Interesting perspective. Do you see a place or need for cultural changes (paradigm shifts in world view, how we think and relate to the world and each other etc.) in diminishing multipolar traps? Your approach seems to take for granted competitive games (all three procedures you propose presuppose them), a presupposition one could argue is parochial and one that might not be conducive to the kinds of procedures and ideas that will allow us to truly break free from Moloch. Operating within the paradigm of competitive games might so to speak be an «inside-the-box» approach, while what is required down the line is «outside-the-box» approaches, which could be thought of as more deeply cultural, epistemological etc.
One thing I disagree with, or perhaps I don't understand fully, is the low exit costs. I'm coming at it from the POV of finite vs infinite games and also geopolitics. In the grand game of geopolitics, you literally cannot opt out. I'm referring to Mearsheimer's description of offensive realism. In other words, planetary governance is an infinite game (evolving rules, you're always playing, and cannot opt out).
Hi David! Thanks for the thoughtful comment, and your civilized challenge of the "exit" strategy idea.
I agree to an extent with your analysis of the geopolitical arena. Balaji Srinivasan has been analyzing this area for some time to see what kind of "opt-out" vectors we can initiate. Indeed, it is not easy. I will note that I am not intimately familiar with "offensive realism," but I can get the gist of the idea from context clues. (I will conduct further research.)
That said, I don't believe at all that geopolitics has to be an "infinite game" concerning Carse's work. In the nascent network state and startup society space, we are experimenting with novel cloud communities and governance solutions. Our ecosystem is also working on building digital infrastructure that maintains anonymity, allowing for "netizens" to potentially remain shielded from the system while we usurp power from the nation-state. This idea is a huge focus of my whole Substack niche.
Suffice it to say, we ultimately "opt-out" of governance games by forming cloud communities when feasible and eventually beaming those to a physical territory where we can gain as much sovereignty as possible. At first, it will be difficult to maintain, but we will grow and attract new members over time while nation-states lose theirs. It's this balancing dynamic where global governance begins to build more freedom-based communities. It largely happens through exiting antiquated models and enacting a counter-governance regime. The eventual goal is that nascent governance models FORCE nation-states to compete like normal businesses. This is the problem of why geopolitics currently looks like an infinite game. In reality, it is just a finite game that has gone berserk.
Current examples: Network School, Vitalia/Prospera, Zuzalu, Esmeralda Edge City, etc. Note that each has its own governance apparatus.
I hope this helps, but I am happy to deepen the discussion. The low exit/switching costs are a gigantic focal point of my work.
Hmm, I think we're talking at two entirely different levels. Multipolar traps, at the highest levels, are driven by nation-states as rational actors. Even if citizens can "opt-out" (in part) is highly dubious when they're still operating within the containers provided by nation-states.
Any Molochian solution that doesn't take geopolitics into consideration, first and foremost, is completely dead on arrival. The reason that the framework you propose (e.g. citizens forcing nation-states to compete like businesses) is that they already do. The difference is that nations control borders, the flow of goods and people between them. Furthermore, they control their sovereign territory, including extractable resources (minerals, organics, petroleum) which underpin all economic activity.
Without understanding this and integrating into your framework, cloud netizen governance is tantamount to signing petitions. You need to understand the actual flows of power at the highest levels of civilization. I cannot emphasize enough the fact that you need to read John Mearsheimer.
Now, to help you along, you should look at the federated system of the US and the EU. The fact that citizens and businesses can easily move from state to state forces American states to compete, but are still boxed in by the federal system. Likewise, the EU system allows businesses and citizens to "vote with their feet" as well. But again, constrained by the membership of the EU.
In order for your proposal to work, it would have to global in nature (e.g. a global passport) which is likely decades if not centuries away (if ever). And that's not even the hardest part - for your cloud-based netizen communities to exercise any power whatsoever, they would need to challenge nation-states' monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
None of that is happening. So when you use the word "force" you are not using it correctly. I recommend you start with a first-principles view of power, economics, and civilization.
