Content
@
https://thenetworkstate.com
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mishaal
@mishaal.eth
Discuss https://open.substack.com/pub/jchanolm/p/there-will-be-blood
5 replies
0 recast
15 reactions
William Saar
@saarw
The text fails to address the observation from the Sovereign Individual that seems rather central to network states about the diminishing returns of violence When value moves to the digital realm, it's harder for armies to capture. Tech like drones also makes conquest difficult and unprofitable for even enormous armies like Russia
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Austin
@austinmccollom
Good book. Yes your business might be easier to move because it’s on GitHub and AWS and not a farm. Your assets may be easier to move because they’re in your head and not a chest of gold. But you’re still vulnerable to a wrench attack.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
William Saar
@saarw
That cartoon implies staying in a hostile territory. If you move to a friendly territory, that wrench guy will have to deal with police officers with guns
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mishaal
@mishaal.eth
So we’ve come full circle. You recognize that you need a capacity for, and possibly monopoly of, violence. If you start a prosperous network state and don’t have physical deterrence capacity your less prosperous neighbor will invade you. Network states may start differently but must eventually develop the trappings of a traditional state.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
William Saar
@saarw
Not really. You just need to look for predictable and friendly governance Even a state with valuable physical resources, such as Saudi, doesn't need an army to ward off an invasion from Iran. They strike deals with the US and Israel for protection A state without much physical to protect needs even less protection, both for lack of incentives to invade and the ability to move if things start to look really bad
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
