We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Globalisation in reverse

I clicked on a link to an article about food marketing failures and came upon a notice that due to GDPR, the publisher just could not be bothered dealing with people from Europe for now. It turns out the even the Los Angeles Times thinks people from Europe are too much of a pain in the ass to talk to.

If they can not cope, what chance does a small US-based pizza restaurant with an online ordering system have, having been told that they have to comply with GDPR in case any customers from the EU visit?

Things look set to get even worse for the Internet within the EU. But it is not just the EU. Amazon will stop shipping things to Australia because of a global sales tax. Trump seems very keen on tariffs. The UK does not appear to be in any hurry to turn into a small-state unilateral-free-trading nation after Brexit. In fact we are likely to have to choose between outright full-steam-ahead socialism and slowly-boiled-frog socialism at the next election.

Governments really do like their borders. As Guy Herbert says: The nation state is still our biggest problem.

11 comments to Globalisation in reverse

  • Regional

    We don’t care what you think!

  • The UK having very recently voted to be its own nation state, rather than a small part of a superstate, I view things as moving in a highly desirable direction. However, I do wonder what Guy Herbert and, presumably, Rob Fisher see as an even more desirable alternative – and why they think that. Is it a big suite of city states? Is it one global planet-state – perhaps governed by that paragon of non-statist virtue: the United Nations.

    I do understand that we want less government – but really we cannot manage with no government (or at least most of us believe that). So yes please to less hassle at borders with movement of goods and with movement of people – but not zero hassle. And some decent form of democratic government within each state (so not the barely democratic at all EU style).

    And how do we have separate democracies without them differing (eg on taxation, extent of welfare provision). And difference requires borders: with one arrangement on one side and other (often different) arrangements on the other side(s).

    Rob’s reported complaint here looks to me to be because the EU (aspirant superstate) has some plans for new seriously deficient governing that are not to the common advantage. The USA (lead superstate) looks to be throwing a hissy fit with tariffs – though perhaps with ‘some’ cause. If it were less super, perhaps it would hiss more quietly.

    So we have here cause to criticise two particular superstates; so perhaps superstates are our biggest problem. But do those causes automatically mean all non-super states should get it in the neck. Especially with no proposed alternative. And in a field where the devil is definitely in the detail – so the alternatives matter. Totally.

    Best regards

  • Crocodile Dunderhead

    Personally it was already too expensive to get stuff shipped from Amazon down under, so meh.

    I actually don’t mind the changes to GST. There ought to be a level-playing field: why should online businesses escape the taxes that their brick-and-mortar rivals have to pay?

    Of course, the better solution would be the elimination of the tax altogether, but that’s not going to happen.

  • Rob Fisher (Surrey)

    Nigel, I think the non-aggression principle leads to something like anarcho-capitalism, but I’m not arrogant about it; there are practical considerations. I’d happily start with smaller and less intrusive nation states — anything in that direction is welcome. In many ways moving people, things and information across borders has been getting easier. Now perhaps states are noticing and trying to reverse this. Or perhaps things will get sorted out and continue to improve.

    As for Brexit, I think it’s a lot more likely we could shrink the British state than we could the EU.

  • We don’t care what you think!

    Who is ‘we’ and who is ‘you’? Such generalisation are fraught with dangers 😆

  • Sigivald

    “Turns out we don’t want your ad views or business that much, thanks.”

  • Paul Marks

    We voted to leave the European Union TWO YEARS AGO.

    Yet these European Union GDPR regulations are still being imposed upon us – it seems clear now that the establishment promises to honour and obey the vote for independence were a lie. A vast shining lie.

    And Rob Fisher is correct – worse is to come, as David Cullen (“Computing Forever”) recently made clear with his little film about how the European Union plans to destroy the internet as far as independents are concerned – leaving it dominated by the Mainstream Media. No need to put “Tommy Robinson”, or anyone else, in prison – if you so arrange thing that no one gets to hear them.

    The Project has always been about velvet totalitarianism – the iron fist is carefully concealed in the velvet glove.

    And it a Project the British establishment are fully in favour of – getting rid of dissent. “Right wing views” as Home Secretary Amber Rudd put it – before Amber Rudd, the arch persecutor of the right, was suddenly declared a “right winger” herself – and purged.

  • Regional

    Exactly, also we don’t need you.
    When you mention generalisations, how often does one hear, every body thinks?

  • When you mention generalisations, how often does one hear, every body thinks?

    Everyone thinks Hillary Clinton is going to win (as it happens I did too actually 😆 )

  • Regional

    So long as you didn’t hope it?

  • Regional

    Another good one is, the word out of America is blah blah blah.