Dialectics of Civilizations

So, I decided to open a blog - it’s strange, however, that until now it has been absent from Habré. I propose to post here the most interesting, with regard to prognostics, the future of mankind, the end of the world, the death of the Internet, and other goodies.

For starters, I publish one of my works written exactly 10 years ago (written for general development, never published anywhere - what to expect from the provincial jerk I was at that time). After rereading it the other day, I made certain conclusions, namely, technologically, these 10 years gave us almost everything that had been dreamed back already in 1999. Now a lot will sound ordinary, but then most of what was written was the ultimate dream. At the same time, fundamentally, very little has changed in the legal, social aspects. But this is just my opinion.

So, further many letters.
')
Those who have not sinned against the law,
outlaw and perish; and those that
under the law have sinned, according to the law condemned ...
(Romans 2:12)

If nature is a chaos, a mockery of every thought and order, then anyone who wants to restore any order in it should leave it and create a new world full of illusions.
(Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche)

It all started with the fact that a certain Henry Dousmeyer, a graduate of the Law Faculty of Princeton University, decided to establish a network - no less - a state. Being his only citizen, he adopted a constitution, a fundamental set of laws, approved the structure of the state system and elected himself for the first term of office as a constitutional majority (if it is appropriate to speak about one vote).

Reports of this appeared in the press, but went unnoticed: none of the serious foreign ministries considered it worthy to comment on this nonsense. Meanwhile, Dowsmeyer had quite a few enthusiastic supporters who accepted his citizenship, which gave the main impetus to further state-building.

The main state institutions were formed according to the American model (for, for some unknown reason, it was recognized as the most perfect); the exception was the unicameral parliament: according to the results of a specially held referendum, it was decided not to indulge in utopian artifacts of direct democracy (with all the abundance of technological possibilities, when citizens are directly involved in the discussion and adoption of laws), but to shift the entire burden of legislative work to professional parliamentarians; the absence, in particular, of territorial division eliminated the need to divide it (the parliament) into two chambers. The changes, of course, also affected the executive branch: all the defense ministries and special services were created solely for the purpose of ensuring the information security of the inhabitants of the e-government constitutional segment; a special department of the State Department was entrusted with the development and integration of unified tools of internal corporate interaction (originally intended for organizing the work of the state apparatus, but subsequently received total distribution in the private corporate sector).

The culmination of the emergence of a new statehood was the emergence of a Federal (from a legal point of view, it would be wrong to speak of a new state as federative; here it was done only to demonstrate analogies) of the Reserve System and the relevant financial departments. After the issue of its own monetary unit (a dollar was chosen; naturally, no one has ever seen it before — why should it be cashed, if the entire set of any financial instruments, goods or services can be purchased by pressing two or three buttons on a cell phone) functioning under the new jurisdiction of all market institutions.

It is not surprising that many businesses (e-commerce, content-provisioning, intellectual production, audit and consulting, banks and various institutional investors) rushed to get used to the new legal field: the most optimal legislative framework in the field of intellectual law, full-fledged electronic law enforcement and judicial systems, a single globalized capital market with minimum costs (brokerage services are completely gone, all assets can be managed directly from bank accounts in electronic form) ... five and a slight drawback: taxes. But you have to pay for pleasure, and the lack of territorial and local budgets (one centralized, “federal” —and that is relatively small due to the absence of unnecessary social and military articles) made it possible to introduce so insignificant rates that the hidden assessment appeared in business circles.

It is also worth noting that both business and the state in these conditions have acquired unprecedented transparency. Each client, for example, of the state (citizen) could at any time observe in real time the state of the state budget and foreign trade balance (the latter, of course, was calculated using a very specific method, but never went into a minus), all other financial indicators, get detailed reports on legislative and financial activities of the state. Moreover, it was not difficult for him to materialize (more precisely, “virtualize”) right at the meeting of the parliament; he could even speak freely on this or that issue (albeit, only in text form on the parliamentary chat - the nationally elected legislators expressed themselves via videoconference elements of the parliamentary interface).

In general, if we touch upon the technical side of corporate representation in more detail, nothing substantial happened here. The website (the domain name and the technical implementation do not matter) of the company registered under digital jurisdiction (or of a private person having the respective citizenship) posted a special label, as well as a comment: “This area is under assured jurisdiction” - any attacker was forced think a few times before trying for strength resource with such attributes. At will, companies could put on display all the intricacies of their business activities (especially since it was conducted primarily through the web interfaces on their own websites, but open only to employees and shareholders). The struggle for "openness" between the state and private business was fought on all imaginable fronts, and the capital was only delighted with this.

It is worth mentioning also the implementation of the judicial system. Legal prosecution was carried out regardless of the state of the person being prosecuted (which, in general, of course); court sessions were held using the same videoconferencing technology (the juror, for example, could simultaneously sip a cocktail on the Adriatic coast and listen to another witness, if, of course, he was not distracted by looking at the next exotic bikini). If the defendant stubbornly refused to attend the hearings (you could not drag him there physically), all of his assets, discovered electronically, were simply frozen by the investigation, and the case was heard in the appropriate physical instances. Due to inconsistencies in the laws of different countries, however, this option lost the lion's share of its effectiveness in the area of ​​infringement of intellectual property rights, but there were almost no problems with economic crimes (the laws of most countries developed very successfully here).

Meanwhile, Congress (no, not the one on Capitol Hill, and, of course, not the one on Okhotny Ryad) considered a draft law on state symbolism and, most importantly, the official name of a networked legal phenomenon. After two weeks of linguistic battles, a compromise version was adopted: Ideliana (IDELIANA, International Digital Economics, Liberty And Neosecurity Architecture) at the same time suited everyone and did not suit anyone, and as a result of this “unanimity” turned out to be the only etymological pearl that passed through parliamentary grinders.

The largest financial players who have so far been skeptical about the prospects for the Dosemayer miracle, seeing that orthodox national powers do not compete with the new high-tech reality, began to heat up the atmosphere, and after the monstrous lobbying onslaught, Ideliana was recognized by most countries as subject to international law. Of course, among the opponents of this kind of "geopolitical distortions" this caused a storm of indignation. There were publications in the press about Washington’s allegedly disinterested participation in the formation of Dawsmayer as an individual, about the intrigues of the CIA and the Pentagon, about the flawed past of the employees of ideliansky special services (there, however, highly skilled hackers of IT systems really worked), etc. The official Foreign Ministry of Ideliana refuted these statements, citing the presence in the ruling circles of representatives of different countries and nationalities (in particular, in the Idelian parliament there were at least one representative from each self-respecting power), and their past does not in any way contradict their real activity, namely, the search for holes in the protection systems of ideelian organizations / citizens.

Then the opponents launched the last and most weighty argument: why, in fact, all the state servers, as well as the physical assets of the federal reserve bank, Idelians are located in the United States? The Foreign Ministry expressed bewilderment about the validity of this curiosity, pointing out a number of factors contributing to a significant reduction in costs in ensuring the smooth operation and high-speed Internet access of Idealian state servers in the US, the proximity of root servers, and also noted that the tangible assets of the reserve bank actually scattered around the world, and that, they say, is also done in order to minimize costs (transport, in particular), and that this, by the way, is generally accepted practice. “We save every cent of our taxpayers,” added First Deputy Foreign Minister Ideliana Michelle Rettu. With this, all press attacks seem to have stopped.

Meanwhile, the capitalization of some Idelian companies has increased so much that they began to buy the largest industry giants in real states, and even the traditional business itself was running faster into new legal and technological frameworks (much more convenient, you will agree, to put the entire administrative machine on the high-tech rails of the Ideal economy, production facilities, research laboratories, service centers and the like should be scattered around the most politically and geographically optimal countries and ntinentam). This fashion captured more and more sectors of the national economy: from energy and biochemistry to telecommunications and automotive. It is clear that such a situation could not affect the economic situation of the most developed countries (in particular, the US Congress with a huge scandal had to cut military spending by the next year by almost a quarter), while the budget of their digital "colleague" already allowed them to buy the whole White House, the Kremlin and the Bundestag with all their federal assets.

