Cộng đồng theo chiều dọc

chúng ta ngày càng tương tác với những người cùng sở thích/suy nghĩ trên mạng, mà ko quan tâm/để ý tới những người hàng xóm (cộng đồng theo chiều ngang),

nhưng nhà nước vẫn cung cấp hàng hóa công (quốc phòng, giáo dục, y tế...) và quản lý xã hội theo chiều ngang (quận, huyện, xã, phường)...

hai cộng đồng này có xung đột, giải quyết sao?

-----

Public goods and the clash of communities

You’ll notice that the vertical online communities I describe are not “network states”. My friend Balaji Srinivasan wrote a book in which he imagines countries being replaced by human networks linked together by the internet and cryptocurrency. But whether or not such vertically organized states will ever come about, they’re just not feasible for now. Because it’s horizontal organizations — nation-states — that still provide almost all of our essential public goods.

Economics views public goods as a core reason — perhaps the core reason — that large human organizations exist in the first place. Things like national defense, courts of law, property rights, product standards, infrastructure, scientific research, and so on require something like a government to administer them. And governments are still organized horizontally; they administer physical territory defined by lines on maps. Moving from the nation-state system to a network-state system would require us to implement private law for members of the various networks — just like the law in medieval France was different for a priest than for a peasant, the law in a world of network states would have to apply differently to two different people who passed each other on the street. And remember that the old French word for “private law” is “privilege”. We are very, very far from having any idea how to live productively and happily in a world like that.

So for now and for the foreseeable future, our public goods are provided locally, but our social interaction happens in the cloud. In theory, this could be a dangerous recipe.

...And affinity groups — who you see as being “your people” — might be able to change preferences substantially. Some economists argue that “artificial states” with arbitrary post-colonial borders struggle to provide public goods because of the eternal infighting between disparate ethnicities that don’t really want to share a country with each other. Those same economists hypothesize that the U.S.’ inefficient and highly contested welfare state is dysfunctional because of racial resentment.

What if vertical communities exacerbate these divisions? What if we talk and socialize and cooperate and fall in love with the people from our online crowds, and grow terminally apart from the people next door? What if we begin to feel our primary allegiance is toward people who share our race or our religion or our interests, rather than toward the people who share our country and our city? What if we go to the PTA or the planning board meeting and discover a bunch of strangers we despise and disdain?

In such a world, how will government get anything done? How will we decide what roads to build, what housing to allow, what universities to fund, or how to reform the police? How can we build a country together with neighbors with whom we no longer share any sort of common bond?

source: noahpinion,