These are intelligent thoughts Electra, but one suspects that they will ultimately set up an informative ‘crossroads’ with those who are attracted to network states for the essential rationale that they can establish (overtly or defacto) a form of techno totalitarian regime. Too often, those that rail against existing regulatory regimes simply want to replace them with their own perceived omnipotence. We shall see, however your quest is both noble and sound, in my(occasionally) humble view.
Simon, thank you, I appreciate the recognition for where I'm coming from. You're right that part of what draws some people to network states is wanting to replace one regime with their own, or just not wanting to pay tax to failing states anymore (voting with our feet). But the beauty of opt-in societies like these is you can choose the one that aligns with your values and desire to participate. How well these new world structures hold in the ensuing chaos and retain their members will depend a lot on how we design them now. So inherit what worked before. And deliberately invite the right people in the early days.
I have some thoughts on intentional communities, which are:
Communities function via a consensus. Consensus to participate, consent to abide or be governed, to contribute; to accept means of exchange and trade.
They also function within constraints - which locally means rules and globally means functioning within a wider set of rules and circumstances. A (digital) nation still functions in a political and economic landscape where it exerts some influence, accepts a measure of control as a condition of its continuing existence and obtains, by virtue of community consensus and within that consensus - a measure of freedom.
Free will is never absolute because we co-create realities together. Community does that more or less intentionally.
Rules, enforcement, process, algorithms - are answerable to creators (coders) who may understand code but can't reliably predict the circumstances that invoke that code.
I agree with you that clinging to the old is no substitute for embracing progress, and I also agree that creating progress is well informed by the past.
We fight a battle now, on every front - with the default patterns of human nature. To ego, to control, to certainty and to ideology. As a species, we always have. We do that against a backdrop of scarcity of resources between the arms of order and chaos - we always have. But there is always progress. so we go round in spirals, never back to the beginning.
The opposite of creation is inaction; just as the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.
Creation requires vision. Consensus creates rules, and coding literally enforces rules whether absolute or deterministically nuanced; but the system in which creation occurs always exists in the space of ideas.
Systems, societies, communities - are dynamic. The rules and precepts are tools of the visionary; not absolutes to be worshipped in their own right.
Joe, hi! Thanks for your comment. I think the overlap in our views is that rules, code and enforcement always sit inside a wider human and social context, and coders don't always fully anticipate that context in advance. After years of appreciating blockchain, with the advent of AI I guess that's why I'm zooming in on governance functions staying distinct, rather than being compressed into an execution function. The issue for me is less whether systems are dynamic, which they obviously are, and more whether they contain enough separation, recourse and human accountability for people to trust them and make these new internet-first societies viable.
These are intelligent thoughts Electra, but one suspects that they will ultimately set up an informative ‘crossroads’ with those who are attracted to network states for the essential rationale that they can establish (overtly or defacto) a form of techno totalitarian regime. Too often, those that rail against existing regulatory regimes simply want to replace them with their own perceived omnipotence. We shall see, however your quest is both noble and sound, in my(occasionally) humble view.
Simon, thank you, I appreciate the recognition for where I'm coming from. You're right that part of what draws some people to network states is wanting to replace one regime with their own, or just not wanting to pay tax to failing states anymore (voting with our feet). But the beauty of opt-in societies like these is you can choose the one that aligns with your values and desire to participate. How well these new world structures hold in the ensuing chaos and retain their members will depend a lot on how we design them now. So inherit what worked before. And deliberately invite the right people in the early days.
Hi Electra,
I have some thoughts on intentional communities, which are:
Communities function via a consensus. Consensus to participate, consent to abide or be governed, to contribute; to accept means of exchange and trade.
They also function within constraints - which locally means rules and globally means functioning within a wider set of rules and circumstances. A (digital) nation still functions in a political and economic landscape where it exerts some influence, accepts a measure of control as a condition of its continuing existence and obtains, by virtue of community consensus and within that consensus - a measure of freedom.
Free will is never absolute because we co-create realities together. Community does that more or less intentionally.
Rules, enforcement, process, algorithms - are answerable to creators (coders) who may understand code but can't reliably predict the circumstances that invoke that code.
I agree with you that clinging to the old is no substitute for embracing progress, and I also agree that creating progress is well informed by the past.
We fight a battle now, on every front - with the default patterns of human nature. To ego, to control, to certainty and to ideology. As a species, we always have. We do that against a backdrop of scarcity of resources between the arms of order and chaos - we always have. But there is always progress. so we go round in spirals, never back to the beginning.
The opposite of creation is inaction; just as the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.
Creation requires vision. Consensus creates rules, and coding literally enforces rules whether absolute or deterministically nuanced; but the system in which creation occurs always exists in the space of ideas.
Systems, societies, communities - are dynamic. The rules and precepts are tools of the visionary; not absolutes to be worshipped in their own right.
Cheers
Joe, hi! Thanks for your comment. I think the overlap in our views is that rules, code and enforcement always sit inside a wider human and social context, and coders don't always fully anticipate that context in advance. After years of appreciating blockchain, with the advent of AI I guess that's why I'm zooming in on governance functions staying distinct, rather than being compressed into an execution function. The issue for me is less whether systems are dynamic, which they obviously are, and more whether they contain enough separation, recourse and human accountability for people to trust them and make these new internet-first societies viable.
Thanks