"Historically, nations were not engineered in advance" and "The first internet country will not be declared." These points, beyond being brilliant observations from your awesome article, merit extra attention and praise.
On the first point, you're not only right, but it should also be pointed out that this is one of the big challenges that we at the Startup States Society are facing with respect to supporting founders trying to start new countries on dry land, as well as our peers in the Network State ecosystem. In fact, that is very much what we are proposing to do: engineer new countries from first principles and using best practices within the framework and rubric of existing international law.
To your second point, I couldn't agree with you more, and in fact that's part of the logic behind Network States: that by their sheer size and weight, it will become apparent that they are enjoying a state of existence. I'll take it a step further. To such a degree that whether they are recognised in a de jure form by existing nation-states may not be so relevant, provided, for example, that documents, certificates, or other instruments created or drawn up by the world's first internet country or Network State find themselves accepted by traditional nation-states that may not even recognise their existence.
Thank you! And these are excellent additions to the essay. I have to admit I’m not massively familiar with what Startup States Society has been working on lately; it sounds very intellectually aligned!
Thank you. Yes, it is more of a dry-land-first approach, as opposed to the Network State model and theory of new state formation. Both fall into what I would like to call the consensual theory of statehood: people coming together to form new countries of their own accord in an opt-in manner, as opposed to the classical theories of statehood, such as the constitutive and declaratory theories.
The former relies on existing states recognising the new country first, which is fair in a legal sense. The latter is more akin to the idea that you exist because you exist, regardless of recognition, which is also fair in a pragmatic sense. However, neither addresses the issue of consent and people choosing to identify as belonging to, or being citizens of, X, Y, or Z.
"Historically, nations were not engineered in advance" and "The first internet country will not be declared." These points, beyond being brilliant observations from your awesome article, merit extra attention and praise.
On the first point, you're not only right, but it should also be pointed out that this is one of the big challenges that we at the Startup States Society are facing with respect to supporting founders trying to start new countries on dry land, as well as our peers in the Network State ecosystem. In fact, that is very much what we are proposing to do: engineer new countries from first principles and using best practices within the framework and rubric of existing international law.
To your second point, I couldn't agree with you more, and in fact that's part of the logic behind Network States: that by their sheer size and weight, it will become apparent that they are enjoying a state of existence. I'll take it a step further. To such a degree that whether they are recognised in a de jure form by existing nation-states may not be so relevant, provided, for example, that documents, certificates, or other instruments created or drawn up by the world's first internet country or Network State find themselves accepted by traditional nation-states that may not even recognise their existence.
Thank you! And these are excellent additions to the essay. I have to admit I’m not massively familiar with what Startup States Society has been working on lately; it sounds very intellectually aligned!
Thank you. Yes, it is more of a dry-land-first approach, as opposed to the Network State model and theory of new state formation. Both fall into what I would like to call the consensual theory of statehood: people coming together to form new countries of their own accord in an opt-in manner, as opposed to the classical theories of statehood, such as the constitutive and declaratory theories.
The former relies on existing states recognising the new country first, which is fair in a legal sense. The latter is more akin to the idea that you exist because you exist, regardless of recognition, which is also fair in a pragmatic sense. However, neither addresses the issue of consent and people choosing to identify as belonging to, or being citizens of, X, Y, or Z.
Heard of network states?