Content
@
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
9 reactions
Darryl Yeo đ ïž (at Devcon)
@darrylyeo
Seems like the article brings up points that apply to any âstateâ seeking sovereign control of territory â but not all Network States necessarily have that goal?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Ivy
@ivy
as the victim of sexual violence in a network state, I can say that your article is less a possible future and more a likely one i'm firmly convinced illegible power structures are inherent to human social groups and they always shape the formal ones that come after
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
William Saar
@saarw.eth
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
1 reaction
indreams
@code
Network states probably wonât find sovereignty from nation states in any meaningful way without violence. Which will probably will end up being fought in cyberspace i.e itâs easier for a network state to have fleets of hackers than to develop kinetic force. However network cities (city states) could be possible within a nation state and said cities could significantly improve quality of life for their population (as long as the nation state is not overtly oppressive). Which should ultimately be the goal of a new âstateâ to improve life by aligning on an ideal (first commandment). IMHO this is why freedom in the US is so important.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
xh3b4sd â
@xh3b4sd.eth
"And if there is one thing that we can take away from this life, then all that matters is what you can or cannot do." Violence shows us which boundaries matter. We need it, in order to prevent its worse outcomes.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
