What I think about network states
vitalik.ca
What I think about network states
1–10 of 144 posts
Re: What I think about network states
#2I'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.
Re: What I think about network states
#3I 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!
Re: What I think about network states
#4Realistically 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.
Re: What I think about network states
#5I 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!
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.
Re: What I think about network states
#6Seems 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.
Re: What I think about network states
#7Seems 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”,…
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.
Re: What I think about network states
#8Yay even more groupism. Like nationalism, bigotry and racism weren't enough.
I think we should move towards a more integrated Earth, not more partitioning.
Re: What I think about network states
#9Seems 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”,…
[deleted]
Re: What I think about network states
#10Here'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?