What do you think?
Rate this book
The Network State: How To Start a New Country
Technology has enabled us to start new companies, new communities, and new currencies. But can we use it to start new cities, or even new countries? This book explains how to build the successor to the nation state, a concept we call the network state.
This book introduces the concept of the network state: a country you can start from your computer, a state that recruits like a startup, a nation built from the internet rather than disrupted by it.
The fundamental concept behind the network state is to assemble a digital community and organize it to crowdfund physical territory. But that territory is not in one place — it’s spread around the world, fully decentralized, hooked together by the internet for a common cause, much like Google’s offices or Bitcoin’s miners. And because every citizen has opted in, it’s a model for 100% democracy rather than the minimum threshold of consent modeled by 51% democracies.
Of course, there are countless questions that need to be answered to build something of this scope. How does a network state work socially, technically, logistically, legally, physically, financially? How could such a thing even be viable?
This book attempts to answer these questions.
This book introduces the concept of the network state: a country you can start from your computer, a state that recruits like a startup, a nation built from the internet rather than disrupted by it.
The fundamental concept behind the network state is to assemble a digital community and organize it to crowdfund physical territory. But that territory is not in one place — it’s spread around the world, fully decentralized, hooked together by the internet for a common cause, much like Google’s offices or Bitcoin’s miners. And because every citizen has opted in, it’s a model for 100% democracy rather than the minimum threshold of consent modeled by 51% democracies.
Of course, there are countless questions that need to be answered to build something of this scope. How does a network state work socially, technically, logistically, legally, physically, financially? How could such a thing even be viable?
This book attempts to answer these questions.
262 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 4, 2022
About the author
Balaji S. Srinivasan
1 book160 followersBalaji S. Srinivasan is an angel investor and entrepreneur. Formerly the CTO of Coinbase and General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz, he is an early investor in many successful tech companies and crypto protocols, including Alchemy, Ava Labs, Bitcoin, Cameo, Chainlink, Clubhouse, Dapper Labs, Deel, EPNS, Ethereum, Instadapp, Lambda School, Mighty, NEAR Protocol, OnDeck, Opensea, Replit, Republic, Roam Research, Solana, Soylent, Superhuman, Synthesis, XMTP, and Zora. Dr. Srinivasan was the cofounder of Earn.com (acquired by Coinbase), Counsyl (acquired by Myriad), Teleport (acquired by Topia), and Coin Center. He holds a BS/MS/PhD in Electrical Engineering and an MS in Chemical Engineering from Stanford University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
July 9, 2022
First of all, the structure of the book is rather unclear. The actual topic of network societies is only explained briefly in the last 30 pages, to get there you'll have to get through 220 pages rambling about alternative history from a libertarian/Crypto bro point of view. What in the beginning still reads like philosophy soon feels like conspiracy theories. Mostly it's just weird history lessons and dystopia prophecies about a civil war between democrats (wokes) and republicans (bitcoiners) followed by a Chinese coup (I wish I was kidding, but that's all in the book).
The actual technological and social implementation of the idea itself in its parts is not very new, it's just a virtual group of people organized via Blockchain technology that is recognized diplomatically.
The actual technological and social implementation of the idea itself in its parts is not very new, it's just a virtual group of people organized via Blockchain technology that is recognized diplomatically.
July 24, 2022
A fascinating analysis of current global geopolitics, and a bold prediction on what may become the new world order thanks to blockchain tech. Nation-States, after all, originated circa 18th century thanks to technological advances such as cartography. As Nation-States replaced multiethnic empires from previous eras, this books asks: what might replace Nation-States given current technology?
I'm fully aligned with experimenting new ways of organizing people beyond the Nation-State paradigm, and would have loved the book to delve deeper into some operational details. How to transition gracefully from status quo in areas such as taxation, civil and military defense, diplomacy, etc. seems to have been left as an exercise to the reader.
Highly recommended for the tech-minded.
I'm fully aligned with experimenting new ways of organizing people beyond the Nation-State paradigm, and would have loved the book to delve deeper into some operational details. How to transition gracefully from status quo in areas such as taxation, civil and military defense, diplomacy, etc. seems to have been left as an exercise to the reader.
Highly recommended for the tech-minded.
August 12, 2022
Urgency of a school shooter’s manifesto, eloquence of a freshwater property time-share pitch. What isn’t wrong is stupid and what isn’t stupid is obvious. If books were people then this is Jared Kushner after a bong hit.
September 8, 2022
Balaji is a great idea generator. He's very creative in a diverging, out-of-the-box way: even if I disagreed with whatever I read in the book (which was in >50% of cases), I didn't mind - there's nothing wrong in disagreeing with smart people who provoke you to think and challenge your viewpoints.
"Network State" is about a very disrupting idea: the next step of the evolution of the state - in a way Balaji sees that. It's not a secret that his view on that is inspired by bitcoin, blockchain, and the general idea of decentralization of control. Frankly, I'm very far from being convinced - I liked the mental models, I liked how the author presented the historical cycles of control, and I even liked the scenarios he drafted. However, even if I appreciate the boldness of the idea, I believe that there's zero realistic rationale behind this potential direction of the development of social/political thought.
Why so? First of all, I think that Balaji has either failed to grasp the essence of what nature is (what constitutes it, what gives people the common identity/pride) OR he has assumed (too boldly) that this model has no future and e.g. future societies will be able to exist with temporary, non-exclusive "membership". Which I don't believe in at all - as that's "no skin in the game" model.
Anyway, even with all that simplification, it was an interesting read. Courageous but non-realistic. 4-4.2 stars.
"Network State" is about a very disrupting idea: the next step of the evolution of the state - in a way Balaji sees that. It's not a secret that his view on that is inspired by bitcoin, blockchain, and the general idea of decentralization of control. Frankly, I'm very far from being convinced - I liked the mental models, I liked how the author presented the historical cycles of control, and I even liked the scenarios he drafted. However, even if I appreciate the boldness of the idea, I believe that there's zero realistic rationale behind this potential direction of the development of social/political thought.
Why so? First of all, I think that Balaji has either failed to grasp the essence of what nature is (what constitutes it, what gives people the common identity/pride) OR he has assumed (too boldly) that this model has no future and e.g. future societies will be able to exist with temporary, non-exclusive "membership". Which I don't believe in at all - as that's "no skin in the game" model.
Anyway, even with all that simplification, it was an interesting read. Courageous but non-realistic. 4-4.2 stars.
August 3, 2022
Powerful concept. Mediocre writing
5/5 for the concepts
3/5 for the writing
The concept of a network state at this stage in human history is a so interesting. It is clear that the trajectory of major players like the US and China are undesirable and the network state is an interesting/promising third option. The author(s) provide good arguments, evidence and examples. However, the book could be 1/3 as long and lose no substance, as there is a lot of repetition and Balaji likes to follow tangents.
5/5 for the concepts
3/5 for the writing
The concept of a network state at this stage in human history is a so interesting. It is clear that the trajectory of major players like the US and China are undesirable and the network state is an interesting/promising third option. The author(s) provide good arguments, evidence and examples. However, the book could be 1/3 as long and lose no substance, as there is a lot of repetition and Balaji likes to follow tangents.
September 8, 2022
This is a great book which probably belongs with The Sovereign Individual and a few others as the best way to prepare for the new social structures of the 21st century and beyond. Balaji covers the history of the nation state, the current tripolar politics of the world (China/CCP authoritarianism, NYT/elites led US and other Western institutions and their fracturing unity, the world of cryptoanarchy), and proposes a new solution -- the network state, which is an overlay/parallel society with a clear growth path from startup to something recognized to at least some degree by existing states.
What I particularly like about the network state model is it can be incrementalist -- a small group can form a "startup society", then through adoption raise enough funds to purchase physical property in various places, then get different types of formal recognition by existing entities (which could be as simple as free trade zone type status, or charter city, or task/infrastructure specific grants, or as expansive as some kind of formal near-peer diplomatic recognition).
Lots of small criticisms. There was probably 10-20% too much NYT/Taylor Lorenz specific hate in the middle section, and the distinction between true cryptoanarchy (which he didn't fully describe) and his proposed "network state" wasn't as clear as it should have been (which I think is due to there not being a huge distinction to be made between them). Seasteading as a whole got only a passing mention, along with historical/failed "microstate" projects -- Seasteading at least seems viable and probably has plenty to offer in the network state world. And, asymmetry of force options would potentially make city states or microstates viable -- if someone has WMD/MAD capability, he doesn't need a huge nation (decentralized, in the case of a network state) to protect a small territory.
Overall, a thought provoking book, and an interesting way to think about the future.
