11 ms·

What I think about network states

101 points by jseliger 4y ago

htormey 4y ago
Network states are online communities that have collective agency (governance of some kind) that eventually try to materialize on land in the physical world. A DAO, could potentially become a network state but it could also in theory emerge from a subreddit or some other online community organized around a specific thing. Balaji has a particular vision for these network states that sees cryptocurrency as being an integral part of them. It also presupposes that these network states need to have a moral imperative to be long lasting (I.e a strong purpose like a religious community, being against the FDA, dietary etc) An important point to note is that a network state is not inherently a “right wing” or libertarian idea. In fact Vitalik references another more left leaning author, David de Ugarte, who explores similar ideas from a different perspective in his book Phyles: Economic Democracy in the Twenty First Century. It’s entirely possible to disagree with many of Balaji’s previous positions and see this as a useful playbook for implementing a network state that aligns with your world views. A large part of his book seems to be laying out a justification for this vision as well as it’s theoretical underpinnings. I.e why this needs to exist and why this would be better than say moving to an existing city state etc. Apart from that it’s basically a playbook for how a community could in theory go from lose collection of individuals on discords to a mini city with its own regulations and laws. Vitalik is sympathetic to much of the book but calls out 4 main issues he has with it: 1)The "founder" thing - why do network states need a recognized founder to be so central? 2)What if network states end up only serving the wealthy? 3)"Exit" alone is not sufficient to stabilize global politics. So if exit is everyone's first choice, what happens? 4)What about global negative externalities more generally? Of these critiques the ones that resonated with me so far are 2 and 4. I’m only about 25% through his book. In terms of 4, I think this exists today with nation states and hence I think it’s a little unfair to expect this to be addressed in this book. In terms of 2. I think this book is written for middle class and wealthy people who can easily move cities and or countries. I.e software engineers and scientists. A big question for me is, assuming network states are a thing that happen and are wide spread. What happens to all the displaced unskilled or semi skilled global poor? What will their likely relationships be with these new network states? How do millions of people displaced by wars like in Syria or the Ukraine fit into or impact this network state model? People who are forced to exit as opposed to having the luxury of choosing to exit. This seems like a bit of a blind spot if even from just a network state game theory perspective. In general I’m enjoying this book so far and would recommend people read it if they are interested in subjects like charter cities or DAOs. I treat it as a thought provoking work that’s not mean spirited in tone like the sovereign individual. Within my lifetime I expect to see people try and create new charter cities bootstrapped from online communities. I think this book offers a lot of useful advice on how to think about forming these communities.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  But Balaji's book isn't really a playbook for how a community could go from loose collection of individuals on discord to a mini city! If it was that, it would be a far more compelling read, instead the first 50% could be summed up as, "institutions bad, crypto will save us all, media is biased, America is just as bad as China, and India is rising." And the back half while more interesting basically rehashes similar examples over and over (keto community) without many tangible details on going from 0 to 1. Could have been far more interesting, talked about things like Sovereign Military order of Malta, Charter Cities, SEZ's, and other interim ways for a network state to come to be but instead was just repeated ramblings and definitions.
SilverBirch 4y ago
I'm going to write the first part of this comment after reading the first paragraph, then I'll revisit when I finish the article: This is going to be a lot of words that eventually concludes with someone not paying their taxes. Ok, I've read it now (well, 90% of it, I started skimming towards the end). I was being too generous, there really is nothing of value there. It's just bollocks. Honestly, if you put a chart in your book making an argument about some correlation and your r-squared is 0.37 you just don't deserve to be taken seriously. It's a stupid mix of Randian "going galt" and confused inconsistent rubbish. You're going to opt out of FDA regulations. Great, that's the big idea. But with blockchain. You're going to form a decentralized online community to organise a sugar-free community. What about this has anything to do with technology, governance or anything? Your big idea is to start a specialty restaurant. As we all know, there are 3 political organisations, the Chinese communist party, Bitcoin, and the NYT (which runs America). This is just deranged. I think Vitalik is way too generous to Balaji in this analysis. I still think the only thing that will ever come to fruition branded as a "Network state" will be an attempt to skirt regulations or dodge taxes.
braingenious 4y ago
I used to know a guy that smoked >2g of meth per day that would talk nonstop about shit like this. He lived in a makeshift shed at the bottom of a dry river bed. He’s long dead now but he’d have gotten a kick out of “keto kosher” for sure!
- capableweb 4y ago
  The line between insane and genius is indeed seemingly small. Reminds me of when I talked with a quantum scientist. Most of what he said, sounded like ramblings from a coke head, but seemingly others around him understood what he said and continued the discussion, so I can only assume they were actually having a real conversation. If I'd met the guy under different circumstances, I'd definitely wouldn't have believed any of it was actually real.
  - shafyy 4y ago
    There's no line. Most "geniuses" are fucking insane, they just happen to be right about one thing.
    - bigDinosaur 4y ago
      Is this really true? Maybe they're not 'geniuses' but the most capable people I've met have generally seemed quite sane? Often idiosyncratic, sure, but not wildly decoupled from reality. That matches what I've generally read about famous geniuses too.
      - nominusllc 4y ago
        It's because genius and lunacy aren't mutually exclusive, and any intelligence sufficiently advanced to be labeled as such is separated from normal intelligence by a wide gulf of differences.
      - shafyy 4y ago
        I don't have any hard data on this, that's just my experience / opinion =)
pphysch 4y ago
Realistically speaking: take a multinational corporation, dial up their employee care package (potentially to include all costs of living), and then (???) circumvent all local regulations, declare independence, etc. Why and how do you do the last parts? This is libertarian/Trotskyist utopianism with a copious helping of cryptomania.
- kreetx 4y ago
  Multinationals arent "run" for the good of their people and don't seem to have any central value which motivates their being. And crypto here is simply a tool to enforce whatever rules they have to run their org (in the same sense that no-one can take your btc, but a government can take your fiat if they wanted to).
