balajis
@balajis.eth
It’s all tribes. Not ideologies. Not countries. Not borders. Not even leaders. Just tribes.
17 replies
11 recasts
118 reactions
balajis
@balajis.eth
Look at the flip on free speech and free markets. Ideology only matters if benefits your tribe. Look at the social networks, conferences, and crypto tribes that cross borders. Are you hanging with your physical neighbors or your tribesmen? Look at the decentralized order of tribes. Is that a single king-like leader?
3 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
balajis
@balajis.eth
A better term than “nation state” is “tribe state”, which more clearly conveys what the term “nation” used to mean. A nation state is a single-tribe state. That’s what it meant historically. If you had multiple large tribes under one government, that was a multiethnic empire, not a nation state.
3 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Ben - [C/x]
@benersing
True on the civil society side (“nation” or “tribe”). It’s hard to discount the legitimate use of force / power side (“state”) when talking about human organization. Even in the most democratic of democracies.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
balajis
@balajis.eth
A state is a social construct, though — it only exists if enough people believe in it. When people stopped believing in the USSR, it stopped existing. The state isn’t really that different from an ideologically-premised tribe. Indeed a nation state was originally meant to mean a “single tribe state”.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ben - [C/x]
@benersing
That’s true. In theory. In practice, no tightly organized group of humans (define that as a state, or any other governing entity type) that I’m aware of has emerged and persisted without a monopolized, legitimatized use/threat of force to hold it together and keep people in check.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
