As someone who's spent a long time thinking about political institutions and remains deeply skeptical of BS and his what, why, and how for the Network State...this post made me soften my perspectives on a few things.
I appreciate that you start out with a description that amounts to organizing people to take collective action to secure better terms from corporations (and possibly even governments). That's a different presentation of the idea than the typical "failure mode for western civilization" rhetoric that often gets deployed. Actually, if you read Yoni Applebaum's book, Stuck, he makes reference to a whole ecosystem of community groups (Rotary, trade unions, etc) which used to be in every major metro in the U.S. and that people relied on as they'd relocate to wherever happened to be booming economically at the time.
Again, I think the thing you're doing here that's interesting is articulating specific use cases (health insurance, affordable lodging, right of entry) that are real and tangible in a way that's often missing in these conversations.
I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this idea. I'm assuming that a 'network state' aims to provide the benefits of a nation-state (land, healthcare, services), without the traditional land borders and national identity that comes with traditional nation-states. However, I also don't see how network states could be much more than just networks of people with a shared profession. For example, digital nomads only really share the identity/values of global nomadism, which presumably means having little attachment to 'place', or a physical community, and a shared (high income) profession. I don't think that digital communication, a shared sense of 'belonging to nowhere', and buying into a network (paid membership), provides a stable enough foundation for community-building in the same way as physical communities rooted in a sense of 'place' (with shared hardships and obligations).
Also, I really believe that in countries where these 'network states' would be established, local people will be alienated and angered. I don't think that local communities would be partial to rich Westerners paying governments and piggybacking onto local services, buying up land and housing (and driving up prices) and establishing 'special economic zones with tax benefits'. Digital nomads have no real stake in the surrounding communities, and the ability to pack up and leave if things get tough. Honestly, the whole idea starts to look a bit like entitlement and 'tech bro' utopian fantasies.
Hey Faye, thank you for your comprehensive comment and thoughts.
The first concept to grasp is that the very notion of a nation and the feeling of belonging to one is among the many things disrupted in the age of the internet and globalization. I've written an extensive article on this topic, which you can see here : https://disruptive-horizons.com/p/how-the-internet-is-eroding-nationalism.
Today, we can observe that many people feel closer to members of their online community than to their own neighbors. Moreover, a United Nations study indicates that the more frequently someone uses the internet, the less they feel a sense of national belonging, and the more they consider themselves global citizens. You can view the reference in article linked above.
Given these factors, it's not a significant leap to extrapolate current trends and realize that the idea of primarily belonging to a nation—historically strongly linked to a territory, although also tied to a common culture—is becoming less important.
From this point, it isn't difficult to imagine the emergence of network states.
The foundational concept behind network states begins with a patchwork of territories distributed globally, patches as small as an apartment or a building. Such small-scale beginnings are unlikely to provoke locals.
Even if they do, it will simply encourage this emerging global community of millions to migrate to more welcoming locations, possibly poorer countries that may better embrace digital nomads and their network states, due to the significant economic prosperity these communities will bring with them.
Made this to force myself to understand it - still have reservations about Balaji’s version but imo I think we should knick the concept and make it for everyone. We may need to have one that works sooner rather than later https://youtu.be/BEIHwGBBbok
This article a great thought experiment that, to me, implicitly calls into question the imagined communities (see Benedict Anderson's famous book by that title) we call nation-states. What's more real, a nation-state or a community formed by digital nomads? My daughter helped to start an online community that led to a small, physical community of a few friends. What would it be like to scale that?
4. I think my main doubt comes from the inherent competition that may arise between traditional states and network states: in other words, if we would build a network state (not that I would be eligible by any means), why duplicate existing structures instead of envisioning the next stage in human society?
A major idea behind Network States, and other alternative forms of governance such as Free Cities, is to create an environment in which many forms of governance can be tested to discover what is the best next stage in human society.
Here's an excerpt from my book about this :
"The idea is to eventually have :
- dozens or hundreds of free cities and network states around the world
- Each of which would allow a different social and economic model to be tested, without the need for a revolution, and without having to subject those who disagree to the “tyranny of the majority” (or minority),
o because they would all be populated on a voluntary basis.
o Would you like to set up a Marxism 2.0? A libertarian city/network-state? A deeply pious city/NS that follows the teachings of your religion's holy book to the letter? A city/NS, on the contrary, that rejects all religion and focuses on a spiritual life based on science? Do yourself a favor, put it together, test your ideas against the reality on the ground, and see if you can make your project into a viable city.