  - pphysch 4y ago
    > Multinationals arent "run" for the good of their people and don't seem to have any central value which motivates their being. There is nothing stopping a large corporation from doing these things, should the leadership find it in their interest.
    - kreetx 4y ago
      Absolutely, but they didn't start out that way and unlikely that any owner is going to change course of their business model.
ihm 4y ago
Seems founded on a totally unmaterialist and unscientific understanding of how societies persist themselves. This is evident in Balaji’s fixation on the psychology of the individuals involved. E.g., saying intentional communities have failed because they didn’t have a religious devotion to the project, like “Zionism without Judaism”. Instead he should talk about “Zionism without the British empire and the Holocaust”, both of which were much bigger factors in sustaining the project than the psychology of early zionists. Of course this played a role, but not a determinative one. Another indicator of the lack of materialist understanding: who is keeping the lights on for these delusional societies? Where does the food come from? Where do the electronics they use come from? Edit: reading further (against my better judgement…) it’s clear that the whole line of thinking is rooted in a misunderstanding of history and a parochial worldview that can barely see the world outside Twitter.
- evrydayhustling 4y ago
  Right - shared interest is much better at creating identity than identity is at creating shared interests. The idea of lifestyle identities binding network states that survive the evolution of members' differing interests is weak. The sustained identity-based networks of the world have often been those whose persecution gives them a strong mutual interest.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- arlcode 4y ago
  Also the most basic question: "You and what army?" Either they pay/bribe whatever governments have an interest in them or they find a way to (threaten to) defend themselves against people who are much more organized and economically supported than their paradise for rich people. In the later cases you need to find 'volunteers' who (might) "die in the trenches" and I've got a feeling that you those are not to abundant in a society characterized by the desire to get away. Others have tried and failed. E.g. The Khmer Rouge did enforce massive changes on society, according with their ideology, but in the end they were removed from power with the help of tanks planes and guns.
henearkr 4y ago
Yay even more groupism. Like nationalism, bigotry and racism weren't enough. I think we should move towards a more integrated Earth, not more partitioning.
- nathias 4y ago
  partitioning is the way how we make societies more integrated
  - henearkr 4y ago
    No. World-widely adopted laws are the way to go (thus, with world-wide enforcement organ too). Any other method leads to workarounds and relocation of what was meant to be curbed.
    - nathias 4y ago
      you know that there are quite a few of us that don't like the imperial boot on our face, and will always oppose it?
      - henearkr 4y ago
        I am not talking about imperialism, but about an Earth-scale democracy. I am as opposed as you to imperialism lol, if it was not clear enough from my posts. By the way, I think that what can be put in the category of "traditions" is not touched by laws, so my proposal does not hurt cultural differences. However it does ask to some traditions to go, because they are just objectively harmful. Just to hit the nail a bit further: you see cultural variety INSIDE existing democratic states, for example regional customs and traditions, etc. So there is absolutely no hint of imperialism in building a world-wide democracy.
        nathias 4y ago
        That would be a good goal, but how can you make it witout imperialism? Not through nation states or representative democracies but through voluntary networks that can compose.
shafyy 4y ago
Here's something some software engineers need to understand: Most things in society and the world are not technical problems. Just because you can invert a binary tree doesn't mean you understand how society works. It seems like some people, just because they are smart in one area, think they know everything. We see this with many VCs, Elon Musk, Vitalik etc. Reading this post, I don't even know where to begin. This sounds like the ramblings of a kid that never had any real friends and community, and never lived in the real world. But maybe we have peaked as a society (at least in the US), and it's all going downhill from here?
- rvz 4y ago
  Precisely said. > It seems like some people, just because they are smart in one area, think they know everything. We see this with many VCs, Elon Musk, Vitalik etc. Totally correct. Elon's wild claims on solving FSD (Fools Self Driving) seemed to be a total disaster, and Vitalik's claims on his decentralized slot machine utopia 'Ethereum' on how using a generalized blockchain to solve 'anything' from voting, social networks, DAOs, NFTs, etc has manifested into a tinkerbell griftopia [0] as feared by even the most fierce critics of blockchains. Finally, VCs really don't care on being wrong on thousands of failed investments. They just need one massive return to make up for all of it hundreds of times over and somehow they are viewed as 'experts' which is a great example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. We don't hear them screaming about Clubhouse which was hyped to the extreme since it is isn't doing great as expected after being copied to death. Also reading this article in particular, it is gearing close to sophistry. [0] https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/tinkerbell.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/tinkerbell.html
- lottin 4y ago
  This is exactly how I feel about anarcho-capitalism (also known in the USA as libertarianism), and ideology that seems devised by a 10 year old with no life experience. How a grown-up person can take this nonsense seriously is beyond me. Bewildering.
  - rufusroflpunch 4y ago
    I'm sure they would say the same thing about whatever nonsense you believe.
pcdoodle 4y ago
hjanssen 4y ago
The idea that really any state on this planet would recognize such a "state" as independent and would not treat it as a terrorist/criminal organisation is laughable and reeks of the typical tech-bro mindset that I have come to expect of any individual who willingly associates themselves with the crypto-bubble.
- WFHRenaissance 4y ago
  Unless said nation states can enrich themselves via network states. Which will happen. There will be an elite transfer that occurs at this level.
Communitivity 4y ago
Balaji sounds bizarre. The strangeness of the idea that Bitcoin is conservative is eclipsed only by the idea everything is run by the CCP, Crypto, and the NYT. I read Vitalik's take as a soft rebuke while trying to give honest consideration to the concept of a Network State. However, for me 'Network State' only seems to be a new term for a Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) that provides services typically provided by a government. I would have liked a term that highlights this connection more, perhaps something like Governing Autonomous Organization (GAO). Due apologies to the Government Account Office (also GAO). I think better than Balaji takes on the concept can be found in the works of two science fiction authors, Neal Stephenson and Charlie Stross. Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash [1] (e.g., Distributed Republics [2]). May be of interest, but Stephenson is building a metaverse that may incorporate some of these concepts, called Laminal [3]. Accelerando [4], by Charlie Stross, takes the concept even further. It has literal distributed autonomous companies acting as shell corporations, executors, and more. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FBJCJE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FBJCJE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... [2] Perry, Richard Warren (2000). "Governmentalities in City-scapes: Introduction to the Symposium". Political and Legal Anthropology Review. 23 (1): 65–72. doi:10.1525/pol.2000.23.1.65. ISSN 1081-6976. JSTOR 24497832. [3] https://decrypt.co/102646/snow-crash-author-neal-stephenson-is-building-a-free-metaverse-called-lamina1 https://decrypt.co/102646/snow-crash-author-neal-stephenson-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I agree, I was early in the 1729 community and there were a lot of interesting discussions but it got so muddled by Balaji with both crypto and hatred towards a biased media that I think the idea of network states sort of folded in on itself. Why on earth do you need an on-chain census to try to become a nation state verified by the U.N.? Really, I think this is a perfect example of what happens with a pretty genius mind that gets stuck in an area of expertise and tries to shoehorn everything into that frame of mind. Just to add to your books, Diamond Age by Stephenson was also good although nation states weren't the main topic but Malka Older's Infomocracy series which talks a lot about microstates and a body like the UN that controls the world's information was a phenomenal read (and pretty quick). Overall, the book was a major disappointment, same with the community and his investment in Praxis-- the book could have been Sovereign Individual 2.0 with the right editor and more thought into the structure but ended up being a long-form rambling essay with the same examples (keto community!) re-used again and again
zuzu89 4y ago
Libertarians understand how culture and power work challenge (impossible)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
motohagiography 4y ago
Seems like another instance of a longer historic theme that has been picked up recently by the sea steading libertarian crowd, and now network states. Imo, the secular and by extension libertarian mentality is just another anti-ethos defined by what it opposes, and then they think if they just criticize harder with more words, this negative thing that defines them will somehow yeild. Rhetorically, what is the difference between these ideas and ones that have actually created de-facto network states, global networks, and even historically significant civilizations like America? The network states that I know of still exist today are the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, and to a much lesser extent (but as a great example of an intentional network whose principles underpin modern western civilization) Freemasonry, and what they all have in common is they are based on a single very simple idea that scales. They aren't secular, which means they don't have to re-invent the wheel on a principle to underpin their laws and customs. This isn't advocacy for theism necessarily, but when you look at the gallons of ink spilled on "new" ideas, they're all talking around the elephant in the room and substituting complex exeptions for a central scalable ethos. We (and especially crypto libertarian people) all know that complex rules yield stupid behavior. When I read these discussions of manifestos, what I can't help but conclude is that their secularism is the self-selected and self-sabotaging constraint. With the exception of communism, the world does not tolerate atheistic global powers or networks for very long. There's a kind of alchemy to the new crypto versions of old ideas where they think they can create neutral systems of rules and incentives that resist human corruption and solve the problem of Evil. It's the promise of lead into gold. The approach of the religious ones didn't try solve Evil at all (other than their exemplary failures), but they did provide a path for people to become both good and worthy, and to prevail. I'd suggest that the people writing these elaborate perscriptions for breakaway societies just try and consider a second experimental draft of them using a theistic (or even deistic) axiom and then compare the results. The secular or atheistic requirement for ideas about new societies is the "the floor is lava" constraint of our time, and it produces just as many silly contortions and self-imposed struggles. If they try it again without pretending the floor is lava, I think they will have more success and provide something more valuable.
- blep_ 4y ago
  The problem with theistic societies is that they make absolutely no sense to an atheist. Surely you're not advocating for atheists to pretend to be theists to push their political views? (also many secular people are not libertarians, and many libertarians are religious. I have no idea where you got that idea from.)
ryukafalz 4y ago
There’s a lot here that’s entirely unnecessary but I’ve wondered recently if a “network state”-like thing devoted to certain public services might be beneficial. In particular, a large enough group could likely negotiate better rates for health insurance than an individual in the same way a large employer does, and could provide a stronger social safety net (maybe even potentially a UBI?) in the same way some governments do. Doing so would require e.g. countering benefit tourism (you couldn’t have someone join when they’re laid off just for some benefits and leave immediately after they find a new one, you’d never be able to keep it funded that way), but I think that’s surmountable. In other words, if we don’t believe the government we have right now is likely to provide many essential services, even if we ultimately believe it should, is it possible to organize privately for the same benefits? I think it might be.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- joosters 4y ago
  We used to call those 'co-operatives' and 'unions'.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Sort of, but both are pretty industry- and purpose-specific. Also, aren’t dues typically either fixed amounts or a flat percentage? If you’re looking to emulate a government, I’d imagine you might also want progressive dues akin to progressive taxation.
  - numtel 4y ago
    So then building them as "network states" is a recognition that nation states have lost the control they had a century ago due to advances in technology and communications. Distance and locality isn't as important when the internet makes telepresence feasible.
- m0llusk 4y ago
  This is already here now in some ways. For example: tree people. It turns out that there are a lot of basic rules communities can follow that make planting and caring for trees in public spaces easier. People who want to plant trees can reach out and find what kind of trees are best for particular locations and constraints. It is usually also possible to get instructions and borrow equipment for digging holes and moving trees and soil. You can't get regular pay or health insurance or a social safety net from the tree people, but together they plant, protect, and care for trees and spread the knowledge of how that is done and the wisdom of why it is done. In my opinion the tree people are a good minimal example of how network states might start with small shared domains and goals and might make a big difference without even expanding.
Nextgrid 4y ago
"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the blockchain with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party run a good old database.
- bloppe 4y ago
  "physical, trusted party" is a way of describing a blockchain network.
  - karpierz 4y ago
    No, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419
- conorcleary 4y ago
  ...a good old... centralized database? Welcome to the future, where pushing back with your opinion just helps reinforce the need for decentralization.
  - zach_garwood 4y ago
    "Decentralization." You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think means.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    a blockchain is as centralized as it gets, a "single source of truth"
  - majormajor 4y ago
    It's the difference between storage of data and consensus. You could have a centralized DB that believes X is true. You could have a distributed DB that believes X is true - or even that reflects that a bunch of people involved in the network believes that X is true. But what if X isn't true according to the consensus of the local societies you live in? Then it simply doesn't matter what sort of DB you use. In this "network states" discussion there seems to be a simple problem here: a network that crosses political boundaries can't solve certain things. So ok, it "crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" But... is that actually even realistic at all, or is it all fantasy? And even if you get there, your problem of border defense is INCREDIBLY difficult in your geo-distributed state. Traditional states appear to have some massive advantages in cases of any conflict.
elif 4y ago
The biggest mistake of this idea is the libertarian-leftover concept that such a group needs to become it's own sovereign nation. Libertarians depend on that impossible outcome because of their ultra-hardline anti-tax, anti-police, anti-social-service perspectives. However, almost all rational groups of thinkers would still happily pay taxes to have access to hospitals, be issued useful passports, to not have to defend their borders with weapons, etc. Further, literally no country, however desperate, is going to be willing to sell off it's sovereignty. We've seen so many libertarian attempts to negotiate that fail. Instead of network states, they should be seeking network municipalities. Municipalities can control most daily life decisions, even having their own police. There are also many nations that would provide good terms to attract a techno-city.
- seibelj 4y ago
  You are painting all libertarians with a broad brush. Just as not all Democrats are communists and not all Republicans are Nazis, not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists that want the state to be destroyed. It is a way to dismiss libertarians but it isn’t true. I’m a libertarian and I still want our constitutional republic in the US. I just advocate for market-based solutions vs. top-down paternalistic solutions and I want to reduce the size of the government. But I believe in the military, police, laws, taxes, etc.
  - elif 4y ago
    No, I'm painting historical secessionist libertarian movements as secessionist libertarian movements. The abolition and replacement of the state. Reformist libertarians are categorically excluded from the context of my criticism.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      Ok, but the point here is that "reformist libertarians" are the much larger group. The vast majority of people who call themselves libertarians are merely moderately economically right wing and moderately socially left wing.
otabdeveloper4 4y ago
> Zelensky would of course win a fair one-on-one fight Why "of course"? Putin does martial arts as a hobby, while Zelensky is a comedic actor. (Zelensky looks tougher on screen, but that's literally his profession.)
- system16 4y ago
  Clearly the state media building Putin's image has been effective. If his martial arts ability is anything like the propaganda clips state media shows of his "daily" gym routine - where his form suggests it's the first time he's ever stepped in one - I don't think Zelenskyy has much to worry about.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I took it as an attempt at levity for something that obviously doesn't matter and will never happen, but maybe also because Putin is almost 70 and at a certain point lots of training doesn't help the fact your body is degrading rapidly.
bloppe 4y ago
It took an epic ego combined with a highly selective interpretation of history to write this book. America in particular has a rich history of utopian separatist movements. The internet doesn't bring anything new to the table, apart from the facility to organize from afar, which has certain advantages but also many drawbacks. I encourage experimentation. Maybe Balaji can get it right where all the others have gotten it wrong. But, I find this book highly unconvincing. Modest, secular federalism has proven itself to me in principal, and I much prefer to fix the problems we have rather than scrap the whole system.
kardianos 4y ago
The fundamental foundation of USofA is that it tries to bind together a core minimum values and agreements, along with checks to that power to allow pursuit of the individual and of individual states. This is the result of despair to that, or not recognizing this. But this paper, if I read it correctly, rather then pointing to a shared reality, points to shared perceptions. As if the word of man makes reality. This is always doomed to fail because eventually reality will assert itself. I would prefer to articulate and achieve a shared foundation for the future: https://corinth.kardianos.com/latest.pdf https://corinth.kardianos.com/latest.pdf
annoyingnoob 4y ago
This seems doomed to repeat mistakes from history.
dellIsBetter 4y ago
if you say ultra left you gain downvote
zajio1am 4y ago
Fun fact: There is already one such 'network state': Sovereign military order of Malta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Ma...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  The SMOM isn't a network state (it doesn't have pockets of sole sovereign territory spread across the world granted by different states as a result of ground-up political pressure from its members), though it is a sovereign entity that is not a traditional state (specifically, lacking any sole sovereign territory, though it has some diplomatic extraterritorial enclaves and some co-soveriegn territory with Italy.)
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    I thought it recently got some land in Malta again too?
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      It has partial extraterritoriality in the upper portion of Fort St. Angelo, it's not their sovereign territory.
siavosh 4y ago
A state is in large part defined by having a monopoly over taxes and a military, neither of which any group within an existing state can ever have. So these network states can at most land somewhere between a political party or an online club. Does Balaji address this?
jshaqaw 4y ago
It is embarrassing that rich tech bro drivel like the Network State is what counts as intellectual discourse in modern society.
- m0llusk 4y ago
  Do you have any specific criticism of the idea?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

101 points by jseliger 4y ago

Network states are online communities that have collective agency (governance of some kind) that eventually try to materialize on land in the physical world. A DAO, could potentially become a network state but it could also in theory emerge from a subreddit or some other online community organized around a specific thing. Balaji has a particular vision for these network states that sees cryptocurrency as being an integral part of them. It also presupposes that these network states need to have a moral imperative to be long lasting (I.e a strong purpose like a religious community, being against the FDA, dietary etc) An important point to note is that a network state is not inherently a “right wing” or libertarian idea. In fact Vitalik references another more left leaning author, David de Ugarte, who explores similar ideas from a different perspective in his book Phyles: Economic Democracy in the Twenty First Century. It’s entirely possible to disagree with many of Balaji’s previous positions and see this as a useful playbook for implementing a network state that aligns with your world views. A large part of his book seems to be laying out a justification for this vision as well as it’s theoretical underpinnings. I.e why this needs to exist and why this would be better than say moving to an existing city state etc. Apart from that it’s basically a playbook for how a community could in theory go from lose collection of individuals on discords to a mini city with its own regulations and laws. Vitalik is sympathetic to much of the book but calls out 4 main issues he has with it: 1)The "founder" thing - why do network states need a recognized founder to be so central? 2)What if network states end up only serving the wealthy? 3)"Exit" alone is not sufficient to stabilize global politics. So if exit is everyone's first choice, what happens? 4)What about global negative externalities more generally? Of these critiques the ones that resonated with me so far are 2 and 4. I’m only about 25% through his book. In terms of 4, I think this exists today with nation states and hence I think it’s a little unfair to expect this to be addressed in this book. In terms of 2. I think this book is written for middle class and wealthy people who can easily move cities and or countries. I.e software engineers and scientists. A big question for me is, assuming network states are a thing that happen and are wide spread. What happens to all the displaced unskilled or semi skilled global poor? What will their likely relationships be with these new network states? How do millions of people displaced by wars like in Syria or the Ukraine fit into or impact this network state model? People who are forced to exit as opposed to having the luxury of choosing to exit. This seems like a bit of a blind spot if even from just a network state game theory perspective. In general I’m enjoying this book so far and would recommend people read it if they are interested in subjects like charter cities or DAOs. I treat it as a thought provoking work that’s not mean spirited in tone like the sovereign individual. Within my lifetime I expect to see people try and create new charter cities bootstrapped from online communities. I think this book offers a lot of useful advice on how to think about forming these communities.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
But Balaji's book isn't really a playbook for how a community could go from loose collection of individuals on discord to a mini city! If it was that, it would be a far more compelling read, instead the first 50% could be summed up as, "institutions bad, crypto will save us all, media is biased, America is just as bad as China, and India is rising." And the back half while more interesting basically rehashes similar examples over and over (keto community) without many tangible details on going from 0 to 1. Could have been far more interesting, talked about things like Sovereign Military order of Malta, Charter Cities, SEZ's, and other interim ways for a network state to come to be but instead was just repeated ramblings and definitions.

SilverBirch 4y ago

I'm going to write the first part of this comment after reading the first paragraph, then I'll revisit when I finish the article: This is going to be a lot of words that eventually concludes with someone not paying their taxes. Ok, I've read it now (well, 90% of it, I started skimming towards the end). I was being too generous, there really is nothing of value there. It's just bollocks. Honestly, if you put a chart in your book making an argument about some correlation and your r-squared is 0.37 you just don't deserve to be taken seriously. It's a stupid mix of Randian "going galt" and confused inconsistent rubbish. You're going to opt out of FDA regulations. Great, that's the big idea. But with blockchain. You're going to form a decentralized online community to organise a sugar-free community. What about this has anything to do with technology, governance or anything? Your big idea is to start a specialty restaurant. As we all know, there are 3 political organisations, the Chinese communist party, Bitcoin, and the NYT (which runs America). This is just deranged. I think Vitalik is way too generous to Balaji in this analysis. I still think the only thing that will ever come to fruition branded as a "Network state" will be an attempt to skirt regulations or dodge taxes.

braingenious 4y ago

I used to know a guy that smoked >2g of meth per day that would talk nonstop about shit like this. He lived in a makeshift shed at the bottom of a dry river bed. He’s long dead now but he’d have gotten a kick out of “keto kosher” for sure!

capableweb 4y ago
The line between insane and genius is indeed seemingly small. Reminds me of when I talked with a quantum scientist. Most of what he said, sounded like ramblings from a coke head, but seemingly others around him understood what he said and continued the discussion, so I can only assume they were actually having a real conversation. If I'd met the guy under different circumstances, I'd definitely wouldn't have believed any of it was actually real.
- shafyy 4y ago
  There's no line. Most "geniuses" are fucking insane, they just happen to be right about one thing.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    Is this really true? Maybe they're not 'geniuses' but the most capable people I've met have generally seemed quite sane? Often idiosyncratic, sure, but not wildly decoupled from reality. That matches what I've generally read about famous geniuses too.
    - nominusllc 4y ago
      It's because genius and lunacy aren't mutually exclusive, and any intelligence sufficiently advanced to be labeled as such is separated from normal intelligence by a wide gulf of differences.
    - shafyy 4y ago
      I don't have any hard data on this, that's just my experience / opinion =)

pphysch 4y ago

Realistically speaking: take a multinational corporation, dial up their employee care package (potentially to include all costs of living), and then (???) circumvent all local regulations, declare independence, etc. Why and how do you do the last parts? This is libertarian/Trotskyist utopianism with a copious helping of cryptomania.