What I particularly like about the network state model is it can be incrementalist -- a small group can form a "startup society", then through adoption raise enough funds to purchase physical property in various places, then get different types of formal recognition by existing entities (which could be as simple as free trade zone type status, or charter city, or task/infrastructure specific grants, or as expansive as some kind of formal near-peer diplomatic recognition).
Lots of small criticisms. There was probably 10-20% too much NYT/Taylor Lorenz specific hate in the middle section, and the distinction between true cryptoanarchy (which he didn't fully describe) and his proposed "network state" wasn't as clear as it should have been (which I think is due to there not being a huge distinction to be made between them). Seasteading as a whole got only a passing mention, along with historical/failed "microstate" projects -- Seasteading at least seems viable and probably has plenty to offer in the network state world. And, asymmetry of force options would potentially make city states or microstates viable -- if someone has WMD/MAD capability, he doesn't need a huge nation (decentralized, in the case of a network state) to protect a small territory.
Overall, a thought provoking book, and an interesting way to think about the future.
August 7, 2022
Ideas to stretch your brain
So much to think about. Prescient in fascinating ways, we'll see how many predictions come true. The tools for thought throughout are exceptional.
So much to think about. Prescient in fascinating ways, we'll see how many predictions come true. The tools for thought throughout are exceptional.
September 17, 2022
The Network State is a tour-de-force of intellectual horsepower from Balaji. This is likely the densest book I've ever read, not necessarily in terms of conciseness (it's a bit repetitive), but in the number of footnotes and hyperlinks used to provide evidence for different assertions. To read all the areas where I was unfamiliar with the source material would have made this book 100X longer, so there are areas where I admittedly had to take on faith that the author's understanding of the source material was correct. Based on his interpretation of source material I was familiar with, I was reasonably okay with that faith.
Balaji posits that the three "Leviathans" (great powers) are God, State, and Network. You can believe in the doctrine of your religion, your politics, or your cryptocurrency. These powers compete in the marketplace of ideas, and people ultimately place one at their top importance. While most are familiar with God and State, Network is the new idea here.
The Network State discusses a future more similar to our past, where nation-states have less absolute coercive power and must instead compete against opt-in network-states that gradually increase their power based on a shared belief (a "One Commandment"). The main idea here is that organizing power by physical proximity no longer makes sense in a digital world. We more in common with the members of our favorite sub-reddit (or Discord channel, facebook group, etc.) than we do with our neighbor. By intentionally fostering community and building reputation, these online communities could eventually gain recognition and impact the world (leading to more recognition, leading to more impact...). The author refers to these attempts to create a network state as "startup societies" (similar to how "startup companies" attempt to create public companies).
Balaji formally defines the network state as a social network with:
- a moral innovation
- a sense of national consciousness
- a recognized founder
- a capacity for collective action
- an in-person level of civility
- an integrated cryptocurrency
- a consensual government limited by a social smart contract
- an archipelago of crowdfunded physical territories
- a virtual capital
- an on-chain census that proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint to attain a measure of diplomatic recognition
The book goes through why each of these is necessary to be a full network state.
Other main ideas I came away with:
- A decentralized, sovereign cryptocurrency has the potential to have a huge impact on the world (I already believed this going in; Balaji seems to share this conviction)
- Balaji hates the journalist class (particularly the New York Times), and makes a compelling case for the harms they've done to society
- Living in a society where 51% can boss around 49% is hardly principled. We should aim for 100% consent and 0% coercion. This means systems should compete to win your business/citizenship and should be easy to "exit" or walk away from. That's very different from how the world is organized today, and shows the overwhelming power of the nation state (who can take a good chunk of "your" money for trying to renounce your citizenship)
This book seems to be a natural successor to The Sovereign Individual, which discussed nation-states losing power as technology enabled people to be more sovereign, forcing governments to compete for citizens in a marketplace rather than being able to control. (I'm only partially through the Sovereign Individual right now so can't speak to the specific here—however, the inspiration is clear).
I'd highly recommend this book. Balaji's discusses ideas from a first-principles approach, boiling arguments down to their axioms and building back up into useful frameworks. I'm eager to discuss the ideas in this book with others who have read it, and am looking forward to the next edition.
Balaji posits that the three "Leviathans" (great powers) are God, State, and Network. You can believe in the doctrine of your religion, your politics, or your cryptocurrency. These powers compete in the marketplace of ideas, and people ultimately place one at their top importance. While most are familiar with God and State, Network is the new idea here.
The Network State discusses a future more similar to our past, where nation-states have less absolute coercive power and must instead compete against opt-in network-states that gradually increase their power based on a shared belief (a "One Commandment"). The main idea here is that organizing power by physical proximity no longer makes sense in a digital world. We more in common with the members of our favorite sub-reddit (or Discord channel, facebook group, etc.) than we do with our neighbor. By intentionally fostering community and building reputation, these online communities could eventually gain recognition and impact the world (leading to more recognition, leading to more impact...). The author refers to these attempts to create a network state as "startup societies" (similar to how "startup companies" attempt to create public companies).
Balaji formally defines the network state as a social network with:
- a moral innovation
- a sense of national consciousness
- a recognized founder
- a capacity for collective action
- an in-person level of civility
- an integrated cryptocurrency
- a consensual government limited by a social smart contract
- an archipelago of crowdfunded physical territories
- a virtual capital
- an on-chain census that proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint to attain a measure of diplomatic recognition
The book goes through why each of these is necessary to be a full network state.
Other main ideas I came away with:
- A decentralized, sovereign cryptocurrency has the potential to have a huge impact on the world (I already believed this going in; Balaji seems to share this conviction)
- Balaji hates the journalist class (particularly the New York Times), and makes a compelling case for the harms they've done to society
- Living in a society where 51% can boss around 49% is hardly principled. We should aim for 100% consent and 0% coercion. This means systems should compete to win your business/citizenship and should be easy to "exit" or walk away from. That's very different from how the world is organized today, and shows the overwhelming power of the nation state (who can take a good chunk of "your" money for trying to renounce your citizenship)
This book seems to be a natural successor to The Sovereign Individual, which discussed nation-states losing power as technology enabled people to be more sovereign, forcing governments to compete for citizens in a marketplace rather than being able to control. (I'm only partially through the Sovereign Individual right now so can't speak to the specific here—however, the inspiration is clear).
I'd highly recommend this book. Balaji's discusses ideas from a first-principles approach, boiling arguments down to their axioms and building back up into useful frameworks. I'm eager to discuss the ideas in this book with others who have read it, and am looking forward to the next edition.
August 31, 2022
Balaji Srinivasan's The Network State (2022) is the sequel to The Sovereign Individual (1997). Not literally, mind you. It just picks up where Lord Rees-Mogg leaves off: a substantiated observation that the d(Westphalian state power)/dt < 0.
Srinivasan refreshes the Rees-Mogg thesis with the events of the past two decades and then takes us a step forward to describe our next leviathan: not god, not country, but networks to which we voluntarily align ourselves.
Network State is sprawling. It's a description of our present moment, it's prognostication, but mostly it's a "toolbox" [8] for individuals to take us to a future of network states, a "proposed solution for maintaining liberal values in an illiberal world" [8].
NB: for anyone curious, Balaji's interview on Tim Ferriss is a good 80/20 introduction to the Network State concepts. Recommended!
----------
From the 5th to 17th century AD, church and state shared power in western Europe. Both state sovereigns (temporal authority) and the church (spiritual authority) collected taxes. Charlemagne sought a coronation from Pope Leo III in 800 AD, and the Crusades saw kings ordered around by the pope as agents of Christendom. Discontinuous swathes of land and various towns and castles seemed to constantly pass from lord to lord. This whole period of history can feel weird and illegible to us because it is. Look at a map of Europe from 1000 AD: you can't really overlay colored shapes on it like a modern map because there simply weren't defined polities that clearly controlled every inch of land.
The Peace of Westphalia (1648) changed all of that when it ended the Thirty Years' War and created the nation state system that we are familiar with now in 2022. The treaty (A) affirmed the power of kings (states) over the church and awarded them a local monopoly on legitimate use of violence, and (B) did away with the fuzzy, shifting state borders of old [202-3]. Over every inch of land from that point forward there would be a clear state with a clear government with unchallenged authority within its borders.
Does this seem right in 2022? Like Rees-Mogg before him, Srinivasan argues no: the state is no longer in control and is in a period of secular decline. For instance, networks of people can use bitcoin (BTC) to transact, coordinate, and store value in a way that cannot be seized or manipulated by the US government (***). Encryption beats guns, taxation, and the Federal Reserve. Networks of truth-seeking individuals can easily challenge state-aligned narratives pushed by NYT and others (e.g. Hunter Biden) [52]. Srinivasan asks us rhetorically, "does the US government feel like it is in charge?" [54] Networks of coordinated individuals in cyberspace seem to increasingly be capable of skirting state power.
(***)
It's important to note just how big of a deal it is for a network to be able to transact using BTC which cannot be appropriated by the government, nor can it be inflated or otherwise manipulated.
Why? In my own formulation, money can be thought of as a system of compulsion (or coercion). The more money you have the greater ability you have to compel (coerce) people to do things. Without the ability to take money (tax) or print money, the state loses power over certain networks of people.
Losing power to tax kicks off a vicious cycle that makes it harder to possibly appropriate a network's wealth in the future. Paraphrasing Sovereign Individual, "if a state can't coerce, it can't pay to enforce conscription, or pay the conscripts themselves, or seize the money to pay for all the equipment needed to prosecute ... [acts of violence]" [197].
Money is, as it turns out, power.
(***)
Srinivasan argues that in the United States, the struggle between monolithic state and distributed networks is becoming the defining axis of conflict and supplanting the post-Reagan Blue vs Red world we are used to:
I think Srinivasan nails this splitting of America from Blue vs Red to "Dollar Green" vs "Bitcoin Orange". I increasingly see thoughtful friends on the left alienated by Democrat lies from the causes of inflation to the state of our armed forces in Iraq. Meanwhile, there are level-headed capitalists, entrepreneurs, and working Americans on the right that simply want little to do with the machinery of state. Could these Joe Rogan watchers congeal to form a new coalition against the NYT / CNN / Fox / Harvard monolith?
There is some prognostication about how the world will evolve from this moment in time, a scenario described as "American Anarchy, Chinese Control, International Intermediate" [178-185]. While interesting to consider, I think the more insightful commentary circles around the new polities that - given trends of growing network power - will germinate within the husks of nation states (excluding China): network states.
Put simply, "a network state is a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" [9]. Individuals can opt in and admission criteria can be set by the network.
Network states "begin by identifying a moral issue in today's culture and presenting a historically-informed solution to that issues in the form of a new society" [24]. They will begin building a cryptocurrency-linked economy, and eventually will accumulate wealth, build offline archipelagos of land and property, and in final form, gain diplomatic recognition.
"But wait," you ask, "how will these network states protect me in my house in SF against property crime and gun violence?" Good question! Network states will need to run on top of surrounding "legacy state" until they can amass enough capability to police themselves at some point in the future [227]. At the end of the day these network states take us to a world that looks more like 1000 AD than 2000 AD: "just as in the pre-Westphalian period, where the Catholic Church exerted transnational control, the digital power wielded by the American and Chinese empires invalidates traditional notions of sovereignty" [235]
Prepare for the medieval 22nd century.
----------
I have a nagging suspicion that building opt-in network states on top of legacy states is going to restrict their potential more than Srinivasan suggests. If rights stem from power, being able to protect your BTC from seizure means something -- but if the state still has the guns then nothing stops them from taking every other atom in your possession.
I also think that moreso than rules in an online community, peoples' quality of life is dominated by your physical environment, i.e. your city and neighborhood. Srinivasan is clear to call out that city states aren't network states. But I would argue if your neighbor on one side is building a keto cult kitchen and a neighbor on the other side is part of a space exploration cult, your network state probably will matter a whole lot less than getting the damn sidewalks shoveled.
Every so often a book makes you think on scales different from what you maybe accustomed to. A tip of the hat to Balaji Srinivasan for doing that with Network State.
Srinivasan refreshes the Rees-Mogg thesis with the events of the past two decades and then takes us a step forward to describe our next leviathan: not god, not country, but networks to which we voluntarily align ourselves.
Network State is sprawling. It's a description of our present moment, it's prognostication, but mostly it's a "toolbox" [8] for individuals to take us to a future of network states, a "proposed solution for maintaining liberal values in an illiberal world" [8].
NB: for anyone curious, Balaji's interview on Tim Ferriss is a good 80/20 introduction to the Network State concepts. Recommended!
----------
From the 5th to 17th century AD, church and state shared power in western Europe. Both state sovereigns (temporal authority) and the church (spiritual authority) collected taxes. Charlemagne sought a coronation from Pope Leo III in 800 AD, and the Crusades saw kings ordered around by the pope as agents of Christendom. Discontinuous swathes of land and various towns and castles seemed to constantly pass from lord to lord. This whole period of history can feel weird and illegible to us because it is. Look at a map of Europe from 1000 AD: you can't really overlay colored shapes on it like a modern map because there simply weren't defined polities that clearly controlled every inch of land.
The Peace of Westphalia (1648) changed all of that when it ended the Thirty Years' War and created the nation state system that we are familiar with now in 2022. The treaty (A) affirmed the power of kings (states) over the church and awarded them a local monopoly on legitimate use of violence, and (B) did away with the fuzzy, shifting state borders of old [202-3]. Over every inch of land from that point forward there would be a clear state with a clear government with unchallenged authority within its borders.
Does this seem right in 2022? Like Rees-Mogg before him, Srinivasan argues no: the state is no longer in control and is in a period of secular decline. For instance, networks of people can use bitcoin (BTC) to transact, coordinate, and store value in a way that cannot be seized or manipulated by the US government (***). Encryption beats guns, taxation, and the Federal Reserve. Networks of truth-seeking individuals can easily challenge state-aligned narratives pushed by NYT and others (e.g. Hunter Biden) [52]. Srinivasan asks us rhetorically, "does the US government feel like it is in charge?" [54] Networks of coordinated individuals in cyberspace seem to increasingly be capable of skirting state power.
(***)
It's important to note just how big of a deal it is for a network to be able to transact using BTC which cannot be appropriated by the government, nor can it be inflated or otherwise manipulated.
Why? In my own formulation, money can be thought of as a system of compulsion (or coercion). The more money you have the greater ability you have to compel (coerce) people to do things. Without the ability to take money (tax) or print money, the state loses power over certain networks of people.
Losing power to tax kicks off a vicious cycle that makes it harder to possibly appropriate a network's wealth in the future. Paraphrasing Sovereign Individual, "if a state can't coerce, it can't pay to enforce conscription, or pay the conscripts themselves, or seize the money to pay for all the equipment needed to prosecute ... [acts of violence]" [197].
Money is, as it turns out, power.
(***)
Srinivasan argues that in the United States, the struggle between monolithic state and distributed networks is becoming the defining axis of conflict and supplanting the post-Reagan Blue vs Red world we are used to:
If we add up all these pieces, we get a possible future where the left- and right-libertarians from both parties line up against the left- and right-authoritarians.
We're already starting to see this if we look at Substack vs establishment journalists, Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald vs Fox News / NYT, BTC vs USD, web3 vs Big tech, the migration of ethnic minorities to the Republicans and the migration of neoconservatives to the Democrats.
In this scenario a new coalition would finally be popping in to view. And it's a totally different carving of the political spectrum than the Reagan era. Rather than nationalists and capitalists (the right) against internationalists and socialists (the left), it's internationalists and capitalists (left- and right-libertarians) against socialists and nationalists (left- and right-authoritarians) [75].
I think Srinivasan nails this splitting of America from Blue vs Red to "Dollar Green" vs "Bitcoin Orange". I increasingly see thoughtful friends on the left alienated by Democrat lies from the causes of inflation to the state of our armed forces in Iraq. Meanwhile, there are level-headed capitalists, entrepreneurs, and working Americans on the right that simply want little to do with the machinery of state. Could these Joe Rogan watchers congeal to form a new coalition against the NYT / CNN / Fox / Harvard monolith?
There is some prognostication about how the world will evolve from this moment in time, a scenario described as "American Anarchy, Chinese Control, International Intermediate" [178-185]. While interesting to consider, I think the more insightful commentary circles around the new polities that - given trends of growing network power - will germinate within the husks of nation states (excluding China): network states.
Put simply, "a network state is a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" [9]. Individuals can opt in and admission criteria can be set by the network.
Network states "begin by identifying a moral issue in today's culture and presenting a historically-informed solution to that issues in the form of a new society" [24]. They will begin building a cryptocurrency-linked economy, and eventually will accumulate wealth, build offline archipelagos of land and property, and in final form, gain diplomatic recognition.
"But wait," you ask, "how will these network states protect me in my house in SF against property crime and gun violence?" Good question! Network states will need to run on top of surrounding "legacy state" until they can amass enough capability to police themselves at some point in the future [227]. At the end of the day these network states take us to a world that looks more like 1000 AD than 2000 AD: "just as in the pre-Westphalian period, where the Catholic Church exerted transnational control, the digital power wielded by the American and Chinese empires invalidates traditional notions of sovereignty" [235]
Prepare for the medieval 22nd century.
