balajis on Warpcast

balajis pfp

🙂 All right. Let’s go a few rounds. Our mutual friend @mazmhussain can adjudicate. (1) First: startup societies are based on 100% consent. No one is there who hasn’t chosen to be there. No one is in a hierarchy if they haven’t opted into that hierarchy. Signing the social contract to join a community is much like signing a contract to join a company: you view the docs, make an informed decision, and opt out if it doesn’t work. That right to exit is the fundamental right. (2) Second: not all existing laws are good laws, like the PATRIOT Act. Sunsetting *some* laws doesn’t mean you don’t believe in laws in the abstract. (3) Third: you likely have views on what your ideal community would be. Maybe it’s a vegan village. Maybe it’s modern Amish, where tech is paused at the level of flip phones and people enjoy each other’s company. If you ever decided to build such a peaceful, opt-in community, then we would support you. And that’s what startup societies are about.

14 replies

38 recasts

164 reactions

Ryan Grim pfp

You’re probably already deeply familiar with the sordid history of utopian communities in the 19th and 20th century but for those aren’t, basically all of them collapsed or worse. That doesn’t mean nobody should be able to try again it doesn’t bode well. And of course, there’s no such thing as fully cleaving yourself off from society. What you allow to happen there will require external resources and will influence the rest of the world. And usually there will also be people already there. I’ve interviewed several residents of the Honduran island prospera has tried to take over and they never opted in and are appalled by it. I didn’t directly address some of your other points but will try again later.

3 replies

0 recast

21 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

+1 for the local consent argument, it's not a "network state" but i moved to PR for tax benefits in 2018 not knowing what i was getting into... i learned quickly that the locals largely hate the tax program and they hate the colonizer youtube star cryptobros who are driving them out of their homes and disrupting communities (and they are super justified in that because the US oppression is long-standing and systemic) i left 18mo later feeling bad and questioning my values, i couldn't stand being a part of that. im curious what could be done to improve the relationship of a network state with the local community and win legitimate consent - if anything, or maybe it will always be a colonial and disruptive practice?

3 replies

0 recast

8 reactions

balajis pfp

Puerto Rico passed a tax incentive to attract people. It attracted them. Then apparently some locals didn't like the newcomers. OK. Please explain: (1) How is this different from hating immigrants? (2) How is this not what Puerto Rico itself voted for? (3) Why would they not change the policy if they didn't want it? (4) Did you personally "drive someone from their home" — or did you maybe just rent an apartment? 🙂 In general, I want to point out that it's "immigration" when you like the people coming and "gentrification/colonization" when you don't. It's just Russell Conjugation, a prejudging of the conclusion via vocabulary. All that said, on the substantive point, I do absolutely agree there should be the best possible relationship between newcomers and pre-existing inhabitants. Many ways to solve for this, including: (a) actually new land, like Dubai's artificial islands (b) essentially uninhabited land ceded by the state (c) economic/cultural relationships w/ local communities And so on.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

sincerely thanks for responding, i am happy to be talking about this with you i hope to kindly convince you to rethink some of these positions; i know you are a smart dude, we agree on wanting positive outcomes for the locals. we def agree new land is best for network states. but network states aside, PR is in a different and unique circumstance. first colonized by spain 500y ago, US acquired it in 1898, it is a territory with limited ability to self govern, trade is tightly restricted by the jones act, it's in deep debt to US, and has no meaningful congressional representation. whether PR is technically a "colony" or a "commonwealth" is an ongoing scholastic debate. so re: #1 and Russel, no, the line btwn "immigration" and "colonization" is drawn by socioeconomic power disparity + history, not how i feel about it. whenever wealthy americans or europeans move to a place that they prev colonized, "immigration" increasingly looks like "colonization", in proportion to harm caused. sorry for long, but 1/5

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions