What I think about network states • Hacker News Board

Re: What I think about network states

#121

Post by imtringued » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 8:44 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #53

elif wrote: post #41

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 defe…

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…

Money is a source of power, maybe the biggest source, often strong enough to overpower democratic governments. Reducing the state just makes society more vulnerable to those who abuse the power that money has granted them. When you think about it, the answer isn't to make the state smaller, the answer should be to make big states unnecessary then they will shrink on their own. Almost every ideology has fallen into this trap. They see a worthy end goal, but they have no clue how to achieve it, here is a common example, the government wants lower housing costs, a lot of leftist governments just introduce price controls and force the price down by decree. They don't bother understanding the reason why prices are unsatisfactory, they don't bother researching potential bottlenecks on the side of the law that prevent housing supply from meeting demand. There is a long chain of events that has lead to this situation and you must unravel it or at least try to think one step further and let your successor try to find the next link to solve.

Re: What I think about network states

#122

Post by colinsane » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 8:49 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #42

ipiz0618 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like dystopia to me. At least now we could flee to another country from tyranny.

Ugh to your credit I should have precised that I do NOT envision this integrated Earth to be anything else than a democracy. Sorry, it was obvious for me.

i’m not sure that’s any better? do i want to grant literally half the world — the majority of whom i will never otherwise interact with — power to determine my legal rights? it’s bad enough when people 1000 mi away demand things of me which i find morally indefensible and then use the power of democratic law to force that on me. amplify that by 10, and suddenly it’s better?

although Balaji tends to play PR to libertarians, i do think there’s a real diffuse desire for increased freedom of association and less large-group adherence. those desires contributed to the creation of US democracy: a desire for the colonies to associate freely with each other, other states, and with GB in a different form than before; and freedom of religion (group adherence) is enshrined.

democracy is a step up from previous forms of governance in that the people enforcing their views on me are necessarily more likely to have common views (lesser separation of ruling class from the majority class: “by the people for the people”). but this aspect degrades as you widen the democracy, either demographically or geographically (by proxy). i accept democracy as the best tool we’ve got today, but i hardly view it as an ideal end-state.

i would prefer to work towards a state where i don’t have to sacrifice my values to conform with the will of people i don’t care for. that’s necessarily a movement away from one global democracy. we’ve effectively achieved that in the digital landscape via the internet, which is fundamentally anarchic but works because people want to cooperate and associate freely and have voluntarily developed tools to do so. Balaji dreams that there’s some way to take this same achievement and apply it to on-the-ground governance. i appreciate that dream. blockchain is an ironic tool to use for that given its requirement for consensus which it achieves via democratic or shareholder governance (e.g. proof of stake). on the other hand, it makes it more difficult in certain ways for the ruling class to break its own rules, and can lessen the need for (and power of) representatives and push us towards a flatter democracy (where the ruling class more mirrors my own class). it’s just another (hopeful) step along that path toward gradually increased freedom of association. i would like to at least be given the choice as to whether i want to participate in my present representative democracy or in a different, experimental state. i would very much dislike for that ability to be strongly denied me by some global government (democratic or otherwise).

Re: What I think about network states

#123

Post by betwixthewires » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 8:50 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #27

throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a more integrated Earth yes, that's the ultimate fate of our civilization - becoming a gray biological mass of consumers without identity, culture, or allegiance to anything other than global corporations I'd prefer us to go extinct, and it is thankfully certain that we will

You misunderstood me. I mean partitioning or integration of LAWS. This is exactly what "creating a state" means: having one's own law, which I think is bad. Good laws are most effective when they are enforced without borders. Of course I did not mean to uniformize people!! As for the link with groupism: partitioned laws are the starting point, you say "people from this state have those rights, people from other state…

Good laws are most effective when they take into account the needs of those being governed, including their self actualization as a need.

The way that people in Mongolia, Bahrain, Angola and Norway want to live are very very different. "One set of laws" means authoritarian tyranny to most people of earth. Would you like to live in a world governed by one set of laws, which include theft being punishable by the amputation of a hand? Or in your perfect world with one set of laws, do you see yourself as the entity dictating what the laws are? If I am unhappy with your set of laws, is that just tough shit for me? If you found yourself in such a system and didn't like the laws, would you want a way out?