----------
I have a nagging suspicion that building opt-in network states on top of legacy states is going to restrict their potential more than Srinivasan suggests. If rights stem from power, being able to protect your BTC from seizure means something -- but if the state still has the guns then nothing stops them from taking every other atom in your possession.
I also think that moreso than rules in an online community, peoples' quality of life is dominated by your physical environment, i.e. your city and neighborhood. Srinivasan is clear to call out that city states aren't network states. But I would argue if your neighbor on one side is building a keto cult kitchen and a neighbor on the other side is part of a space exploration cult, your network state probably will matter a whole lot less than getting the damn sidewalks shoveled.
Every so often a book makes you think on scales different from what you maybe accustomed to. A tip of the hat to Balaji Srinivasan for doing that with Network State.
November 3, 2022
Its going to be one of the most influential political books of this century, I believe, people in the future will treat this book as we treat wealth of nations (Adam Smith) or social contract (Rousseau) today.
April 23, 2023
Repetitive, unimaginative and mostly handwaving technocratic fantasy (not even dystopia for its infeasibility).
I actually read the network state from cover to cover with an open mind, intrigued to find novel ideas and substance.
The author spends most of the book arguing that modern nation states are in fact declining. He then presents a simplistic model of the world's ruling forces as a triangle: wokist "NYT" (declining power of US), collectivist "CCP" (rising Chinese power) and networked "BTC" (rebellious libertarian alternative). That theme of the book is the most repetitive and boring – overusing news headlines and own tweets as references, it's mostly a right-libertarian populist indoctrination. As any right-libertarian analysis, it conveniently ignores negative effects of corporate capitalism and neoliberal globalist politics ruling over all three identified powers (NYT, CCP and BTC) – arguably the real root cause of the societal decline.
Now the actual proposition of the book is to build alternative states, starting with a single contrasting idea (called "one commandment"), an online community motivated to collective action around that idea, crowdsourced physical archipelago of land, blockchain economy, and finally – diplomatic recognition by incumbent states. The last part is complete handwaving along the lines of collect underpants, ???, profit. The need for the incumbent host state to recognize sovereignty of particular network state citizens and their land on it's own territory contradicts author's premise that the network state's main defense is secrecy and
blockchain's resistance to seizures.
The network state also mostly ignores physical reality and prefers to stay in the VR/metaverse. It provides no answers to how exactly a network state enclave would interact with its host incumbent state (before recognition) in terms of immigration regime, border control, defense, justice, supplies of everything that network state citizens don't produce themselves or transfer of goods between network state enclaves. Until diplomatic recognition, there is no perceived difference of network state "citizenship" for people.
Another contradiction is how the author argues that network states are fully consensual because everyone needs to explicitly opt-in and everyone has a right to opt-out. At one point author notes that network states would eventually need to recognize citizenship by "right of blood" without realizing how that nullifies explicit opt-in social contract theory. He also ignores that right to opt-out is not the same as the actual ability to opt-out, which can be limited by either lack of capital or entry restrictions by alternative states.
Yet another problem with network states is how their citizens, aligned by a single unifying idea, would seemingly ignore any potential disagreements they might have in other aspects of their lives. Would people united by e.g. "keto kosher" idea suddenly stop fighting about issues of birth control, gun rights, appropriate monetary policy or what exactly constitutes "keto kosher"? And if they don't, how are they going to align for collective action?
The book proposes that a network state should be ruled by a single authoritarian founder to avoid fracture. The author argues that authoritarianism is not an issue as long as anyone can freely exit (which I argued is not really free). Now this is the epitome of absurdity of the right-libertarian thinking, going from "I don't submit to any authority" to "I like authority that I agree with".
In essence, the author escapes from the messy reality of social interaction and builds himself a fantasy world of orderly aligned totalitarian societies, mediated by blockchain and VR where necessary, so they don't ever have to face mutual disagreements.
I actually read the network state from cover to cover with an open mind, intrigued to find novel ideas and substance.
The author spends most of the book arguing that modern nation states are in fact declining. He then presents a simplistic model of the world's ruling forces as a triangle: wokist "NYT" (declining power of US), collectivist "CCP" (rising Chinese power) and networked "BTC" (rebellious libertarian alternative). That theme of the book is the most repetitive and boring – overusing news headlines and own tweets as references, it's mostly a right-libertarian populist indoctrination. As any right-libertarian analysis, it conveniently ignores negative effects of corporate capitalism and neoliberal globalist politics ruling over all three identified powers (NYT, CCP and BTC) – arguably the real root cause of the societal decline.
Now the actual proposition of the book is to build alternative states, starting with a single contrasting idea (called "one commandment"), an online community motivated to collective action around that idea, crowdsourced physical archipelago of land, blockchain economy, and finally – diplomatic recognition by incumbent states. The last part is complete handwaving along the lines of collect underpants, ???, profit. The need for the incumbent host state to recognize sovereignty of particular network state citizens and their land on it's own territory contradicts author's premise that the network state's main defense is secrecy and
blockchain's resistance to seizures.
The network state also mostly ignores physical reality and prefers to stay in the VR/metaverse. It provides no answers to how exactly a network state enclave would interact with its host incumbent state (before recognition) in terms of immigration regime, border control, defense, justice, supplies of everything that network state citizens don't produce themselves or transfer of goods between network state enclaves. Until diplomatic recognition, there is no perceived difference of network state "citizenship" for people.
Another contradiction is how the author argues that network states are fully consensual because everyone needs to explicitly opt-in and everyone has a right to opt-out. At one point author notes that network states would eventually need to recognize citizenship by "right of blood" without realizing how that nullifies explicit opt-in social contract theory. He also ignores that right to opt-out is not the same as the actual ability to opt-out, which can be limited by either lack of capital or entry restrictions by alternative states.
Yet another problem with network states is how their citizens, aligned by a single unifying idea, would seemingly ignore any potential disagreements they might have in other aspects of their lives. Would people united by e.g. "keto kosher" idea suddenly stop fighting about issues of birth control, gun rights, appropriate monetary policy or what exactly constitutes "keto kosher"? And if they don't, how are they going to align for collective action?
The book proposes that a network state should be ruled by a single authoritarian founder to avoid fracture. The author argues that authoritarianism is not an issue as long as anyone can freely exit (which I argued is not really free). Now this is the epitome of absurdity of the right-libertarian thinking, going from "I don't submit to any authority" to "I like authority that I agree with".
In essence, the author escapes from the messy reality of social interaction and builds himself a fantasy world of orderly aligned totalitarian societies, mediated by blockchain and VR where necessary, so they don't ever have to face mutual disagreements.
April 5, 2023
Extraordinarily long book (too long perhaps) but a lot of good concepts and frameworks about society and governance.
Some things that I found particularly interesting:
1) political history shows the underdog evolving to become the superpower: democrats were at their very bottom in 1864 after losing the civil war up to the 2008 Obama era peaking point
2) the idea of red vs blue politics morphing to Bitcoin orange vs USD green. Establishment Republicans and Democrats go green, while progressive left and libertarian right go Orange.
3) money is power and cryptocurrencies has allowed that power to potentially become Stateless, this is what underlies the potential of Network States. Progressives see the potential in crypto to give power to the disenfranchised in the current system while libertarians see the power shifting from the State.
A visionary template, even if the ideas may be overly ambitious.
If I were to start a network union, the #1 rule of the country is all citizens would need to read books. Who’s in?
Some things that I found particularly interesting:
1) political history shows the underdog evolving to become the superpower: democrats were at their very bottom in 1864 after losing the civil war up to the 2008 Obama era peaking point
2) the idea of red vs blue politics morphing to Bitcoin orange vs USD green. Establishment Republicans and Democrats go green, while progressive left and libertarian right go Orange.
3) money is power and cryptocurrencies has allowed that power to potentially become Stateless, this is what underlies the potential of Network States. Progressives see the potential in crypto to give power to the disenfranchised in the current system while libertarians see the power shifting from the State.
A visionary template, even if the ideas may be overly ambitious.
If I were to start a network union, the #1 rule of the country is all citizens would need to read books. Who’s in?