- This creates a friendly competition in which dozens or hundreds of different social and economic models can be rapidly tested in the field, encouraging a Darwinian selection process that will naturally lead to the emergence, at a speed unprecedented in human history, of successful models from which other societies can draw inspiration.
This proposal is already extremely innovative: it puts an end to revolutions, and to out-of-breath systems that are well past their sell-by date. Instead, we're creating an ecosystem that encourages everyone to set up a concrete experiment to validate that their ideal societal model works, or to join the free city that proposes the model closest to their ideal."
3. You are moving from nomad statehood to a digital community and now to an online syndicate. I like the testing of various ideas, even if they somewhat contradict one another.
2. The idea of negotiating with countries to settle down sound like the modern age version of the Hun or Mongol invasions. Instead of knocking down the doors, one asks nicely 🙂
Some thoughts while reading the article: 1. Should it be called a "state" if it is founded by nomads? I feel a contradiction in terms between the passive nature of a state and the dynamic character of life as a nomad 🙂
Me too, but I think it could be done without it, and many digital nomad visa programs could step in to handle that part. Plumia, for example, or Selina hotels.
Nice idea, but blood and country are powerful forces, and just because you think you can simply buy military and judicial protection from client states, there's nothing you can do if they decide to throw you out or take possession of your property and freedom.
Here's the excerpt from the article that addresses this: :
"Above all, losing a territory will not be as important as for a nation-state. The notion of territory for a network state will be fluid, even if some territories will be more valuable than others. Losing a network state's only Free City, for example, would certainly be a major blow. To better protect itself, the network-state can form alliances with Free Cities, other network-states, and certain states, starting with those of similar size—as is the case with Singapore and Israel, both small countries surrounded by potentially hostile countries, and which this common characteristic has brought together to the point where they now have a special relationship and collaborate on the development of many military technologies."
Since I recently read Patchwork and the Network State and have spent time thinking about it, I see several challenges. I will list some of the major ones here, and I assume you have answers to them or will address them as part of your book.
While the idea of digital nomads forming network states is innovative and exciting, it is also fraught with challenges. Below are the most likely points of failure that could derail this ambitious project:
Building a Cohesive Community Among a Diverse Group Will Be Extremely Challenging: Digital nomads come from various countries, cultures, and value systems, making it challenging to create a unified community with shared identity, political goals, and governance. Conflicting values may arise, as what appeals to one group of digital nomads could alienate others, leading to fragmentation. Additionally, some members may join solely for benefits like tax breaks or discounts and may not actively participate in governance, leaving decision-making to a small, unrepresentative group. Without a strong, shared culture or history, fostering a sense of belonging and loyalty to the network state could also be challenging.
Host Country Instability Could Undermine Agreements with Digital Nomads: Negotiating favorable terms with host countries is only the first step, but maintaining those agreements over time could be difficult. Leadership changes in host countries could lead to new regimes that revoke agreements, demand higher taxes, or even seize the network state’s assets for personal or political gain. Host country citizens might also view digital nomads as outsiders receiving unfair privileges, which could result in political pressure to revoke special deals or expel the community. Furthermore, political decisions are not always rational. Even if revoking agreements would harm the host country's economy, leaders may act out of populism, self-interest, or misinformation.
Digital Nomads May Struggle to Achieve Equal Rights and Legal Protections: As non-citizens, digital nomads may struggle to secure the same rights and protections as locals in host countries. Despite contributing significant tax revenue, they could be treated as outsiders with limited legal recourse, creating a "second-class" status. Additionally, they may face discrimination or inadequate protection under the law compared to local citizens, especially in countries with weaker legal systems. If locals resent the network state’s presence, law enforcement or political leaders may side with the majority, leaving digital nomads vulnerable to harassment or expulsion.
Nation-States Losing Revenue Could Retaliate Against the Network State: The network state’s ability to offer tax advantages to its members could provoke retaliation from their home countries. Countries losing revenue might introduce new laws or policies to discourage remote work abroad or incentivize citizens to return. Digital nomads may face accusations of tax evasion or be forced to pay additional taxes in their home countries, reducing the appeal of joining the network state. Home countries might also pressure host nations to revoke privileges granted to the network state, further undermining its stability.
Financial Instability Could Derail the Network State's Operations: Its reliance on cryptocurrency and membership fees makes its financial foundation inherently volatile. Cryptocurrencies are subject to extreme price fluctuations, hacking, and regulatory crackdowns, which could make them an unstable choice for transactions and governance. Additionally, if the network state depends heavily on high-income members for its revenue, it could collapse financially if those members leave, stop paying fees, or lose interest. Failure to deliver promised perks, such as tax breaks, insurance, or access to special economic zones, could also erode trust in the project and lead to mass defections.
Achieving Sovereignty and Diplomatic Recognition Will Be Incredibly Difficult: Even within special economic zones (SEZs), achieving sovereignty is an unprecedented and politically sensitive goal with significant challenges. Gaining diplomatic recognition as a sovereign entity may be nearly impossible, as most governments are unlikely to legitimize a new form of governance. Also, host countries could revoke SEZ access or impose new restrictions, leaving the network state without a physical foothold. Without independent territory, the network state would rely on host countries for governance, law enforcement, and infrastructure, severely limiting its autonomy.
Public Perception Could Turn Against the Network State: The network state risks being perceived as elitist, exclusionary, or exploitative, harming its reputation and long-term viability. Special deals for digital nomads might alienate local populations, fostering resentment and protests against the community. The project could also face criticism as a dystopian or elitist venture, especially if it appears to prioritize wealthy expatriates over the needs of local citizens. By negotiating low taxes and other benefits, the network state could be accused of exploiting poorer host countries, further deepening global inequality.
Overambition and Unrealistic Expectations Could Lead to Failure: Transitioning from an online community to a fully-fledged network state is highly complex and unprecedented, and overambition could lead to failure. The network state could lose credibility and momentum if it fails to achieve its ambitious goals. Managing a rapidly growing, globally dispersed community could overwhelm the state’s infrastructure and leadership, leading to operational failures. Furthermore, the network state's founders and leaders may face overwhelming challenges, such as managing internal conflicts and navigating external negotiations, which could result in burnout and mismanagement.
The most probable points of failure in creating a digital nomad network state are community fragmentation, host country instability, and financial volatility. Without strong cohesion, stable agreements with host governments, and a sustainable economic model, the network state could struggle to gain traction or maintain long-term viability. Additionally, external pressures from nation-states, public backlash, and technological vulnerabilities could further complicate its path to success.
Wow, thank you for your extremely detailed and interesting comment. I couldn't respond earlier because it requires a lengthy reply. I'll start responding now and finish another day.
Here's my answer point by point:
First of all, I completely agree that creating network states will indeed be a real challenge—it's clear, just as making the United States into what it is today was an enormous undertaking. However, comparing these two tasks, I believe creating a network state will be less difficult, perhaps even significantly easier, than the challenge that was building the United States.
- Building a Cohesive Community Among a Diverse Group Will Be Extremely Challenging:
The first concept to grasp is that the very notion of a nation and the feeling of belonging to one is among the many things disrupted in the age of the internet and globalization. I've written an extensive article on this topic, which you can see here : https://disruptive-horizons.com/p/how-the-internet-is-eroding-nationalism.
Today, we can observe that many people feel closer to members of their online community than to their own neighbors. Moreover, a United Nations study indicates that the more frequently someone uses the internet, the less they feel a sense of national belonging, and the more they consider themselves global citizens. You can view the reference in article linked above.
Given these factors, it's not a significant leap to extrapolate current trends and realize that the idea of primarily belonging to a nation—historically strongly linked to a territory, although also tied to a common culture—is becoming less important.
From this point, it isn't difficult to imagine the emergence of network states.
- Host Country Instability Could Undermine Agreements with Digital Nomads
The foundational concept behind network states begins with a patchwork of territories distributed globally, patches as small as an apartment or a building.
If a country starts mistreating residents of the Network State with which it has signed an agreement, those residents will simply move to another country.
The fierce competition between countries—which is already happening—will ensure that a good quality of service will be provided overall by countries entering into agreements with Network States, even if there may be some stupid decisions here and there, like in Venezuela.
- Digital Nomads May Struggle to Achieve Equal Rights and Legal Protections
This is not a big problem, because a major idea behind Network States, and other alternative forms of governance such as Free Cities, is to create an environment in which many forms of governance can be tested to discover what is the best next stage in human society.
Here's an excerpt from my book about this :
"The idea is to eventually have :
- dozens or hundreds of free cities and network states around the world
- Each of which would allow a different social and economic model to be tested, without the need for a revolution, and without having to subject those who disagree to the “tyranny of the majority” (or minority),
o because they would all be populated on a voluntary basis.
o Would you like to set up a Marxism 2.0? A libertarian city/network-state? A deeply pious city/NS that follows the teachings of your religion's holy book to the letter? A city/NS, on the contrary, that rejects all religion and focuses on a spiritual life based on science? Do yourself a favor, put it together, test your ideas against the reality on the ground, and see if you can make your project into a viable city.
- This creates a friendly competition in which dozens or hundreds of different social and economic models can be rapidly tested in the field, encouraging a Darwinian selection process that will naturally lead to the emergence, at a speed unprecedented in human history, of successful models from which other societies can draw inspiration.
This proposal is already extremely innovative: it puts an end to revolutions, and to out-of-breath systems that are well past their sell-by date. Instead, we're creating an ecosystem that encourages everyone to set up a concrete experiment to validate that their ideal societal model works, or to join the free city that proposes the model closest to their ideal."
So if a state or network state does not offer good value for money in terms of services, its residents will simply leave and join a better provider of governance services.
Sorry. Way over my head. Have no idea what you're talking about, sounds confusing and very complicated, but am sure enough people of same ilk can make something of it somewhere over the rainbow. Maybe something on Mars and the moon?
I completely understand! This article is an extract from my book, and this passage comes after 573 pages that lay the groundwork.
I've done my best, with Elle's help, to change the beginning of the article to better introduce the subject, but the fact remains that its thoughts are built on a foundation of several hundred pages and it can be difficult to understand it without having read them first.
I think this is essentially what Praxis is trying to do! I occasionally see them in the news that they're talking to various governments but haven't heard much about concrete plans since their launch.
As someone who's spent a long time thinking about political institutions and remains deeply skeptical of BS and his what, why, and how for the Network State...this post made me soften my perspectives on a few things.
I appreciate that you start out with a description that amounts to organizing people to take collective action to secure better terms from corporations (and possibly even governments). That's a different presentation of the idea than the typical "failure mode for western civilization" rhetoric that often gets deployed. Actually, if you read Yoni Applebaum's book, Stuck, he makes reference to a whole ecosystem of community groups (Rotary, trade unions, etc) which used to be in every major metro in the U.S. and that people relied on as they'd relocate to wherever happened to be booming economically at the time.
Again, I think the thing you're doing here that's interesting is articulating specific use cases (health insurance, affordable lodging, right of entry) that are real and tangible in a way that's often missing in these conversations.
I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this idea. I'm assuming that a 'network state' aims to provide the benefits of a nation-state (land, healthcare, services), without the traditional land borders and national identity that comes with traditional nation-states. However, I also don't see how network states could be much more than just networks of people with a shared profession. For example, digital nomads only really share the identity/values of global nomadism, which presumably means having little attachment to 'place', or a physical community, and a shared (high income) profession. I don't think that digital communication, a shared sense of 'belonging to nowhere', and buying into a network (paid membership), provides a stable enough foundation for community-building in the same way as physical communities rooted in a sense of 'place' (with shared hardships and obligations).
Also, I really believe that in countries where these 'network states' would be established, local people will be alienated and angered. I don't think that local communities would be partial to rich Westerners paying governments and piggybacking onto local services, buying up land and housing (and driving up prices) and establishing 'special economic zones with tax benefits'. Digital nomads have no real stake in the surrounding communities, and the ability to pack up and leave if things get tough. Honestly, the whole idea starts to look a bit like entitlement and 'tech bro' utopian fantasies.
Hey Faye, thank you for your comprehensive comment and thoughts.
The first concept to grasp is that the very notion of a nation and the feeling of belonging to one is among the many things disrupted in the age of the internet and globalization. I've written an extensive article on this topic, which you can see here : https://disruptive-horizons.com/p/how-the-internet-is-eroding-nationalism.
Today, we can observe that many people feel closer to members of their online community than to their own neighbors. Moreover, a United Nations study indicates that the more frequently someone uses the internet, the less they feel a sense of national belonging, and the more they consider themselves global citizens. You can view the reference in article linked above.
Given these factors, it's not a significant leap to extrapolate current trends and realize that the idea of primarily belonging to a nation—historically strongly linked to a territory, although also tied to a common culture—is becoming less important.
From this point, it isn't difficult to imagine the emergence of network states.
