content to confine government to the 18th century functions of justice, police and arms I am unclear as we move into the Market State what role government will have in this new Jerusalem.
For without government what legitimizes the use of violence....and without violence there is no state.
The article described the various State types and the causes/stimuli for their evolution over the last 500 years. Although there were many interesting points I was struck by two specifically.
The first is that the constitutional order of a state and its strategic posture towards other states form an inner and outer membrane of a state.
So far so good. It wents on to explain that these membranes of States are secured by violence, without which a State cannot exist, and that the violence a State deploys must be viewed as legitimate.
Now throughout history there have been innumerable cases of the private sector exercising violence on behalf of the state. I think of the privateers Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh as perfect examples of how the State allowed the private sector to further its goals through the use of violence.
This is not to say that the private sector wasn't involved previously, nor that it has been dormant since Elizabeth I.
The military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned against didn't occur overnight. Weapons, ammunition, vehicles etc have been supplied by the private sector for centuries.
But the assumption of many activities by the private sector, be it a Burger King on Haliburton built army bases in Afghanistan, Iraq or even in the USA to the hardly discernible division between "Security Services" and mercenaries not only reflects the old adage that War is Good Business, but also portends to a more sinister transition.
For if we are indeed morphing into the next state of Statehood, and that is indeed the Market State,
do we now have the private sector determining the use of violence, externally as well as domestically?
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) hints at the first step of removing legal responsibility from the State to the private sector. Rather than turning to the legal system to solve disputes TTIP will bring in "corporate courts" which will follow guidance written by corporations for corporations.
These courts will be controlled by arbitrators who oversee proceedings undertaken in a closed "court" focusing on questions of free trade and (quite probably) disregarding issues such as public health, environmental protection, employment rights and other social rights in favour of maximizing profits.
Nothing wrong with maximizing profits.
But something very wrong with corporate kangaroo courts. And those "courts" will be the basis for Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) which allow un-elected transnational corporations to sue governments if the policies of those governments cause a loss of profit.
This is already happening to an extent for example in Germany Vattenfall, a Swedish company operating nuclear facilities in Germany is suing Germany for its decision to exit from nuclear energy in favour of renewable energy. But it is being discussed within the confines of the German Constitutional Court. Not a private ISDS forum.
This sort of snowballs into my second point.
Privatization has been the battle cry of the Chicago School of Economics. Free Marketeers are the modern version of privateers. Market decisions are always right, and although initially the neo-classical economists were content to confine government to the 18th century functions of justice, police and arms I am unclear as we move into the Market State what role government will have in this new Jerusalem.
For without government what legitimizes the use of violence....and without violence there is no state.
No comments:
Post a Comment