August 10, 2022
Highlights:
>What’s the most powerful force on earth? In the 1800s, God. In the 1900s, the US military. And by the mid-2000s, encryption
>Tech culture, startup culture, and now BTC/web3 culture is becoming global culture
>What’s the most powerful force on earth? In the 1800s, God. In the 1900s, the US military. And by the mid-2000s, encryption
>Tech culture, startup culture, and now BTC/web3 culture is becoming global culture
March 17, 2023
Deep, complex and a bit dark
This book is a combination of a political manifesto, a technological futurism prediction, and the historical treatise. His big concept is that it is now possible to create a new kind of nation, one that is aligned around digital identities and scattered around the world rather than aligned around the land they live on. To make his point, he takes us on a long journey through a range of historical examples, current technology and trends, and the thoughts of dozens of philosophers.
Honestly, I’m not super excited about the possibility of forming a net work state. I don’t think they’re terrible either. It’s just not something that at this point I feel a big need to create. I am much more interested in reforming the current system, and then creating a new one.
But I found his analysis of the past, and the present to be very thought-provoking. My one complaint in this area is that he is some thing of a pessimist about how bad things are, and how bad they are going to get. I am more of an optimist, based on positive forces and trends that I know of that he gives no airtime to.
So, I am not going to follow his advice, but if he wants to stretch your brain and have a marvelous mental work out, then you will love this book
This book is a combination of a political manifesto, a technological futurism prediction, and the historical treatise. His big concept is that it is now possible to create a new kind of nation, one that is aligned around digital identities and scattered around the world rather than aligned around the land they live on. To make his point, he takes us on a long journey through a range of historical examples, current technology and trends, and the thoughts of dozens of philosophers.
Honestly, I’m not super excited about the possibility of forming a net work state. I don’t think they’re terrible either. It’s just not something that at this point I feel a big need to create. I am much more interested in reforming the current system, and then creating a new one.
But I found his analysis of the past, and the present to be very thought-provoking. My one complaint in this area is that he is some thing of a pessimist about how bad things are, and how bad they are going to get. I am more of an optimist, based on positive forces and trends that I know of that he gives no airtime to.
So, I am not going to follow his advice, but if he wants to stretch your brain and have a marvelous mental work out, then you will love this book
March 27, 2023
Alright, this is a great book. Even though it reiterates sometimes on the core points, it has an extremely good structure, and the language is beautifully clear. The main idea is revolutionary, to say the least, and is probably a little bit disengaged from what's going on in our mortal world but still, there's much sense to it, even if some (or half, or even most) of it is unrealistic.
One specific issue with The Network State is that the reframing of history is quite frivolous in it, but it's also that frivolousness that provides a solid chunk of the novel perspective.
One specific issue with The Network State is that the reframing of history is quite frivolous in it, but it's also that frivolousness that provides a solid chunk of the novel perspective.
Read
November 26, 2022Throws hot takes at you faster than you can decide if you agree with them. More provocative than well-argumented. Still worth a read.
October 16, 2022
I just can't. How can a book this incoherent and babbly have a 4+ rating?
The concept of a network state sounds sexy as fuck so I was excited to read this, but this book is so badly written that i could not read beyond the first chapter. Its about as articulate as a Joe Rogan podcast's most conspiracy theory episode.
The concept of a network state sounds sexy as fuck so I was excited to read this, but this book is so badly written that i could not read beyond the first chapter. Its about as articulate as a Joe Rogan podcast's most conspiracy theory episode.
January 13, 2023
The following is an actual excerpt from the book: “there’s a scenario where CCP’s AI beats both BTC and NYT, and war keeps going. And now the only reliable soldiers are robot soldiers that can’t be propagandized by NYT and don’t need to be paid in BTC.”
😶
😶
October 25, 2023
9.5/10 - Profoundly insightful and pioneering. Most will disregard—and for their reasons. Upon the quality and *precision* of thought, I find it hard to believe many books have ever been written of this magnitude.
It feels like it ends abruptly given the high focus on foundation setting and a 30,000 ft view look at how such incredible transitions might happen. It’s an idea that many will laugh at. I don’t at all claim to know the future, that Balaji does, or that this isn’t far out there. He sets an excellent framework. This book notably was far more focused on *how* (broadly) and *why* immense transitions of power and influence than *when.* I’d be very interested to see a second edition on how a network state would mingle in power with a legacy nation state.
I gather the majority of critics will not even take the first steps to consider ideas like this. Things that have never been done before are hard for the human mind to comprehend (especially the closer one gets to the now *truly* massive modern establishment), but I will say that Balaji did a great job showing how our post-WW2 world and even “nation states” world actually isn’t that old.. And in summarizing the many transitions of power, wealth, and influence that have occurred in recent history to medium-term history (ie last 20-100 years). All this considered, combined with some of the most articulate writing I’ll ever read, the plausibility of entire new countries forming becomes at least dramatically less hard to believe. And a point of optimism.
It feels like it ends abruptly given the high focus on foundation setting and a 30,000 ft view look at how such incredible transitions might happen. It’s an idea that many will laugh at. I don’t at all claim to know the future, that Balaji does, or that this isn’t far out there. He sets an excellent framework. This book notably was far more focused on *how* (broadly) and *why* immense transitions of power and influence than *when.* I’d be very interested to see a second edition on how a network state would mingle in power with a legacy nation state.
I gather the majority of critics will not even take the first steps to consider ideas like this. Things that have never been done before are hard for the human mind to comprehend (especially the closer one gets to the now *truly* massive modern establishment), but I will say that Balaji did a great job showing how our post-WW2 world and even “nation states” world actually isn’t that old.. And in summarizing the many transitions of power, wealth, and influence that have occurred in recent history to medium-term history (ie last 20-100 years). All this considered, combined with some of the most articulate writing I’ll ever read, the plausibility of entire new countries forming becomes at least dramatically less hard to believe. And a point of optimism.
April 7, 2024
On the future emergence of internet-based decentralised countries. Felt like two seperate books Chapters 1 and 5 interesting but 2-4 entirely skippable.
Balaji is a genius with plenty of creative and provocative ideas. But the writing gets repetitive and he frustratingly oversimplifies some issues, leaving questions unanswered. Lots of citations which are great, but many links are broken.
Balaji is a genius with plenty of creative and provocative ideas. But the writing gets repetitive and he frustratingly oversimplifies some issues, leaving questions unanswered. Lots of citations which are great, but many links are broken.
July 11, 2022
An important read for innovators
A wide ranging romp through the most interesting crypto/political philosophy I have ever read. If you have seen Balaji's lectures online you may have a good sense for some of the content, and you'll still love reading every single page. I can't wait for the director's cut! Importantly, I LOL'd at least once last chapter. 10/10 would get a digital passport to Balaji's future network state. Win and help win.
A wide ranging romp through the most interesting crypto/political philosophy I have ever read. If you have seen Balaji's lectures online you may have a good sense for some of the content, and you'll still love reading every single page. I can't wait for the director's cut! Importantly, I LOL'd at least once last chapter. 10/10 would get a digital passport to Balaji's future network state. Win and help win.
July 13, 2022
Exceptional
A riveting read of the potential hope that technology brings to help us reegnight our humanity. Balaji at his brilliant best.
A riveting read of the potential hope that technology brings to help us reegnight our humanity. Balaji at his brilliant best.
July 29, 2022
Many interesting ideas that are thought-provoking! Definitely worth spending time to read through. But the book also has many hasty conclusions. What's more, some of the future pictures the author envisioned don't seem to be very appealing. He said he doesn't have illusions about the future, but even if there is a slight chance of getting a better version of the world and of humankind, it's worth fighting for.
July 5, 2022
Digital encryption to Nietzsche and everything in between
Balaji advocates for the "Network State", a proposed successor to the 20th century nation state, which is a community that organizes itself and acts with a shared purpose and moral framework.
Balaji advocates for the "Network State", a proposed successor to the 20th century nation state, which is a community that organizes itself and acts with a shared purpose and moral framework.
December 16, 2022
I tried. Got 53% of the way through and just couldn't bear anymore of Balaji's venomous, cynical, know-it-all self-righteousness any longer and abandoned it. Plus, the proposition, of creating a single-issue society online and transforming it into a physical sovereign on par with nation states just seemed like a far-fetched crackpipedream the more I read and thought about it, and so the whole premise of the book lost appeal the further I got into it. This is a seriously smart guy, but is much too enamored with his own intellect for my taste. I was so excited about this book, and so relieved when I finally decided to abandon it.
July 22, 2023
This eponymous book is what one would call a "Think Big" initiative - how does one start a new country in the internet age, and what are the various factors at play and viability of this concept in multiple spheres - social, technical, logistical, legal, physical and financial. Balaji is a tech entrepreneur and visionary, and in his first book, he attempts to provide a vision for the future of our planet to move from nation-states to network states.
