This reads like a design manifesto. Reminds me of texts from the early 20th century (post-WWI, pre-WWII). The logic seems cohesive up to about #7 philosophy an

This reads like a design manifesto. Reminds me of texts from the early 20th century (post-WWI, pre-WWII). The logic seems cohesive up to about #7 philosophy and government. Maybe the digression to the authors other works is better made in a footnote? I can take the conceit of ‘markets are square’, but only to the point where you show us something new that solves the problems described. Othesrwise, I feel the same as another commenter, the article descends into ‘faux-profound gibberish‘. I don’t believe the narrative thrust gets past it’s shortcomings, - the author’s facile contradiction ‘governments should leave people alone’ AND ‘nation-state was inevitable‘ - the author’s assumptions about fractals as complex and sophisticated. It’s been demonstrated that surprisingly few rules can lead to great diversity. Fractals are exactly this phenomena, but at a conceptually large scale. Makes the fractal argument seem like a McGuffin - I don’t believe the Amazon org-chart is the best we can do (‘the map is not the territory ‘).