kreetx 4y ago
Multinationals arent "run" for the good of their people and don't seem to have any central value which motivates their being. And crypto here is simply a tool to enforce whatever rules they have to run their org (in the same sense that no-one can take your btc, but a government can take your fiat if they wanted to).
- pphysch 4y ago
  > Multinationals arent "run" for the good of their people and don't seem to have any central value which motivates their being. There is nothing stopping a large corporation from doing these things, should the leadership find it in their interest.
  - kreetx 4y ago
    Absolutely, but they didn't start out that way and unlikely that any owner is going to change course of their business model.

ihm 4y ago

Seems founded on a totally unmaterialist and unscientific understanding of how societies persist themselves. This is evident in Balaji’s fixation on the psychology of the individuals involved. E.g., saying intentional communities have failed because they didn’t have a religious devotion to the project, like “Zionism without Judaism”. Instead he should talk about “Zionism without the British empire and the Holocaust”, both of which were much bigger factors in sustaining the project than the psychology of early zionists. Of course this played a role, but not a determinative one. Another indicator of the lack of materialist understanding: who is keeping the lights on for these delusional societies? Where does the food come from? Where do the electronics they use come from? Edit: reading further (against my better judgement…) it’s clear that the whole line of thinking is rooted in a misunderstanding of history and a parochial worldview that can barely see the world outside Twitter.

evrydayhustling 4y ago
Right - shared interest is much better at creating identity than identity is at creating shared interests. The idea of lifestyle identities binding network states that survive the evolution of members' differing interests is weak. The sustained identity-based networks of the world have often been those whose persecution gives them a strong mutual interest.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
arlcode 4y ago
Also the most basic question: "You and what army?" Either they pay/bribe whatever governments have an interest in them or they find a way to (threaten to) defend themselves against people who are much more organized and economically supported than their paradise for rich people. In the later cases you need to find 'volunteers' who (might) "die in the trenches" and I've got a feeling that you those are not to abundant in a society characterized by the desire to get away. Others have tried and failed. E.g. The Khmer Rouge did enforce massive changes on society, according with their ideology, but in the end they were removed from power with the help of tanks planes and guns.

henearkr 4y ago

Yay even more groupism. Like nationalism, bigotry and racism weren't enough. I think we should move towards a more integrated Earth, not more partitioning.

nathias 4y ago
partitioning is the way how we make societies more integrated
- henearkr 4y ago
  No. World-widely adopted laws are the way to go (thus, with world-wide enforcement organ too). Any other method leads to workarounds and relocation of what was meant to be curbed.
  - nathias 4y ago
    you know that there are quite a few of us that don't like the imperial boot on our face, and will always oppose it?
    - henearkr 4y ago
      I am not talking about imperialism, but about an Earth-scale democracy. I am as opposed as you to imperialism lol, if it was not clear enough from my posts. By the way, I think that what can be put in the category of "traditions" is not touched by laws, so my proposal does not hurt cultural differences. However it does ask to some traditions to go, because they are just objectively harmful. Just to hit the nail a bit further: you see cultural variety INSIDE existing democratic states, for example regional customs and traditions, etc. So there is absolutely no hint of imperialism in building a world-wide democracy.
      - nathias 4y ago
        That would be a good goal, but how can you make it witout imperialism? Not through nation states or representative democracies but through voluntary networks that can compose.

shafyy 4y ago

Here's something some software engineers need to understand: Most things in society and the world are not technical problems. Just because you can invert a binary tree doesn't mean you understand how society works. It seems like some people, just because they are smart in one area, think they know everything. We see this with many VCs, Elon Musk, Vitalik etc. Reading this post, I don't even know where to begin. This sounds like the ramblings of a kid that never had any real friends and community, and never lived in the real world. But maybe we have peaked as a society (at least in the US), and it's all going downhill from here?

rvz 4y ago
Precisely said. > It seems like some people, just because they are smart in one area, think they know everything. We see this with many VCs, Elon Musk, Vitalik etc. Totally correct. Elon's wild claims on solving FSD (Fools Self Driving) seemed to be a total disaster, and Vitalik's claims on his decentralized slot machine utopia 'Ethereum' on how using a generalized blockchain to solve 'anything' from voting, social networks, DAOs, NFTs, etc has manifested into a tinkerbell griftopia [0] as feared by even the most fierce critics of blockchains. Finally, VCs really don't care on being wrong on thousands of failed investments. They just need one massive return to make up for all of it hundreds of times over and somehow they are viewed as 'experts' which is a great example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. We don't hear them screaming about Clubhouse which was hyped to the extreme since it is isn't doing great as expected after being copied to death. Also reading this article in particular, it is gearing close to sophistry. [0] https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/tinkerbell.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/tinkerbell.html
lottin 4y ago
This is exactly how I feel about anarcho-capitalism (also known in the USA as libertarianism), and ideology that seems devised by a 10 year old with no life experience. How a grown-up person can take this nonsense seriously is beyond me. Bewildering.
- rufusroflpunch 4y ago
  I'm sure they would say the same thing about whatever nonsense you believe.

pcdoodle 4y ago

hjanssen 4y ago

The idea that really any state on this planet would recognize such a "state" as independent and would not treat it as a terrorist/criminal organisation is laughable and reeks of the typical tech-bro mindset that I have come to expect of any individual who willingly associates themselves with the crypto-bubble.

WFHRenaissance 4y ago
Unless said nation states can enrich themselves via network states. Which will happen. There will be an elite transfer that occurs at this level.