The foundational concept behind network states begins with a patchwork of territories distributed globally, patches as small as an apartment or a building. Such small-scale beginnings are unlikely to provoke locals.
Even if they do, it will simply encourage this emerging global community of millions to migrate to more welcoming locations, possibly poorer countries that may better embrace digital nomads and their network states, due to the significant economic prosperity these communities will bring with them.
Made this to force myself to understand it - still have reservations about Balaji’s version but imo I think we should knick the concept and make it for everyone. We may need to have one that works sooner rather than later https://youtu.be/BEIHwGBBbok
This article a great thought experiment that, to me, implicitly calls into question the imagined communities (see Benedict Anderson's famous book by that title) we call nation-states. What's more real, a nation-state or a community formed by digital nomads? My daughter helped to start an online community that led to a small, physical community of a few friends. What would it be like to scale that?
Hey Bryce, I've thoroughly studied Benedict Anderson's book and cited it numerous times in my own work.
If you're interested in seeing a series of articles where I explore the main factors currently disrupting both the nation and the state, here is the first one of the series : https://disruptive-horizons.com/p/digital-nomadism-disrupting-nation-states
You may be interested in this one too : https://disruptive-horizons.com/p/how-the-internet-is-eroding-nationalism
Feel free to share your thoughts with me—it would be very interesting.
4. I think my main doubt comes from the inherent competition that may arise between traditional states and network states: in other words, if we would build a network state (not that I would be eligible by any means), why duplicate existing structures instead of envisioning the next stage in human society?
A major idea behind Network States, and other alternative forms of governance such as Free Cities, is to create an environment in which many forms of governance can be tested to discover what is the best next stage in human society.
Here's an excerpt from my book about this :
"The idea is to eventually have :
- dozens or hundreds of free cities and network states around the world
- Each of which would allow a different social and economic model to be tested, without the need for a revolution, and without having to subject those who disagree to the “tyranny of the majority” (or minority),
o because they would all be populated on a voluntary basis.
o Would you like to set up a Marxism 2.0? A libertarian city/network-state? A deeply pious city/NS that follows the teachings of your religion's holy book to the letter? A city/NS, on the contrary, that rejects all religion and focuses on a spiritual life based on science? Do yourself a favor, put it together, test your ideas against the reality on the ground, and see if you can make your project into a viable city.
- This creates a friendly competition in which dozens or hundreds of different social and economic models can be rapidly tested in the field, encouraging a Darwinian selection process that will naturally lead to the emergence, at a speed unprecedented in human history, of successful models from which other societies can draw inspiration.
This proposal is already extremely innovative: it puts an end to revolutions, and to out-of-breath systems that are well past their sell-by date. Instead, we're creating an ecosystem that encourages everyone to set up a concrete experiment to validate that their ideal societal model works, or to join the free city that proposes the model closest to their ideal."
3. You are moving from nomad statehood to a digital community and now to an online syndicate. I like the testing of various ideas, even if they somewhat contradict one another.
2. The idea of negotiating with countries to settle down sound like the modern age version of the Hun or Mongol invasions. Instead of knocking down the doors, one asks nicely 🙂
Some thoughts while reading the article: 1. Should it be called a "state" if it is founded by nomads? I feel a contradiction in terms between the passive nature of a state and the dynamic character of life as a nomad 🙂
A nation-state is just a nation that has given itself a state. If you can envision a nation being nomadic, you can envision it having a state.
You lost me at crypto.
Hello, crypto could help but is completely optional in this scenario.
Me too, but I think it could be done without it, and many digital nomad visa programs could step in to handle that part. Plumia, for example, or Selina hotels.
Nice idea, but blood and country are powerful forces, and just because you think you can simply buy military and judicial protection from client states, there's nothing you can do if they decide to throw you out or take possession of your property and freedom.
Here's the excerpt from the article that addresses this: :
"Above all, losing a territory will not be as important as for a nation-state. The notion of territory for a network state will be fluid, even if some territories will be more valuable than others. Losing a network state's only Free City, for example, would certainly be a major blow. To better protect itself, the network-state can form alliances with Free Cities, other network-states, and certain states, starting with those of similar size—as is the case with Singapore and Israel, both small countries surrounded by potentially hostile countries, and which this common characteristic has brought together to the point where they now have a special relationship and collaborate on the development of many military technologies."
I'm not sure if you're reacting to it or not ?
Since I recently read Patchwork and the Network State and have spent time thinking about it, I see several challenges. I will list some of the major ones here, and I assume you have answers to them or will address them as part of your book.
While the idea of digital nomads forming network states is innovative and exciting, it is also fraught with challenges. Below are the most likely points of failure that could derail this ambitious project:
Building a Cohesive Community Among a Diverse Group Will Be Extremely Challenging: Digital nomads come from various countries, cultures, and value systems, making it challenging to create a unified community with shared identity, political goals, and governance. Conflicting values may arise, as what appeals to one group of digital nomads could alienate others, leading to fragmentation. Additionally, some members may join solely for benefits like tax breaks or discounts and may not actively participate in governance, leaving decision-making to a small, unrepresentative group. Without a strong, shared culture or history, fostering a sense of belonging and loyalty to the network state could also be challenging.
Host Country Instability Could Undermine Agreements with Digital Nomads: Negotiating favorable terms with host countries is only the first step, but maintaining those agreements over time could be difficult. Leadership changes in host countries could lead to new regimes that revoke agreements, demand higher taxes, or even seize the network state’s assets for personal or political gain. Host country citizens might also view digital nomads as outsiders receiving unfair privileges, which could result in political pressure to revoke special deals or expel the community. Furthermore, political decisions are not always rational. Even if revoking agreements would harm the host country's economy, leaders may act out of populism, self-interest, or misinformation.
Digital Nomads May Struggle to Achieve Equal Rights and Legal Protections: As non-citizens, digital nomads may struggle to secure the same rights and protections as locals in host countries. Despite contributing significant tax revenue, they could be treated as outsiders with limited legal recourse, creating a "second-class" status. Additionally, they may face discrimination or inadequate protection under the law compared to local citizens, especially in countries with weaker legal systems. If locals resent the network state’s presence, law enforcement or political leaders may side with the majority, leaving digital nomads vulnerable to harassment or expulsion.
Nation-States Losing Revenue Could Retaliate Against the Network State: The network state’s ability to offer tax advantages to its members could provoke retaliation from their home countries. Countries losing revenue might introduce new laws or policies to discourage remote work abroad or incentivize citizens to return. Digital nomads may face accusations of tax evasion or be forced to pay additional taxes in their home countries, reducing the appeal of joining the network state. Home countries might also pressure host nations to revoke privileges granted to the network state, further undermining its stability.
Financial Instability Could Derail the Network State's Operations: Its reliance on cryptocurrency and membership fees makes its financial foundation inherently volatile. Cryptocurrencies are subject to extreme price fluctuations, hacking, and regulatory crackdowns, which could make them an unstable choice for transactions and governance. Additionally, if the network state depends heavily on high-income members for its revenue, it could collapse financially if those members leave, stop paying fees, or lose interest. Failure to deliver promised perks, such as tax breaks, insurance, or access to special economic zones, could also erode trust in the project and lead to mass defections.
Achieving Sovereignty and Diplomatic Recognition Will Be Incredibly Difficult: Even within special economic zones (SEZs), achieving sovereignty is an unprecedented and politically sensitive goal with significant challenges. Gaining diplomatic recognition as a sovereign entity may be nearly impossible, as most governments are unlikely to legitimize a new form of governance. Also, host countries could revoke SEZ access or impose new restrictions, leaving the network state without a physical foothold. Without independent territory, the network state would rely on host countries for governance, law enforcement, and infrastructure, severely limiting its autonomy.
Public Perception Could Turn Against the Network State: The network state risks being perceived as elitist, exclusionary, or exploitative, harming its reputation and long-term viability. Special deals for digital nomads might alienate local populations, fostering resentment and protests against the community. The project could also face criticism as a dystopian or elitist venture, especially if it appears to prioritize wealthy expatriates over the needs of local citizens. By negotiating low taxes and other benefits, the network state could be accused of exploiting poorer host countries, further deepening global inequality.
Overambition and Unrealistic Expectations Could Lead to Failure: Transitioning from an online community to a fully-fledged network state is highly complex and unprecedented, and overambition could lead to failure. The network state could lose credibility and momentum if it fails to achieve its ambitious goals. Managing a rapidly growing, globally dispersed community could overwhelm the state’s infrastructure and leadership, leading to operational failures. Furthermore, the network state's founders and leaders may face overwhelming challenges, such as managing internal conflicts and navigating external negotiations, which could result in burnout and mismanagement.