At the same time, there was a convergence of incomes in the real sector and an improvement in the social and demographic situation in all other states. Obviously, these were the consequences of the aforementioned globalization (or rather, global standardization): uniform highly competitive labor markets, unified (ideally) labor legislation, a single, extremely soft monetary policy (any private individual, registered by the ideological subjects (also, of course, applies to legal entities), - if he lived in the most backward banana republic with a crooked investment climate, he could freely get a long-term loan at a small percentage in any ideally financially m institute and, having started it in business easily to become one of the most respected banana oligarchs) ...

Nevertheless, the national governments, having lost a fair amount of their tax troughs and felt the consequences of capital outflows, sounded the alarm: the European Union, the flagship of the world bureaucracy, left without its usual protectionist levers, asked its American counterparts to "take measures" (what measures - not explained). However, local senators have long spoken about "taking action" (again, without clarification). Like those, and others on this ground, there were problems with public opinion: people were frightened by such uncertainty, and the Idelian economy gave many jobs and objects for investment. Against the background of such an acute reaction of the authorities of the Old and New World, the behavior of their Eastern colleagues was interesting: silence reigned in the Russian power corridors, and only occasionally could one meet a person without (usually uncharacteristic) a malicious smile on his face. Most experts agreed that they (the Russians) should be accustomed to living in a situation of budget hunger and capital outflow ...

The press service of the Dowsmayer administration, making a statement about the demarche of the Europower, expressed the view that as soon as they (European officials) are also market preachers, the market without competition is not a market, let them try to give their electronic competitor a lot of civilized, market methods. Those, in turn, hinted that the competitor himself uses methods far from the market, and threatened with accusations of monopolism. Such a reaction from Brussels made Dowsmeyer’s administration back down: tax rates were increased, and some social items were added to the budget. In particular, the bills for the treatment of Ideelian citizens in public clinics in ordinary countries (Ideelian health care was remote, and this, of course, was not enough) were now paid in part from the Ideelian treasury, and partly from Ideelian non-state insurance funds (compulsory insurance was practiced). Something similar was applied both in education and in pension provision.

Thus, the state, whose citizen also had a parallel and “digital” Ideelian passport, discarded a lot of social responsibility for it. This pretty much calmed down the rebellious parties, especially since the ideological social standards were very high (by this time it had turned up to seventy percent of world GDP in its economy).

In the next presidential election, the victory was won by a young ambitious Japanese, a fierce supporter of reforms, Isuki Hasashimoto. The essence of his reforms was to “create an unprecedentedly comfortable environment for living and doing business throughout the world,” was the way it was written in his election documents. From these lines it was possible to understand enough to imagine the scale of his intentions, but those whose interests affected him personally (such as: an inveterate bureaucracy, national chauvinists and patriots of all stripes, who are everywhere and always) did not want to believe it . Soon their torments came to an end: a letter signed by the new secretary of the ideological state department Sergey Gladyshev passed through all diplomatic channels with an official proposal to convene an urgent meeting of the G8 heads of state and foreign ministries, to which the ideological leadership was also going to arrive; The letter pointed to the extreme importance of the proposed issue for discussion. Khashashimoto subtly calculated the reaction of the world elite to this proposal and, already at the banquet (he was listed first under the protocol), tried to reduce the entire conversation to simple formalities.

And he proposed the following: the entry of national governments into the idedelian state as “physical” executive structures, the abolition of state borders and their replacement by borders of administrative responsibility, the adoption by all countries of ideelian legislation and the monetary unit, the abolition of international organizations and their entry into executive structures a new state as separate departments, and another impressive number of points, among which, in particular, the creation of rovogo parliament (the upper chamber of idelianskogo), which included would be a democratically-elected head of the national republics of the new federal conglomerate.

The reaction to these proposals was surprisingly mild, and even such grandees of national chauvenism, such as France (apparently, EU membership had a positive effect) did not see anything “threatening their national sovereignty”. , , : , . , (, , ). , , .

, , , – – , , , , . ( ) (, , ) -, (, , ). , , .

- , , – , . « » , , , , , …

. , . , ( !) « vs. ». . , , , , , . , . , , , .

(, , «» ). ; , .

, , , , .

, . – — : . - , . , …