I had a few further thoughts... Now that governments cannot control
the flow of information, they no longer have the initiative and are
completely responsive and reactive in their modus operandi. This is
due to the political forces that modern styles of communication
allow to emerge. These forces mold opinion and they influence
activities, in many realms.
Sovereignty is defined as able to have claim, capacity and control,
or dominion, agency and possession. They, governments and their
adjuncts, have lost control.�� They have lost possession due to the
limited capacity their model represents in comparison. Modern
communications and swarm activities have control. The internet has
control and possession.
Without control, or possession, the three foundations upon which the
definition of Sovereignty lay is demolished. The foundations of the
Peace of Westphalia are destroyed.
We must fall back to the Peace of Augsburg and the Sovereignty of
City-States.�� Die Stadt Uber Alles!
My question to you is what role do you envision Pharo playing in
modern communications, which controls the fate of Nation-States as
they devolve into City-States.
A suggestion: Operations Management. Thus the self-replicating
Piconet Manager...
best,
robert
On 12/21/2015 11:20 AM, Robert Withers
wrote:
On 12/21/2015 10:17 AM, Denis
Kudriashov wrote:
Governments stay in power, or exercise collective sovereignty,
through dominion, agency and possession. Loss of control over
information, and by extension currency, affects possession, or
having control. They still have dominion and agency, but without
three legs you can build no stool to sit upon. If loss of control
over information and currency undermines possession, then the
concept of the modern nation-state is undermined. I view this as a
negative.
--
. .. ... ^,^ robert
Go Panthers!
--
. .. ... ^,^ robert
Go Panthers!