I don't have the full energy or time to go into a detailed rebuttal of your account, but I will simply say that "nation-state cointainers" are not nearly as stalwart or long-term as your thought process implies. All empires grow, fade, and eventually die in a cyclical fashion. You can easily crack out of Molochian dynamics as a pseudo-infinite game with the proper tech, ideation, and anti-Molochian dynamics. I recommend also reading Leopohld Kohr's work, "The Breakdown of Nations."
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, though. They will likely inspire future pieces.
Great post; I particularly found your point 1) about low exit costs insightful, it was not something I'd sufficiently considered before. And while I also largely agree with the sentiment of point 3, I don't think it's sufficient to dismiss the anti-molochian power of top-down regulation entirely because a) it's not a given that regulatory capture ALWAYS happens, and also b) don't self-enforcing markets only work once said market's negative externalities are sufficiently accounted for and internalised, which in turn requires a near-perfect information transparency across the market (at which point Moloch is already defeated), no? Seems like a bit of a chicken-and-egg dilemma to me.
Great thoughts, Liv. Thanks for the wise response. I am really happy to be contributing to this area of inqurity with people like you and Daniel. I think game theory contains the the best understanding of the problems we are dealing with in the most digestable and comprehensive way, especially because of all the complexities around our growing global and interconnected world.
As for your point about regulatory capture. I would push back a bit an say that it probably happens more often the larger the government gets. Anytime you have a regulatory regime that becomes bureacratically entrenched it is typically within the best interests of the biggest corporate players to capture those entities so they can create a rule set that benefits them at the expense of incumbents.
A few sources to get the best insight into this is to read the Austrian school economists (assuming you have not already), and their various theories on interventionism. Mises and Rothbard are both legit. If you are familiar with their take, I would love to discuss further. I also recommend following Balaji's work. His recent interview with Vivek was amazing. They discussed the FDA and its problems, which actually move a bit beyond capture.
Thanks to people like you, I will continue writing about these subjects. The intersection of markets, agorism, and game theory truly fascinate me. Cheers!
Interesting perspective. Do you see a place or need for cultural changes (paradigm shifts in world view, how we think and relate to the world and each other etc.) in diminishing multipolar traps? Your approach seems to take for granted competitive games (all three procedures you propose presuppose them), a presupposition one could argue is parochial and one that might not be conducive to the kinds of procedures and ideas that will allow us to truly break free from Moloch. Operating within the paradigm of competitive games might so to speak be an «inside-the-box» approach, while what is required down the line is «outside-the-box» approaches, which could be thought of as more deeply cultural, epistemological etc.
I recently wrote a piece on the metacrisis and multipolar traps, and would be interested to hear your thoughts on my perspective: https://tmfow.substack.com/p/the-metacrisis-analysis
One thing I disagree with, or perhaps I don't understand fully, is the low exit costs. I'm coming at it from the POV of finite vs infinite games and also geopolitics. In the grand game of geopolitics, you literally cannot opt out. I'm referring to Mearsheimer's description of offensive realism. In other words, planetary governance is an infinite game (evolving rules, you're always playing, and cannot opt out).
But perhaps I misunderstand your point.
Hi David! Thanks for the thoughtful comment, and your civilized challenge of the "exit" strategy idea.
I agree to an extent with your analysis of the geopolitical arena. Balaji Srinivasan has been analyzing this area for some time to see what kind of "opt-out" vectors we can initiate. Indeed, it is not easy. I will note that I am not intimately familiar with "offensive realism," but I can get the gist of the idea from context clues. (I will conduct further research.)
That said, I don't believe at all that geopolitics has to be an "infinite game" concerning Carse's work. In the nascent network state and startup society space, we are experimenting with novel cloud communities and governance solutions. Our ecosystem is also working on building digital infrastructure that maintains anonymity, allowing for "netizens" to potentially remain shielded from the system while we usurp power from the nation-state. This idea is a huge focus of my whole Substack niche.
Suffice it to say, we ultimately "opt-out" of governance games by forming cloud communities when feasible and eventually beaming those to a physical territory where we can gain as much sovereignty as possible. At first, it will be difficult to maintain, but we will grow and attract new members over time while nation-states lose theirs. It's this balancing dynamic where global governance begins to build more freedom-based communities. It largely happens through exiting antiquated models and enacting a counter-governance regime. The eventual goal is that nascent governance models FORCE nation-states to compete like normal businesses. This is the problem of why geopolitics currently looks like an infinite game. In reality, it is just a finite game that has gone berserk.
