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
Sahil 🥝
@sahilk
I see your point. It’s well reflected in the difficulty nation states seem to have with governing different tribes. And there’s an inherent concern here. Nations are largely geographical in nature. And tribes can’t be characterised primarily by proximity anymore. To me, that does describe the problem nicely.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
boscolo.eth
@boscolo.eth
I 💯 agree with this framing. How can The Network State become a force for good? It seems to me that it merely provides the online means to organize and fund the same feuding we have now. Which Network State will serve as the "melting pot" the way USA once was portrayed?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
