4 ms·

I find the Network State manifesto laughable for a couple reasons: - I don’t see how existing nations will ever allow “dual citizenship” with a network state.

I find the Network State manifesto laughable for a couple reasons: - I don’t see how existing nations will ever allow “dual citizenship” with a network state. - and by extension how will these Network States actually defend themselves? - and based on this section they seem to be forecasting a Peter Zeihan style end of the current world order. If that happens cryptocurrency will be the first victim, not the savior: in a world where microchips are rare no one will want to waste them on anything not directly related to food or energy supply. Don’t get me wrong: I highly recommend Zeihan’s “The End of World is Just the Beginning” (caveat I’m only halfway done) but see it’s predictions totally incompatible with the IMO wishful thinking of The Network State.

dakial1 4y ago
> I don’t see how existing nations will ever allow “dual citizenship” with a network state. Aren't churches sort of network states?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Aren't churches sort of network states? They are networks, of a sort, but usually not states. Though some are subordinate to states and some have states subordinated to them. But even in those cases the states are fairly conventional, not discontinuous sovereign pockets peeled off piecemeal from other states. While compactness isn't required and there are some oddities, the problems and ultimately difficult to resolve warfare resulting from patchwork states was a big motivator for the Westphalian nation-state model becoming a norm, and while that model might fall to some newer model, a regression to patchwork states isn't something I can see existing states going along with easily.
- hef19898 4y ago
  No, they lack recognition. The exception being the Vatican, which hapoens to governed by the Oope and the Cathlic church but is not the Chatholic church itself. That churches act like they are a seperate natuon state so is a different story...
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The exception being the Vatican, which hapoens to governed by the Oope and the Cathlic church but is not the Chatholic church itself. Even The State of Vatican City doesn't fit the definition of a network state: it's sovereign territory isn't a network of crowdfunded enclaves that have gotten recognized as sovereign territory. While, arguably, local Church property could meet that description aside from sovereignty, that's not sovereign territory of the State of Vatican City. Nope, that's just a tiny plot of land in the middle of Rome, negotiated between the Holy See and the State of Italy. It's a completely different dynamic.
andrewjzeller 4y ago
Getting Peter Zeihan and Balaji together would make for an epic podcast / debate.
gfodor 4y ago
It is strange to find something laughable that you haven't read
sneak 4y ago
> I find the Network State manifesto laughable for a couple reasons Arguments for/against aside, I think it's important to note that every new powerful sociological concept that hadn't been done before was laughable at first. This sort of classification isn't really useful for reasoning about it. Maybe it's a great idea, maybe it's a terrible one, but its laughability does not tell us anything about either of those states.

dakial1 4y ago

> I don’t see how existing nations will ever allow “dual citizenship” with a network state. Aren't churches sort of network states?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Aren't churches sort of network states? They are networks, of a sort, but usually not states. Though some are subordinate to states and some have states subordinated to them. But even in those cases the states are fairly conventional, not discontinuous sovereign pockets peeled off piecemeal from other states. While compactness isn't required and there are some oddities, the problems and ultimately difficult to resolve warfare resulting from patchwork states was a big motivator for the Westphalian nation-state model becoming a norm, and while that model might fall to some newer model, a regression to patchwork states isn't something I can see existing states going along with easily.
hef19898 4y ago
No, they lack recognition. The exception being the Vatican, which hapoens to governed by the Oope and the Cathlic church but is not the Chatholic church itself. That churches act like they are a seperate natuon state so is a different story...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The exception being the Vatican, which hapoens to governed by the Oope and the Cathlic church but is not the Chatholic church itself. Even The State of Vatican City doesn't fit the definition of a network state: it's sovereign territory isn't a network of crowdfunded enclaves that have gotten recognized as sovereign territory. While, arguably, local Church property could meet that description aside from sovereignty, that's not sovereign territory of the State of Vatican City. Nope, that's just a tiny plot of land in the middle of Rome, negotiated between the Holy See and the State of Italy. It's a completely different dynamic.

andrewjzeller 4y ago

Getting Peter Zeihan and Balaji together would make for an epic podcast / debate.

gfodor 4y ago

It is strange to find something laughable that you haven't read

sneak 4y ago

> I find the Network State manifesto laughable for a couple reasons Arguments for/against aside, I think it's important to note that every new powerful sociological concept that hadn't been done before was laughable at first. This sort of classification isn't really useful for reasoning about it. Maybe it's a great idea, maybe it's a terrible one, but its laughability does not tell us anything about either of those states.