Current examples: Network School, Vitalia/Prospera, Zuzalu, Esmeralda Edge City, etc. Note that each has its own governance apparatus.
I hope this helps, but I am happy to deepen the discussion. The low exit/switching costs are a gigantic focal point of my work.
Hmm, I think we're talking at two entirely different levels. Multipolar traps, at the highest levels, are driven by nation-states as rational actors. Even if citizens can "opt-out" (in part) is highly dubious when they're still operating within the containers provided by nation-states.
Any Molochian solution that doesn't take geopolitics into consideration, first and foremost, is completely dead on arrival. The reason that the framework you propose (e.g. citizens forcing nation-states to compete like businesses) is that they already do. The difference is that nations control borders, the flow of goods and people between them. Furthermore, they control their sovereign territory, including extractable resources (minerals, organics, petroleum) which underpin all economic activity.
Without understanding this and integrating into your framework, cloud netizen governance is tantamount to signing petitions. You need to understand the actual flows of power at the highest levels of civilization. I cannot emphasize enough the fact that you need to read John Mearsheimer.
Now, to help you along, you should look at the federated system of the US and the EU. The fact that citizens and businesses can easily move from state to state forces American states to compete, but are still boxed in by the federal system. Likewise, the EU system allows businesses and citizens to "vote with their feet" as well. But again, constrained by the membership of the EU.
In order for your proposal to work, it would have to global in nature (e.g. a global passport) which is likely decades if not centuries away (if ever). And that's not even the hardest part - for your cloud-based netizen communities to exercise any power whatsoever, they would need to challenge nation-states' monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
None of that is happening. So when you use the word "force" you are not using it correctly. I recommend you start with a first-principles view of power, economics, and civilization.
I don't have the full energy or time to go into a detailed rebuttal of your account, but I will simply say that "nation-state cointainers" are not nearly as stalwart or long-term as your thought process implies. All empires grow, fade, and eventually die in a cyclical fashion. You can easily crack out of Molochian dynamics as a pseudo-infinite game with the proper tech, ideation, and anti-Molochian dynamics. I recommend also reading Leopohld Kohr's work, "The Breakdown of Nations."
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, though. They will likely inspire future pieces.
Great post; I particularly found your point 1) about low exit costs insightful, it was not something I'd sufficiently considered before. And while I also largely agree with the sentiment of point 3, I don't think it's sufficient to dismiss the anti-molochian power of top-down regulation entirely because a) it's not a given that regulatory capture ALWAYS happens, and also b) don't self-enforcing markets only work once said market's negative externalities are sufficiently accounted for and internalised, which in turn requires a near-perfect information transparency across the market (at which point Moloch is already defeated), no? Seems like a bit of a chicken-and-egg dilemma to me.
Great thoughts, Liv. Thanks for the wise response. I am really happy to be contributing to this area of inqurity with people like you and Daniel. I think game theory contains the the best understanding of the problems we are dealing with in the most digestable and comprehensive way, especially because of all the complexities around our growing global and interconnected world.
As for your point about regulatory capture. I would push back a bit an say that it probably happens more often the larger the government gets. Anytime you have a regulatory regime that becomes bureacratically entrenched it is typically within the best interests of the biggest corporate players to capture those entities so they can create a rule set that benefits them at the expense of incumbents.
A few sources to get the best insight into this is to read the Austrian school economists (assuming you have not already), and their various theories on interventionism. Mises and Rothbard are both legit. If you are familiar with their take, I would love to discuss further. I also recommend following Balaji's work. His recent interview with Vivek was amazing. They discussed the FDA and its problems, which actually move a bit beyond capture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvWMcRRkuak
Thanks to people like you, I will continue writing about these subjects. The intersection of markets, agorism, and game theory truly fascinate me. Cheers!
I love the idea of experimentation and iteration!
Inspiring read!