Re: What I think about network states

#124

Post by betwixthewires » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 8:52 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #42

ipiz0618 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like dystopia to me. At least now we could flee to another country from tyranny.

Ugh to your credit I should have precised that I do NOT envision this integrated Earth to be anything else than a democracy. Sorry, it was obvious for me.

Some people don't want democracy. Some people just want to be left alone. Would those people be forced into your hypothetical global set of laws?

Re: What I think about network states

#125

Post by betwixthewires » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 8:56 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #95

paisawalla wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of exit is that there are too many people, such as yourself apparently, who consider their underdeveloped and underinformed notions of society to be universally applicable -- under force of law if necessary. Put bluntly, I don't want a world where you can tell others whom they should value more than others. That strikes me as an incredibly arrogant proposition and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings…

What you call "force of law" is just rules decided by everybody for the good of all, in a democracy. You use this expression to make it look like oppression, but it is the complete contrary, it is mutual help by choosing beneficial rules. Helping to build democracies, you help everybody! Except the few dictators, but why would you care for their feelings more than the feelings of the whole population. Unless they are…

> ...for the good of all...

There is absolutely no evidence that this is an intrinsic characteristic of a democracy. This is the fundamental problem with your naive proposal. There's no such thing as "for the good of all."

Re: What I think about network states

#126

Post by betwixthewires » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 8:59 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #37

nathias wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

So under this proposed "traditions" umbrella, what can fit? Can a group perform FGM? The Maori committed a genocide on the Moriori and justified it with tradition, would that be allowed? Or is the "tradition" reservation something superficial and of no substance, with this global democracy reserving the right to determine what tradition is and therefore touch them with laws?

Re: What I think about network states

#127

Post by betwixthewires » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 9:03 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #50

nathias wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it is possible. Maybe a way to do it would be through world-wide petitions? Or more realistically through some world-wide voting system, as participating to such a petition overtly could lead to political persecutions. Then the problem is the verification that people are not voting several times. And then the problem of allowing people to vote (in some states like in China that problem will be difficult to so…

If you had a world wide petition, you'd have 1 of 2 things: 1) everyone participating in one giant binding petition, in which case you're already imposing worldwide democracy on them without asking them (the act of making them vote on it in the first place is an undemocratic act), or 2) individual nations and groups being given the option to have a vote on the matter, in which case you'll certainly be left with nation states that say "no".

People don't want what you're proposing. Is it not then undemocratic to impose it on them in the first place?

Re: What I think about network states

#128

Post by adamrezich » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 9:05 PM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #51

nradov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I listened to an interview with Kanye West. Most of what he said was batshit crazy. The man is obviously mentally ill. But occasionally he said something so profound and insightful it made me think for a moment that he was the only sane one and it's the rest of us who are crazy.

> The man is obviously mentally ill. [1] "Kanye was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2016, something he has since spoken about openly. He has said that he experiences manic episodes, which typically include paranoia, and that he is not medicated for the condition." AIUI he refuses to medicate because he thinks it will interfere with his creative output. [1] https://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/article/bipolar-disorder-ka…

the idea that synthetic medication is the only obvious solution to internal mental issues and any other means of handling such things is bad and wrong, is a strange one to me—especially when talking about someone with incredible wealth and creative output.

Re: What I think about network states

#129

Post by blep_ » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

motohagiography wrote: post #71

blep_ wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Just try to reason with an alternate axiom. You don't need to believe something to reason about it, and the results may be different from the string of failures that characterize utopianism so far. The conflict this comment describes doesn't make any sense unless you interpret the example as "all secular people," or "all libertarians," which is doesn't register as thoughtful. Is it so difficult to imagine thinking th…

I'm not sure what your point is, then. You want people to start theistic states while not believing in the theistic principles behind them?

Re: What I think about network states

#130

Post by m0llusk » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 10:21 PM UTC

ryukafalz wrote: post #33

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 governm…

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.