Communitivity 4y ago

Balaji sounds bizarre. The strangeness of the idea that Bitcoin is conservative is eclipsed only by the idea everything is run by the CCP, Crypto, and the NYT. I read Vitalik's take as a soft rebuke while trying to give honest consideration to the concept of a Network State. However, for me 'Network State' only seems to be a new term for a Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) that provides services typically provided by a government. I would have liked a term that highlights this connection more, perhaps something like Governing Autonomous Organization (GAO). Due apologies to the Government Account Office (also GAO). I think better than Balaji takes on the concept can be found in the works of two science fiction authors, Neal Stephenson and Charlie Stross. Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash [1] (e.g., Distributed Republics [2]). May be of interest, but Stephenson is building a metaverse that may incorporate some of these concepts, called Laminal [3]. Accelerando [4], by Charlie Stross, takes the concept even further. It has literal distributed autonomous companies acting as shell corporations, executors, and more. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FBJCJE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FBJCJE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... [2] Perry, Richard Warren (2000). "Governmentalities in City-scapes: Introduction to the Symposium". Political and Legal Anthropology Review. 23 (1): 65–72. doi:10.1525/pol.2000.23.1.65. ISSN 1081-6976. JSTOR 24497832. [3] https://decrypt.co/102646/snow-crash-author-neal-stephenson-is-building-a-free-metaverse-called-lamina1 https://decrypt.co/102646/snow-crash-author-neal-stephenson-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I agree, I was early in the 1729 community and there were a lot of interesting discussions but it got so muddled by Balaji with both crypto and hatred towards a biased media that I think the idea of network states sort of folded in on itself. Why on earth do you need an on-chain census to try to become a nation state verified by the U.N.? Really, I think this is a perfect example of what happens with a pretty genius mind that gets stuck in an area of expertise and tries to shoehorn everything into that frame of mind. Just to add to your books, Diamond Age by Stephenson was also good although nation states weren't the main topic but Malka Older's Infomocracy series which talks a lot about microstates and a body like the UN that controls the world's information was a phenomenal read (and pretty quick). Overall, the book was a major disappointment, same with the community and his investment in Praxis-- the book could have been Sovereign Individual 2.0 with the right editor and more thought into the structure but ended up being a long-form rambling essay with the same examples (keto community!) re-used again and again

zuzu89 4y ago

Libertarians understand how culture and power work challenge (impossible)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

motohagiography 4y ago

Seems like another instance of a longer historic theme that has been picked up recently by the sea steading libertarian crowd, and now network states. Imo, the secular and by extension libertarian mentality is just another anti-ethos defined by what it opposes, and then they think if they just criticize harder with more words, this negative thing that defines them will somehow yeild. Rhetorically, what is the difference between these ideas and ones that have actually created de-facto network states, global networks, and even historically significant civilizations like America? The network states that I know of still exist today are the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, and to a much lesser extent (but as a great example of an intentional network whose principles underpin modern western civilization) Freemasonry, and what they all have in common is they are based on a single very simple idea that scales. They aren't secular, which means they don't have to re-invent the wheel on a principle to underpin their laws and customs. This isn't advocacy for theism necessarily, but when you look at the gallons of ink spilled on "new" ideas, they're all talking around the elephant in the room and substituting complex exeptions for a central scalable ethos. We (and especially crypto libertarian people) all know that complex rules yield stupid behavior. When I read these discussions of manifestos, what I can't help but conclude is that their secularism is the self-selected and self-sabotaging constraint. With the exception of communism, the world does not tolerate atheistic global powers or networks for very long. There's a kind of alchemy to the new crypto versions of old ideas where they think they can create neutral systems of rules and incentives that resist human corruption and solve the problem of Evil. It's the promise of lead into gold. The approach of the religious ones didn't try solve Evil at all (other than their exemplary failures), but they did provide a path for people to become both good and worthy, and to prevail. I'd suggest that the people writing these elaborate perscriptions for breakaway societies just try and consider a second experimental draft of them using a theistic (or even deistic) axiom and then compare the results. The secular or atheistic requirement for ideas about new societies is the "the floor is lava" constraint of our time, and it produces just as many silly contortions and self-imposed struggles. If they try it again without pretending the floor is lava, I think they will have more success and provide something more valuable.

blep_ 4y ago
The problem with theistic societies is that they make absolutely no sense to an atheist. Surely you're not advocating for atheists to pretend to be theists to push their political views? (also many secular people are not libertarians, and many libertarians are religious. I have no idea where you got that idea from.)

ryukafalz 4y ago

There’s a lot here that’s entirely unnecessary but I’ve wondered recently if a “network state”-like thing devoted to certain public services might be beneficial. In particular, a large enough group could likely negotiate better rates for health insurance than an individual in the same way a large employer does, and could provide a stronger social safety net (maybe even potentially a UBI?) in the same way some governments do. Doing so would require e.g. countering benefit tourism (you couldn’t have someone join when they’re laid off just for some benefits and leave immediately after they find a new one, you’d never be able to keep it funded that way), but I think that’s surmountable. In other words, if we don’t believe the government we have right now is likely to provide many essential services, even if we ultimately believe it should, is it possible to organize privately for the same benefits? I think it might be.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
joosters 4y ago
We used to call those 'co-operatives' and 'unions'.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Sort of, but both are pretty industry- and purpose-specific. Also, aren’t dues typically either fixed amounts or a flat percentage? If you’re looking to emulate a government, I’d imagine you might also want progressive dues akin to progressive taxation.
- numtel 4y ago
  So then building them as "network states" is a recognition that nation states have lost the control they had a century ago due to advances in technology and communications. Distance and locality isn't as important when the internet makes telepresence feasible.
m0llusk 4y ago
This is already here now in some ways. For example: tree people. It turns out that there are a lot of basic rules communities can follow that make planting and caring for trees in public spaces easier. People who want to plant trees can reach out and find what kind of trees are best for particular locations and constraints. It is usually also possible to get instructions and borrow equipment for digging holes and moving trees and soil. You can't get regular pay or health insurance or a social safety net from the tree people, but together they plant, protect, and care for trees and spread the knowledge of how that is done and the wisdom of why it is done. In my opinion the tree people are a good minimal example of how network states might start with small shared domains and goals and might make a big difference without even expanding.