First, this book is unique in multiple ways - it is available for free to read online but is also not a typical book. Instead, it is version control in book format. Each page of the Network State can be read by referring to its URL, and it will be updated in subsequent versions with newer insights and meanings. It has a ton of references to not just other books but also anything available on the internet. In essence, it is a dynamic book and probably the first of its kind, and kudos to the author for reimagining books this way.
So what is a network state? Balaji gives the definition in one sentence, one image, one thousand words, and one essay. A network state is a social network with a moral innovation, a sense of national consciousness, a recognized founder, a capacity for collective action, an in-person level of civility, an integrated cryptocurrency, a consensual government limited by a social smart contract, an archipelago of crowdfunded physical territories, a virtual capital, and an on-chain census that proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint to attain a measure of diplomatic recognition.
As we can see, there's much to unpack in that definition, which he does in the rest of the book. He elaborates on the why's, the hows, the whats, and the where's associated with them. It is clear as we read the book that Balaji is a student of history, and his ability to consolidate 100s of years of human thought and action and draw parallels with today's world makes for a fascinating read. Much of the initial part of the book is spent on understanding and re-learning history and questions one's fundamental biases and assumptions. At every level, he also provides internet-based, cryptographically secure, and verifiable web3 alternatives to provide a vivid contrast between legacy systems and internet-first ones.
Balaji also goes into depth into political history and strategy and why a founder of a network state needs to understand history. He then makes a fascinating comparison between God, State, and Network and how each axis represents power and influence. We also go into depth on the decline of the USA and the rise of China, how the future can potentially build into a war between the two, and how the network state will be a viable alternative for other nation-states in such an eventuality.
Here he makes a comparison between NYT, CCP, and BTC. That's the American Establishment vs. the Communist Party of China vs the Global Internet. Each of these three poles has a source of truth online: paper (NYT), party (CCP112), or protocol (BTC). Each has a digital economy surrounding that source of truth: the dollar economy, the digital yuan113, or the web3 crypto-economy. Each pole is a network in its own right, which stands outside the state; the NYT network gives direction to the American state, the CCP network leads the Chinese state, and the BTC network stands outside all states.
Towards the end, we actually come to the specifics of a network state formation. Balaji explains that it has to be in incremental steps, with each step potentially being an end state. Here he connects to various computer science fundamentals to help us visualize a digital-first country that uses AR, VR, cryptography, and other advances to create a 100% opt-in democracy instead of the existing 51% democracy.
He also clarifies that one can't found a network state directly. Instead, you found a startup society which is a social network, then turn it into a network union which makes it a digital community capable of collective action. This network union should have a strong moral premise (such as being keto-free, for example), a sense of national consciousness, and a recognized founder who people choose to follow by joining the community. It is also critical that it has an integrated cryptocurrency that acts as the backbone of the network state. Every state asset, from smart contracts to citizen logins to birth certificates, is on-chain and protected by encryption.
From here, the network union can turn into a network archipelago by manifesting this collective action in the physical world and crowdfunding territory worldwide and connecting them via the internet. Once this on-chain census proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint, we aim to get diplomatic recognition from a pre-existing government, turning the network archipelago into a network state.
While the ideas in this book may be considered wild, there's enough data, exploration, counter-arguments, and depth to believe that this can happen in our future. Balaji spends a lot of time on tangents and repeats his ideas; overall, the book makes one imagine endless possibilities and excitement for the future of human civilization.
First, this book is unique in multiple ways - it is available for free to read online but is also not a typical book. Instead, it is version control in book format. Each page of the Network State can be read by referring to its URL, and it will be updated in subsequent versions with newer insights and meanings. It has a ton of references to not just other books but also anything available on the internet. In essence, it is a dynamic book and probably the first of its kind, and kudos to the author for reimagining books this way.
So what is a network state? Balaji gives the definition in one sentence, one image, one thousand words, and one essay. A network state is a social network with a moral innovation, a sense of national consciousness, a recognized founder, a capacity for collective action, an in-person level of civility, an integrated cryptocurrency, a consensual government limited by a social smart contract, an archipelago of crowdfunded physical territories, a virtual capital, and an on-chain census that proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint to attain a measure of diplomatic recognition.
As we can see, there's much to unpack in that definition, which he does in the rest of the book. He elaborates on the why's, the hows, the whats, and the where's associated with them. It is clear as we read the book that Balaji is a student of history, and his ability to consolidate 100s of years of human thought and action and draw parallels with today's world makes for a fascinating read. Much of the initial part of the book is spent on understanding and re-learning history and questions one's fundamental biases and assumptions. At every level, he also provides internet-based, cryptographically secure, and verifiable web3 alternatives to provide a vivid contrast between legacy systems and internet-first ones.
Balaji also goes into depth into political history and strategy and why a founder of a network state needs to understand history. He then makes a fascinating comparison between God, State, and Network and how each axis represents power and influence. We also go into depth on the decline of the USA and the rise of China, how the future can potentially build into a war between the two, and how the network state will be a viable alternative for other nation-states in such an eventuality.
Here he makes a comparison between NYT, CCP, and BTC. That's the American Establishment vs. the Communist Party of China vs the Global Internet. Each of these three poles has a source of truth online: paper (NYT), party (CCP112), or protocol (BTC). Each has a digital economy surrounding that source of truth: the dollar economy, the digital yuan113, or the web3 crypto-economy. Each pole is a network in its own right, which stands outside the state; the NYT network gives direction to the American state, the CCP network leads the Chinese state, and the BTC network stands outside all states.
Towards the end, we actually come to the specifics of a network state formation. Balaji explains that it has to be in incremental steps, with each step potentially being an end state. Here he connects to various computer science fundamentals to help us visualize a digital-first country that uses AR, VR, cryptography, and other advances to create a 100% opt-in democracy instead of the existing 51% democracy.
He also clarifies that one can't found a network state directly. Instead, you found a startup society which is a social network, then turn it into a network union which makes it a digital community capable of collective action. This network union should have a strong moral premise (such as being keto-free, for example), a sense of national consciousness, and a recognized founder who people choose to follow by joining the community. It is also critical that it has an integrated cryptocurrency that acts as the backbone of the network state. Every state asset, from smart contracts to citizen logins to birth certificates, is on-chain and protected by encryption.
From here, the network union can turn into a network archipelago by manifesting this collective action in the physical world and crowdfunding territory worldwide and connecting them via the internet. Once this on-chain census proves a large enough population, income, and real-estate footprint, we aim to get diplomatic recognition from a pre-existing government, turning the network archipelago into a network state.
While the ideas in this book may be considered wild, there's enough data, exploration, counter-arguments, and depth to believe that this can happen in our future. Balaji spends a lot of time on tangents and repeats his ideas; overall, the book makes one imagine endless possibilities and excitement for the future of human civilization.
January 27, 2024
Very let down by this book as I follow Balaji on Twitter and like his witty takes. This highly anticipated book consolidating his thought on how the emerging network power can become a state, fails at answering that question.
The summary at the beginning of the book is extended into 300p of poorly structured rambling on power dynamics and the core question, how network power could push forward a charter city project (the gap between having a number of people in a online group and getting diplomatic power) isn't addressed:
"6. conduct an onchain census. ??? 7. diplomatic recognition"
The goal of the book is two-fold: first, show that networks are accruing power at the expense of traditional states and their vertically integrated power structures (Greenhall's concept of Blue Church); second, give a roadmap on how those networks can ultimately create charter cities, and possibly more.
The first goal is pedestrian and a beaten path for anyone that has seen traditional media and power structures erode over the past 20y with internet; the second goal misses as he's not able to actually explain how those networks transition from networks to charter cities.
Trying to showcase power dynamics in history is a grand goal, but that would need to be structured
properly; instead we get a random subset of interations supported by anecdotes that do showcase the point but are boring to read and/or mostly redundant. A couple more in depth examples are usually better than 20 rushed ones (luckily the external links for further reading are great).
It even gets the core idea of marxism (technology/production and power structures dialectics, not the funky fortune telling of communism and how to reach it) wrong, which makes the subsequent analysis not too trustworthy (rely on the quoted authors rather, I recommend Turchin and Dalio's books).
When talking about frontier and escape, maybe expand Turchin's elite over production more than a sentence, and actually explain why it is relevant. In a sense, Turchin writings is actually what this book aims at but fails to be.
Some ideas (media manipulation, left-right dynamics) are not wrong but are presented as anecdotes, with a strong emphasis on US internal politics. It is both tedious and hand wavy.
The book really lacks editing to remove the superfluous, correct errors.
