Thanks for the thoughtful reply. For me, Lowery’s Softwar argument is a non-starter, so I don’t try to fold it into my framework. Sovereignty, as I see it, is the capacity to order collective human action within a defined territory in order to ensure peace, security, and prosperity for its inhabitants. The modern nation-state is the most powerful and effective embodiment of this principle, and while sovereignty has taken other forms throughout history and prehistory, I don’t see anything on the horizon capable of replacing the state as the generator and protector of collective life.
Where I focus instead is on how parasovereign protocols like Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor complement sovereignty by enabling individual autonomy in commerce, expression, and association. Sovereignty and parasovereignty do not compete; they guarantee different but equally necessary dimensions of human action.
Curious to see when finished. After the bloody experiences of the 20th century in the name of nation states, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that for peace and prosperity for humanity, they’re lacking in all fronts and have only demonstrated these capacities when their general tendency towards centralised psychopathy is severely restrained. To suggest there’s no competition when nation states are constantly attacking individual sovereign tools seems to contradict much of the current zeitgeist when considering samurai, operation chokepoint, digital ID for internet access etc etc.
Truly curious to see how you see these contradictory incentives of freedom and the desire to curtail it dovetail into the future. It’s certainly questions many are asking and contemplating
My thesis is the state will remain. It has to be constrained and restrained. Engineered parasovereign technologies like Bitcoin, Nostr and Tor are crucial in that regard.
Makes sense as right now, nation states with corrupt centralised government as a norm is certainly not looking terribly positive for humanity thriving. Maybe decentralised technologies allow decentralising of much of that apparatus.
The problem comes when actors who are empowered by the stae try to do what individuals and businesses/non profits do best.
I may have missed some for sure but I’ve yet to see any large centralised body do things that appear to have benefit. I include charities and things. Incredible things get done at local level and half the time seems to be spent on governments and big charities getting in the way to try to profit in some manner. Take that to a bigger level and watching what I consider to be an escence of pure unethical corruption and scum and you can have fun watching unicef around Africa. We used to watch those thugs from our office window in Angola. It’s as if any form of centralisation that creates more power or wealth projection is innately impossible for humanity to manage in a manner that doesn’t get corrupted by the most venal people. I personally don’t see that challenge being overcome without extreme decentralisation and individual sovereignty. Hope am wrong or that if right, something can be achieved that mitigates those tendencies
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
