Entradas
Source: The China Post
Let's begin by asking ourselves an intriguing question: Why are so many ships registered in Panama?
Many ships are registered in Panama, even though they are owned by companies headquartered in other nations, under a system called “flag of convenience.” Registering a ship in Panama means the ship will be governed by the maritime laws of Panama rather than the nation the company is headquartered in. Shipping company owners do this because the Panamanian government levies lower taxes and imposes less burdensome regulations than the governments of other nations. Liberia, Cyprus, and the Bahamas also offer such “flags of convenience.”
This “flag of convenience” system dates back to the 1950s. Over half the world's ships, calculated by tonnage, are registered under the “flag of convenience” or “open registries” system.
Globalization has revolutionized world trade. Not surprisingly, the shipping industry, a key facilitator of globalization, was among the first industries impacted. Merchant ships today are owned and operated by transnational corporations (TNC). Transnational corporations manufacture products or provide services in more than one nation. A transnational corporation transcends nationality and transcends nationalism. The transcendent nature of these human enterprises renders traditional concepts of “belonging to a nation,” or “national loyalty” obsolete.
Now let's conduct a thought experiment by asking ourselves an even more intriguing question.
Shipping companies have the right to locate their company in one nation but register their ships in another nation. The question we would like to ask is, why shouldn't people have the same right to locate themselves in one nation, but “register” themselves (possess citizenship) in another nation?
If a person has citizenship in a particular nation, must that person live and work in that nation? Does that person have no right to live and work in another nation?
Conversely, if a person lives and works in a particular nation, must that person be “registered” (possess citizenship) in that nation? Does that person not have a right to “register” (possess citizenship) himself in another nation?
In other words, if ships can be “transnational,” why can't people? If ships can “transcend nationality,” why can't people? If ships can fly under “flags of convenience,” why can't people?
In fact, many individuals working within the global economy are already to some extent transnational. Many executives and middle-managers of transnational corporations live and work in one nation, but are “registered” (possess citizenship) in another nation. They are already exercising their natural right as sovereign individuals to live and work wherever they wish, without regard for where they are “registered” (possess citizenship).
Officials of the modern nation state reflexively refer to themselves as “public servants.” Officials of the Republic of China, Green and Blue alike, ritually proclaim that “lao bai xing shi tou jia,” i.e., “the people are the bosses.” They solemnly assure us that they rule solely through our consent, and that if we refuse to grant our consent, then they have no right to rule.
But officials of the modern nation state do not take their own rhetoric seriously. Their declarations are bones tossed out to pacify the “citizens,” i.e., “captive victims” of modern nation states.
But what if billions of victims of such statist hypocrisy the world over suddenly decided to take the rhetoric of “government as service provider” seriously? What if they suddenly decided that their national governments quite literally ought to be no more exalted than any of their other “service providers?”
What if they suddenly demanded the right to relate to their governments exactly the same way they relate to their cable television service providers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and cell phone service providers?
What if they took the incontrovertible logic behind the shipping industry system of “flag of convenience” a step further, and demanded the right to switch their “registry” (citizenship) as readily and as frequently as they switch cable television service providers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and cell phone service providers?
Wouldn't they be fully within their rights to do so? After all, aren't the people the masters? Aren't government officials merely their servants? Aren't the governments of modern nation states merely “service providers,” and not feudal lords to whom we feudal serfs owe fealty? Candidates for government office certainly never tire of reminding us of this every election season.
The implementation of such an eminently logical but psychologically startling system would subject every government on earth to the ruthless discipline of the market place. It would transform the elusive myth of “government as the servant of the people” into a hard reality. It would invert the outdated traditional relationship between the citizen and his government, and remove the neck of the sovereign individual from the leash of the Leviathan State.
Isn't it time we considered a “flag of convenience” system not just for ships, but for people?
Many ships are registered in Panama, even though they are owned by companies headquartered in other nations, under a system called “flag of convenience.” Registering a ship in Panama means the ship will be governed by the maritime laws of Panama rather than the nation the company is headquartered in. Shipping company owners do this because the Panamanian government levies lower taxes and imposes less burdensome regulations than the governments of other nations. Liberia, Cyprus, and the Bahamas also offer such “flags of convenience.”
This “flag of convenience” system dates back to the 1950s. Over half the world's ships, calculated by tonnage, are registered under the “flag of convenience” or “open registries” system.
Globalization has revolutionized world trade. Not surprisingly, the shipping industry, a key facilitator of globalization, was among the first industries impacted. Merchant ships today are owned and operated by transnational corporations (TNC). Transnational corporations manufacture products or provide services in more than one nation. A transnational corporation transcends nationality and transcends nationalism. The transcendent nature of these human enterprises renders traditional concepts of “belonging to a nation,” or “national loyalty” obsolete.
Now let's conduct a thought experiment by asking ourselves an even more intriguing question.
Shipping companies have the right to locate their company in one nation but register their ships in another nation. The question we would like to ask is, why shouldn't people have the same right to locate themselves in one nation, but “register” themselves (possess citizenship) in another nation?
If a person has citizenship in a particular nation, must that person live and work in that nation? Does that person have no right to live and work in another nation?
Conversely, if a person lives and works in a particular nation, must that person be “registered” (possess citizenship) in that nation? Does that person not have a right to “register” (possess citizenship) himself in another nation?
In other words, if ships can be “transnational,” why can't people? If ships can “transcend nationality,” why can't people? If ships can fly under “flags of convenience,” why can't people?
In fact, many individuals working within the global economy are already to some extent transnational. Many executives and middle-managers of transnational corporations live and work in one nation, but are “registered” (possess citizenship) in another nation. They are already exercising their natural right as sovereign individuals to live and work wherever they wish, without regard for where they are “registered” (possess citizenship).
Officials of the modern nation state reflexively refer to themselves as “public servants.” Officials of the Republic of China, Green and Blue alike, ritually proclaim that “lao bai xing shi tou jia,” i.e., “the people are the bosses.” They solemnly assure us that they rule solely through our consent, and that if we refuse to grant our consent, then they have no right to rule.
But officials of the modern nation state do not take their own rhetoric seriously. Their declarations are bones tossed out to pacify the “citizens,” i.e., “captive victims” of modern nation states.
But what if billions of victims of such statist hypocrisy the world over suddenly decided to take the rhetoric of “government as service provider” seriously? What if they suddenly decided that their national governments quite literally ought to be no more exalted than any of their other “service providers?”
What if they suddenly demanded the right to relate to their governments exactly the same way they relate to their cable television service providers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and cell phone service providers?
What if they took the incontrovertible logic behind the shipping industry system of “flag of convenience” a step further, and demanded the right to switch their “registry” (citizenship) as readily and as frequently as they switch cable television service providers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and cell phone service providers?
Wouldn't they be fully within their rights to do so? After all, aren't the people the masters? Aren't government officials merely their servants? Aren't the governments of modern nation states merely “service providers,” and not feudal lords to whom we feudal serfs owe fealty? Candidates for government office certainly never tire of reminding us of this every election season.
The implementation of such an eminently logical but psychologically startling system would subject every government on earth to the ruthless discipline of the market place. It would transform the elusive myth of “government as the servant of the people” into a hard reality. It would invert the outdated traditional relationship between the citizen and his government, and remove the neck of the sovereign individual from the leash of the Leviathan State.
Isn't it time we considered a “flag of convenience” system not just for ships, but for people?
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario