Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
balajis
@balajis.eth
The first network states don’t need to appeal to the mainstream. We don’t need even close to 50% support. If a network state can recruit even 0.01% of the world, that’s 800k people. And would already be the 160th largest country in the world, bigger than ~20% of UN recognized countries. So, be bold.
12 replies
12 recasts
79 reactions
Poison Ivy
@ivy
the first network states do need to be able to tell a story that's palatable to mainstream politicians though, otherwise it will get geometrically harder to negotiate agreements with host countries ie it will make SF policy gridlock look like sensible governance
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
a1z2
@a1z2
That’s if the goal is to be recognized internationally as a nation. I think that’s only a narrow, and early, goal for this movement. At a certain scale, I wonder if it’s even necessary— i.e. google, meta
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Poison Ivy
@ivy
not at all, Prospera depends on special economic zone regulations which the change in government at least at one time placed in a precarious position if the network state brand becomes radioactive in some way (ie: if it's categorized as fash to left leaning govts) they will go out of their way to make things difficult
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
a1z2
@a1z2
Fair, point taken. However I’m not of the belief that network states solely mean alternative government and political structures. I see them as a much broader type of organization, which, at scale, (like Amazon), become indistinguishable from nation state actors in terms of power and influence. Amazon sold books.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Poison Ivy
@ivy
amazon is subject to the laws of the US, and if the US wanted to make life very difficult for Amazon they could easily do so if network states are just a different kind of corporation then the 'movement' is just some clever marketing (which is the exact argument some of its detractors are making)
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