All this is supposed to show how the network emerges as a new power. This is an idea I'm familiar and agree with, however the book goal is to show that the network isn't just a counter power but a new Leviathan. And it fails radically here. The core idea is that the network could embody itself in charter cities.
However it doesn't provide any pointer there. An obvious question is why superrich people haven't been able to do it, or multination corporations. We can come up with some reasons (boiling down to states were too strong up to now but that is changing), but that's wishful thinking and nothing practical. The book doesn't help in that aspect.
Ironically, by defining wokes as a decentralized movement of people of the network, it had an opportunity to explore how the network could influence state power; alas, it fails to follow up on the idea, as it fails to present a non binary conflict between new tech technology and establishment.
If you're still interested, it's enough to read the summary and the chapter titles. The rest is anecdotes around the already self explanatory titles, in a rambling and filler kind of way, but with a writing style that's suitable for tweets not for sustained reading. And it still misses half of the promises of the book. Silver lining is that the chapter titles are explanatory. The numerous references are very good.
If you hoped to see how the gap from network power to physical incarnation and/or charter city is bridged, directly read some charter cities material or skip the book.
In the end, I still dont know how people in a telegram group (but with onchain token transfers) get diplomatic recognition.
The summary at the beginning of the book is extended into 300p of poorly structured rambling on power dynamics and the core question, how network power could push forward a charter city project (the gap between having a number of people in a online group and getting diplomatic power) isn't addressed:
"6. conduct an onchain census. ??? 7. diplomatic recognition"
The goal of the book is two-fold: first, show that networks are accruing power at the expense of traditional states and their vertically integrated power structures (Greenhall's concept of Blue Church); second, give a roadmap on how those networks can ultimately create charter cities, and possibly more.
The first goal is pedestrian and a beaten path for anyone that has seen traditional media and power structures erode over the past 20y with internet; the second goal misses as he's not able to actually explain how those networks transition from networks to charter cities.
Trying to showcase power dynamics in history is a grand goal, but that would need to be structured
properly; instead we get a random subset of interations supported by anecdotes that do showcase the point but are boring to read and/or mostly redundant. A couple more in depth examples are usually better than 20 rushed ones (luckily the external links for further reading are great).
It even gets the core idea of marxism (technology/production and power structures dialectics, not the funky fortune telling of communism and how to reach it) wrong, which makes the subsequent analysis not too trustworthy (rely on the quoted authors rather, I recommend Turchin and Dalio's books).
When talking about frontier and escape, maybe expand Turchin's elite over production more than a sentence, and actually explain why it is relevant. In a sense, Turchin writings is actually what this book aims at but fails to be.
Some ideas (media manipulation, left-right dynamics) are not wrong but are presented as anecdotes, with a strong emphasis on US internal politics. It is both tedious and hand wavy.
The book really lacks editing to remove the superfluous, correct errors.
All this is supposed to show how the network emerges as a new power. This is an idea I'm familiar and agree with, however the book goal is to show that the network isn't just a counter power but a new Leviathan. And it fails radically here. The core idea is that the network could embody itself in charter cities.
However it doesn't provide any pointer there. An obvious question is why superrich people haven't been able to do it, or multination corporations. We can come up with some reasons (boiling down to states were too strong up to now but that is changing), but that's wishful thinking and nothing practical. The book doesn't help in that aspect.
Ironically, by defining wokes as a decentralized movement of people of the network, it had an opportunity to explore how the network could influence state power; alas, it fails to follow up on the idea, as it fails to present a non binary conflict between new tech technology and establishment.
If you're still interested, it's enough to read the summary and the chapter titles. The rest is anecdotes around the already self explanatory titles, in a rambling and filler kind of way, but with a writing style that's suitable for tweets not for sustained reading. And it still misses half of the promises of the book. Silver lining is that the chapter titles are explanatory. The numerous references are very good.
If you hoped to see how the gap from network power to physical incarnation and/or charter city is bridged, directly read some charter cities material or skip the book.
In the end, I still dont know how people in a telegram group (but with onchain token transfers) get diplomatic recognition.
October 16, 2022
The strength of this book lies in the fact that it has created a basic framework for a non-conventional State-making in future.
Of course, city-states did not loose to nation-states in the traditional sense. In fact, majority of them assimilated into or still retained their identity through leverage- political, economic or otherwise. Rather, they developed better through their placement in a nationwide network. Instances are Scotland in the Union, Manchuria in Ming China and Near-Abroads in erstwhile Soviet Union.
The author was strong enough to point out discrepancies in dominant ideologies of mainstream politics. Inflation, a major issue, given that ~35-40% of US Bills used were printed during last 3 years (which led to increase in prices of meat, milk, education, utilities), has been given just importance. Anarchist flaws- where isolationism is "impossible" and every entity- group, nation or organization, once industrialized or turned complex, inevitably engages in a technology race. This race can be in forms of "Arms" (as in 20th century and to some extent, still now), geo-economic ambitions (China of present-day Asia) or MNCs cannibalizing the companies and local employment in the host nation. (Although I do agree that McFarms are better than OldVille Farms of Third World nations).
The problem essentially lies in 5 things.
Any Start-up Society, if built will be too vague given the One Commandment. There needs to be an essential dialogue interface which allows active participation in digital governance in real time. Otherwise, it simply becomes a motto-bearing local town hall with a defunct app/ website/ service in the name of "smart governance."
A start-up society, has more chances of being wrecked by Tech Companies in incumbency- at local or provincial level and Power Lobbies in local Governance than by National Government or Trillion-dollar MNCs. Even if this society somehow develops into a Network-archipelago, it will be overburdened with bureaucratic red-tapism of Real World. This includes, foreign exchange, market value and equities, real estates and so on.
A start-up society cannot always win members through online commitment. Skepticism is the norm and the only way to win consent by Hayekian doctrine is to deliver palpable results in Physical world. After all, Man is first and foremost, a creature of Living Physical Spaces and not Immaterial or Digital.
There is an over-reliance on Internet here. Although Internet is a broad spectrum of services, it is not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God in itself. Information travels through optical fibers set deep into the abyss of oceans. They need regular maintenance due to Tectonic shifts, Benthos and so on. All of this demands, real-time regularly paid, State/MNC employed individuals (and a hefty insurance too!) Not to forget an accurate update of Time, satellites, array of networking equipment and so on. StarLink is a good deviation from statist control.
The author is fixated on Bitcoin due to its unique technology of BlockChain. This is something I like. A preferred set-up will be: Single currency within a Network State and multiple currencies throughout Metaverse. Far better will be an actual normative Digital Currency National Bank/ Treasury (with minimal authority limited only to real-time value WRT gold, commodity or any other Fiat Currency for the time being).
To receive diplomatic recognition, we need an identity such as Passport and a delimited territory (which is flexible in such State). The real question is, how can we make such State without irking the local authority. Not to forget, getting permissions for a sanctuary building, block, city or province is tiresome process and mostly achievable by corporations. How to avoid becoming something like Google (that the author vehemently opposes) is unclear.
Above all, this book is a great read with vast array of references, charts, background information. Feedbacks to this review are appreciated.
Of course, city-states did not loose to nation-states in the traditional sense. In fact, majority of them assimilated into or still retained their identity through leverage- political, economic or otherwise. Rather, they developed better through their placement in a nationwide network. Instances are Scotland in the Union, Manchuria in Ming China and Near-Abroads in erstwhile Soviet Union.
The author was strong enough to point out discrepancies in dominant ideologies of mainstream politics. Inflation, a major issue, given that ~35-40% of US Bills used were printed during last 3 years (which led to increase in prices of meat, milk, education, utilities), has been given just importance. Anarchist flaws- where isolationism is "impossible" and every entity- group, nation or organization, once industrialized or turned complex, inevitably engages in a technology race. This race can be in forms of "Arms" (as in 20th century and to some extent, still now), geo-economic ambitions (China of present-day Asia) or MNCs cannibalizing the companies and local employment in the host nation. (Although I do agree that McFarms are better than OldVille Farms of Third World nations).
The problem essentially lies in 5 things.
Any Start-up Society, if built will be too vague given the One Commandment. There needs to be an essential dialogue interface which allows active participation in digital governance in real time. Otherwise, it simply becomes a motto-bearing local town hall with a defunct app/ website/ service in the name of "smart governance."
A start-up society, has more chances of being wrecked by Tech Companies in incumbency- at local or provincial level and Power Lobbies in local Governance than by National Government or Trillion-dollar MNCs. Even if this society somehow develops into a Network-archipelago, it will be overburdened with bureaucratic red-tapism of Real World. This includes, foreign exchange, market value and equities, real estates and so on.
