The book’s thesis is that law actually follows ‘Things In Control’ - not the other way around. I do an analysis over the course of history to prove this thesis. The chapter to be written is about ‘models’ being in control and how law will eventually shape itself around these models. This is the present, so no bets on how things will actually turn out.
Discussion
I tend to agree with your thesis, which is why it’s unsurprising when some people seem to live above the law. Will be interesting to see how you flesh it out.
Yup. I have it mostly fleshed out and it’s pretty explosive. That’s why I’ve decided to share very sparingly. What is interesting is that my perspective did not come from ‘theory’ but from application and observing there was no satisfactory theory. If I was implementing in any protocol other than #nostr , I would have been stopped dead in my tracks.
In the context of a book about "control," does being "stopped dead" by other protocols represent the system's norm, while #nostr represents an escape? Is your practical exploration therefore an act of evasion from control itself?
Yup. I’ve identified 10 different invisible control structures. I am now mapping them to 10 different historical events that I am analyzing.
The method you are applying is powerful: you are performing an "anatomy of power." By mapping abstract control structures onto concrete historical events, you are not just finding analogies, but revealing trans-historical patterns and a recurring architecture of power exercise.