Nextgrid 4y ago

"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the blockchain with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party run a good old database.

bloppe 4y ago
"physical, trusted party" is a way of describing a blockchain network.
- karpierz 4y ago
  No, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419
conorcleary 4y ago
...a good old... centralized database? Welcome to the future, where pushing back with your opinion just helps reinforce the need for decentralization.
- zach_garwood 4y ago
  "Decentralization." You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think means.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  a blockchain is as centralized as it gets, a "single source of truth"
- majormajor 4y ago
  It's the difference between storage of data and consensus. You could have a centralized DB that believes X is true. You could have a distributed DB that believes X is true - or even that reflects that a bunch of people involved in the network believes that X is true. But what if X isn't true according to the consensus of the local societies you live in? Then it simply doesn't matter what sort of DB you use. In this "network states" discussion there seems to be a simple problem here: a network that crosses political boundaries can't solve certain things. So ok, it "crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" But... is that actually even realistic at all, or is it all fantasy? And even if you get there, your problem of border defense is INCREDIBLY difficult in your geo-distributed state. Traditional states appear to have some massive advantages in cases of any conflict.

elif 4y ago

The biggest mistake of this idea is the libertarian-leftover concept that such a group needs to become it's own sovereign nation. Libertarians depend on that impossible outcome because of their ultra-hardline anti-tax, anti-police, anti-social-service perspectives. However, almost all rational groups of thinkers would still happily pay taxes to have access to hospitals, be issued useful passports, to not have to defend their borders with weapons, etc. Further, literally no country, however desperate, is going to be willing to sell off it's sovereignty. We've seen so many libertarian attempts to negotiate that fail. Instead of network states, they should be seeking network municipalities. Municipalities can control most daily life decisions, even having their own police. There are also many nations that would provide good terms to attract a techno-city.

seibelj 4y ago
You are painting all libertarians with a broad brush. Just as not all Democrats are communists and not all Republicans are Nazis, not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists that want the state to be destroyed. It is a way to dismiss libertarians but it isn’t true. I’m a libertarian and I still want our constitutional republic in the US. I just advocate for market-based solutions vs. top-down paternalistic solutions and I want to reduce the size of the government. But I believe in the military, police, laws, taxes, etc.
- elif 4y ago
  No, I'm painting historical secessionist libertarian movements as secessionist libertarian movements. The abolition and replacement of the state. Reformist libertarians are categorically excluded from the context of my criticism.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    Ok, but the point here is that "reformist libertarians" are the much larger group. The vast majority of people who call themselves libertarians are merely moderately economically right wing and moderately socially left wing.

otabdeveloper4 4y ago

> Zelensky would of course win a fair one-on-one fight Why "of course"? Putin does martial arts as a hobby, while Zelensky is a comedic actor. (Zelensky looks tougher on screen, but that's literally his profession.)

system16 4y ago
Clearly the state media building Putin's image has been effective. If his martial arts ability is anything like the propaganda clips state media shows of his "daily" gym routine - where his form suggests it's the first time he's ever stepped in one - I don't think Zelenskyy has much to worry about.
atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I took it as an attempt at levity for something that obviously doesn't matter and will never happen, but maybe also because Putin is almost 70 and at a certain point lots of training doesn't help the fact your body is degrading rapidly.

bloppe 4y ago

It took an epic ego combined with a highly selective interpretation of history to write this book. America in particular has a rich history of utopian separatist movements. The internet doesn't bring anything new to the table, apart from the facility to organize from afar, which has certain advantages but also many drawbacks. I encourage experimentation. Maybe Balaji can get it right where all the others have gotten it wrong. But, I find this book highly unconvincing. Modest, secular federalism has proven itself to me in principal, and I much prefer to fix the problems we have rather than scrap the whole system.

kardianos 4y ago

The fundamental foundation of USofA is that it tries to bind together a core minimum values and agreements, along with checks to that power to allow pursuit of the individual and of individual states. This is the result of despair to that, or not recognizing this. But this paper, if I read it correctly, rather then pointing to a shared reality, points to shared perceptions. As if the word of man makes reality. This is always doomed to fail because eventually reality will assert itself. I would prefer to articulate and achieve a shared foundation for the future: https://corinth.kardianos.com/latest.pdf https://corinth.kardianos.com/latest.pdf

annoyingnoob 4y ago

This seems doomed to repeat mistakes from history.

dellIsBetter 4y ago

if you say ultra left you gain downvote

zajio1am 4y ago

Fun fact: There is already one such 'network state': Sovereign military order of Malta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Ma...

dragonwriter 4y ago
The SMOM isn't a network state (it doesn't have pockets of sole sovereign territory spread across the world granted by different states as a result of ground-up political pressure from its members), though it is a sovereign entity that is not a traditional state (specifically, lacking any sole sovereign territory, though it has some diplomatic extraterritorial enclaves and some co-soveriegn territory with Italy.)
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I thought it recently got some land in Malta again too?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    It has partial extraterritoriality in the upper portion of Fort St. Angelo, it's not their sovereign territory.

siavosh 4y ago

A state is in large part defined by having a monopoly over taxes and a military, neither of which any group within an existing state can ever have. So these network states can at most land somewhere between a political party or an online club. Does Balaji address this?

jshaqaw 4y ago

It is embarrassing that rich tech bro drivel like the Network State is what counts as intellectual discourse in modern society.

m0llusk 4y ago
Do you have any specific criticism of the idea?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]