The most probable points of failure in creating a digital nomad network state are community fragmentation, host country instability, and financial volatility. Without strong cohesion, stable agreements with host governments, and a sustainable economic model, the network state could struggle to gain traction or maintain long-term viability. Additionally, external pressures from nation-states, public backlash, and technological vulnerabilities could further complicate its path to success.
Wow, thank you for your extremely detailed and interesting comment. I couldn't respond earlier because it requires a lengthy reply. I'll start responding now and finish another day.
Here's my answer point by point:
First of all, I completely agree that creating network states will indeed be a real challenge—it's clear, just as making the United States into what it is today was an enormous undertaking. However, comparing these two tasks, I believe creating a network state will be less difficult, perhaps even significantly easier, than the challenge that was building the United States.
- Building a Cohesive Community Among a Diverse Group Will Be Extremely Challenging:
The first concept to grasp is that the very notion of a nation and the feeling of belonging to one is among the many things disrupted in the age of the internet and globalization. I've written an extensive article on this topic, which you can see here : https://disruptive-horizons.com/p/how-the-internet-is-eroding-nationalism.
Today, we can observe that many people feel closer to members of their online community than to their own neighbors. Moreover, a United Nations study indicates that the more frequently someone uses the internet, the less they feel a sense of national belonging, and the more they consider themselves global citizens. You can view the reference in article linked above.
Given these factors, it's not a significant leap to extrapolate current trends and realize that the idea of primarily belonging to a nation—historically strongly linked to a territory, although also tied to a common culture—is becoming less important.
From this point, it isn't difficult to imagine the emergence of network states.
- Host Country Instability Could Undermine Agreements with Digital Nomads
The foundational concept behind network states begins with a patchwork of territories distributed globally, patches as small as an apartment or a building.
If a country starts mistreating residents of the Network State with which it has signed an agreement, those residents will simply move to another country.
The fierce competition between countries—which is already happening—will ensure that a good quality of service will be provided overall by countries entering into agreements with Network States, even if there may be some stupid decisions here and there, like in Venezuela.
- Digital Nomads May Struggle to Achieve Equal Rights and Legal Protections
This is not a big problem, because a major idea behind Network States, and other alternative forms of governance such as Free Cities, is to create an environment in which many forms of governance can be tested to discover what is the best next stage in human society.
Here's an excerpt from my book about this :
"The idea is to eventually have :
- dozens or hundreds of free cities and network states around the world
- Each of which would allow a different social and economic model to be tested, without the need for a revolution, and without having to subject those who disagree to the “tyranny of the majority” (or minority),
o because they would all be populated on a voluntary basis.
o Would you like to set up a Marxism 2.0? A libertarian city/network-state? A deeply pious city/NS that follows the teachings of your religion's holy book to the letter? A city/NS, on the contrary, that rejects all religion and focuses on a spiritual life based on science? Do yourself a favor, put it together, test your ideas against the reality on the ground, and see if you can make your project into a viable city.
- This creates a friendly competition in which dozens or hundreds of different social and economic models can be rapidly tested in the field, encouraging a Darwinian selection process that will naturally lead to the emergence, at a speed unprecedented in human history, of successful models from which other societies can draw inspiration.
This proposal is already extremely innovative: it puts an end to revolutions, and to out-of-breath systems that are well past their sell-by date. Instead, we're creating an ecosystem that encourages everyone to set up a concrete experiment to validate that their ideal societal model works, or to join the free city that proposes the model closest to their ideal."
So if a state or network state does not offer good value for money in terms of services, its residents will simply leave and join a better provider of governance services.
To be continued...
Thank you. I will wait for your Part 2.
Sorry. Way over my head. Have no idea what you're talking about, sounds confusing and very complicated, but am sure enough people of same ilk can make something of it somewhere over the rainbow. Maybe something on Mars and the moon?
I completely understand! This article is an extract from my book, and this passage comes after 573 pages that lay the groundwork.
I've done my best, with Elle's help, to change the beginning of the article to better introduce the subject, but the fact remains that its thoughts are built on a foundation of several hundred pages and it can be difficult to understand it without having read them first.
I think this is essentially what Praxis is trying to do! I occasionally see them in the news that they're talking to various governments but haven't heard much about concrete plans since their launch.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-utopian-project-praxis-gets-525-million-in-commitments-for-planned-heroic-city-f4623e98
Praxis is just one of the many Network States projects in progress, you can see an overview of the others at https://thenetworkstate.com/dashboard