A start-up society cannot always win members through online commitment. Skepticism is the norm and the only way to win consent by Hayekian doctrine is to deliver palpable results in Physical world. After all, Man is first and foremost, a creature of Living Physical Spaces and not Immaterial or Digital.
There is an over-reliance on Internet here. Although Internet is a broad spectrum of services, it is not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God in itself. Information travels through optical fibers set deep into the abyss of oceans. They need regular maintenance due to Tectonic shifts, Benthos and so on. All of this demands, real-time regularly paid, State/MNC employed individuals (and a hefty insurance too!) Not to forget an accurate update of Time, satellites, array of networking equipment and so on. StarLink is a good deviation from statist control.
The author is fixated on Bitcoin due to its unique technology of BlockChain. This is something I like. A preferred set-up will be: Single currency within a Network State and multiple currencies throughout Metaverse. Far better will be an actual normative Digital Currency National Bank/ Treasury (with minimal authority limited only to real-time value WRT gold, commodity or any other Fiat Currency for the time being).
To receive diplomatic recognition, we need an identity such as Passport and a delimited territory (which is flexible in such State). The real question is, how can we make such State without irking the local authority. Not to forget, getting permissions for a sanctuary building, block, city or province is tiresome process and mostly achievable by corporations. How to avoid becoming something like Google (that the author vehemently opposes) is unclear.
Above all, this book is a great read with vast array of references, charts, background information. Feedbacks to this review are appreciated.
October 31, 2022
Note: There is a podcast episode, where Lex Fridman (host) and Balaji Srinivasan discuss (among other topics) the book's theme. Consider it to be the 2022 version of a recorded MIT course, under the form of podcast. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeH7q...
Balaji Srinivasan's book invites the reader to think really deep about societal structures, what is wrong with them, and most importantly, what could the future look like. I think that the most important aspect of this book, is that it is written in 2022 and its content is heavily focused on the current state of the world (political polarization within the US, advent of remote work, recession).
The reason why I did not rated it with 5 stars is because the author has the tendency to frame his ideas around China and the US. It would be very hard for any person to get a complete and accurate model of the entire world, so no hard feelings for that. In addition to that, Balaji dives quite deep in the actual political situation of the US, which I think that makes him deviate from the actual point.
Nevertheless, I think that whoever has the courage to explore and write about a very difficult topic such as the future structure of society, and do it in the context of present times and technology, should be appreciated.
My thoughts on some parts of his book:
- Balaji debates that only people who share the same principles should join the same network state. My question is: wouldn't it create an "echo chamber"? I understand the argument that people who share similar principles would be more fit to work towards the same goals... however, if we see society from the vantage point of a complex adaptive system, it seems that opposing forces would rather help society progress.
- The author debates that the society would be internet first. People would be scattered around the globe. What would be the cost implications from an infrastructural point of view? How about security? Let's say, hypothetically, my neighbour is part of networked state A and I'm part of networked state B. What happens if he decides to destroy my propriety? In today's politics, it would mean an attack on a neighbouring state. How about he decided to start destroying public property (the road, the bench in a park). Who makes sure that we gets punished for that?
- Again, population is scattered around the globe. How would this society acquire cultural homogeneity? I understand that, due to the the way in which the state is structured today, it's also impossible to achieve full homogeneity. However, because people live physically close to each other, they organise local events and they get a sense of commonality.
Probably the hardest part in bootstrapping a networked state, is to achieve diplomatic recognition. We know from history (i.e. Catalonia) that, whenever an established state is about to loose part of its working class, or territory for that matter, they retaliate. We'd need to find a way to incentivise existing states in agreeing with the idea of getting split apart in decentralised parts.
Balaji Srinivasan's book invites the reader to think really deep about societal structures, what is wrong with them, and most importantly, what could the future look like. I think that the most important aspect of this book, is that it is written in 2022 and its content is heavily focused on the current state of the world (political polarization within the US, advent of remote work, recession).
The reason why I did not rated it with 5 stars is because the author has the tendency to frame his ideas around China and the US. It would be very hard for any person to get a complete and accurate model of the entire world, so no hard feelings for that. In addition to that, Balaji dives quite deep in the actual political situation of the US, which I think that makes him deviate from the actual point.
Nevertheless, I think that whoever has the courage to explore and write about a very difficult topic such as the future structure of society, and do it in the context of present times and technology, should be appreciated.
My thoughts on some parts of his book:
- Balaji debates that only people who share the same principles should join the same network state. My question is: wouldn't it create an "echo chamber"? I understand the argument that people who share similar principles would be more fit to work towards the same goals... however, if we see society from the vantage point of a complex adaptive system, it seems that opposing forces would rather help society progress.
- The author debates that the society would be internet first. People would be scattered around the globe. What would be the cost implications from an infrastructural point of view? How about security? Let's say, hypothetically, my neighbour is part of networked state A and I'm part of networked state B. What happens if he decides to destroy my propriety? In today's politics, it would mean an attack on a neighbouring state. How about he decided to start destroying public property (the road, the bench in a park). Who makes sure that we gets punished for that?
- Again, population is scattered around the globe. How would this society acquire cultural homogeneity? I understand that, due to the the way in which the state is structured today, it's also impossible to achieve full homogeneity. However, because people live physically close to each other, they organise local events and they get a sense of commonality.
Probably the hardest part in bootstrapping a networked state, is to achieve diplomatic recognition. We know from history (i.e. Catalonia) that, whenever an established state is about to loose part of its working class, or territory for that matter, they retaliate. We'd need to find a way to incentivise existing states in agreeing with the idea of getting split apart in decentralised parts.
November 23, 2022
There are plenty of interesting ideas in this book-length essay, and it seems inevitable that, eventually, a new state will be formed over the internet by people who unite over a common cause. However, I was skeptical about the feasibility of recognition of a network state's sovereignty from existing states. There is an enormous gap between steps six and seven, which are: "conduct a census of your online community" and "gain diplomatic recognition from an existing sovereign nation." I wanted the process between those steps to be explored in more detail, and felt that this was glossed over several times.
The author seems to suggest that after a Network gains a certain critical mass of participants, then gaining some measure of sovereignty would be a peaceful process. Have new countries ever been formed without some type of conflict? Sovereignty is never given for free. The author suggests that a network can "gradually increase sovereignty," but is that realistic? There must be a discontinuity at some point where true sovereignty is declared and obtained. If such a network becomes a threat to existing states, and if the participants in that network are geographically distributed, then the existing powers have an advantage. A pre-divided enemy is ready to be conquered. And if the network participants decide to move to a single physical location in order to concentrate their power - how is that different from the way any state was formed in the past?
I don't disagree with the desire behind the idea of a network state, or even the possibility that a nation could form itself from disparate groups coming together and uniting over common principles. In a way, something comparable happened with the founding of the United States. What I don't believe is the notion that this can ever be a simple or peaceful process. I cannot foresee countries ever voluntarily ceding a share of their power. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, and a large enough network will be able to achieve this.
Criticism aside, it's absolutely worth reading for the wide range of interesting ideas it contains. Several sections are brilliant, especially those describing the left/right political dynamic, and the potential new forms of governance that cryptographic on-chain proof could enable. There's a lot of material to inspire new thinking, even if you aren't completely on-board with the main premise. It's better to think about this as an extended essay on a wide range of topics, one of which is the "Network State."
The author seems to suggest that after a Network gains a certain critical mass of participants, then gaining some measure of sovereignty would be a peaceful process. Have new countries ever been formed without some type of conflict? Sovereignty is never given for free. The author suggests that a network can "gradually increase sovereignty," but is that realistic? There must be a discontinuity at some point where true sovereignty is declared and obtained. If such a network becomes a threat to existing states, and if the participants in that network are geographically distributed, then the existing powers have an advantage. A pre-divided enemy is ready to be conquered. And if the network participants decide to move to a single physical location in order to concentrate their power - how is that different from the way any state was formed in the past?
I don't disagree with the desire behind the idea of a network state, or even the possibility that a nation could form itself from disparate groups coming together and uniting over common principles. In a way, something comparable happened with the founding of the United States. What I don't believe is the notion that this can ever be a simple or peaceful process. I cannot foresee countries ever voluntarily ceding a share of their power. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, and a large enough network will be able to achieve this.
Criticism aside, it's absolutely worth reading for the wide range of interesting ideas it contains. Several sections are brilliant, especially those describing the left/right political dynamic, and the potential new forms of governance that cryptographic on-chain proof could enable. There's a lot of material to inspire new thinking, even if you aren't completely on-board with the main premise. It's better to think about this as an extended essay on a wide range of topics, one of which is the "Network State."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews