Our bits — including our intangible goods and services — should be managed independently from states.
Possibly states are the appropriate political units for organising and managing our atoms — including our tangible goods and services. But definitely not for organising and managing our bits — an embarrassing effort of a new cartel of all the states of the globe was launched at the very end of the last year.
While we are inclined to acknowledge the right of the individual states to tax anything they can lay their hands on (that is, tangible atoms), we deny the right of their cartel to tax anything else (that is, intangible bits).
Extending political framework
The speed of travel and communication diverged more than a century ago.
Since then, at least in theory, a new space has evolved: “communication space”. Borderless and real-time at global level, communication space is principally different from “travelling space” where we are limited by our physical body and slow motion.
With the rapid development of the internet at the end of the last century, communication space and travelling space levelled out.
In the meantime, our political system was becoming based on, and locked in, the partition of “travelling space” (the dry land of the planet) into distinct states.
We suggest that we should extend the logic of the present political system, the partition one step further, adding distinct space (the communication space) to distinct states as well.
It is our endeavour to constitute political units, spatially and functionally independent of states, operating in the communication space (internet) as their infrastructure, and make them work.
The original function of these new political units should be to manage bits — as opposed to atoms that would continue to be managed by states.
Respecting achievements
States are right in that intellectual achievements should be rewarded, creativity must pay off in the long term. Whether or not a public issue at all, rewarding need not be the task of states: it should be dealt with directly in the jurisdictions operating in the communication space, through a public process. Dealing with the issue of bits should be our task. States may prey on tangibles, we need to achieve better management of intangibles.
We understand states’ insistence on regarding bits as “intellectual property”: unless bits are intellectual property, trading in bits can not be taxed.
However, it would be unjust to blame states simply for seeking their own solutions: if there are no other players around, why would they not try to colonize our favourite place, the internet? And if they are unable to do it by themselves, they will do so by establishing a cartel.
Breaking down harmful tax cartels
We aware that the global cartel of states monopolizes taxation. Every kind of taxation, including the taxation of intangible goods and services. By the end of last year, all disobedient states gave up resistance.
We do not know whether the organized monopolization of taxation implies the transformation of the international political system into an integrated political unit called “the global state”. But we believe in competition markets as opposed to freely monopolizable markets. And we believe in tax competition (labelled “harmful tax practices” by states) as well.
We believe that the global tax cartel of states extended to intangible goods and services would be harmful.
Consequently, we must consider it to be our responsibility to break down this proposed cartel.
Working on common strategy
The strategic points are:
1. Helping to constitute our own companies for the management of intangible goods and services, run on the jurisdictions of our new political units on the communication space, in return for tax — somewhere around the cost of PayPal. We should make our infrastructure to be able to manage distinct jurisdictions and taxation: hard wired laws, secure p2p communication, e-cash, etc.. We should foster tax competition: break down both harmful tax cartels and double taxation by any other political unit.
2. We need to offer average users a kind of user experience as Apple provides, and we need to keep this system open to advanced users, like Linux.
3. We should begin to feel allegiance towards our new, freely chosen political units run on the communication space. We should attract allegiance like the states do we happen to born into. We should know that we have an ethical basis for taking part in tax competition, proud of what we do, and defend ourselves in case of attacks. States may not be nice to us when we break down their cartel.
Future
As we, the first internet generations of planet Earth, grow up, we shall take control of this place. That is sure as death and taxes.
We are how we are together. We are our states. We are our companies. We supply and demand our own products and ideals. Our responsibility is how we organize ourselves.
I think states and companies operating according to their jurisdiction are not willing, and what is more, not even able to meet all the basic needs which originate from our very personship. States may be sufficient for our atoms, yet neither necessary nor sufficient for our bits, spirits and communities.
We need a vivid net of political units operating in the communication space, able to help find the right place of states in our lives. Evolution will show which of the new political units will survive.
We seek to make The United Persons one of them.
We wish to live in a world where we constitute our own alternative online political units,
- worthy of our love and loyalty,
- that help manage our bits if and when required, on Earth or among the planets of the solar system when this time will come, and
- able and willing to pacify any attacking entity.
What do you feel is the true political unit of your choice?
How can you help us all to constitute it?
Internet, January 1, 2010
mazsa is discussing. 
“Atoms would like to be free, too, but they’re not so pushy about it.” Chris Anderson http://www.amazon.com/Free-Future-Radical-Chris-Anderson/dp/1401322905 p.241.