Many academics think they can run companies better than tech CEOs. Some of them are right! They should start companies and prove it.
This is one of the least culturally studied aspects of tech.
Many tech CEOs and VCs would in another life have stayed professors, jurists, journalists.
This set includes Paul Graham, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Peter Thiel, Mike Moritz, and more.
Computer science collapsed the distinction between the word and the deed, and turned a generation of intellectuals into software CEOs.
Many of the people who might otherwise have been caustic critics, supercilious scholars, or imperious bureaucrats suddenly learned how hard it was to build things, to manage people, to turn a profit, to be the one in the arena.
This is why I think it is healthy for journalists to try their hand at seed investing, for professors to see what spinning out their IP actually entails, for scholars to try coding their ideal privacy policies, for economists to actually contribute to GDP.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In a 51% democracy you just barely pass the bar, and then assume all will do as you say. They won't.
The ideal is actually a ~100% democracy. An opt-in society, where everyone has chosen to be there. And can leave.
Set aside the question of whether ~100% democracy is practical for a second. (The ~ indicates that 100% is an asymptotic goal, even if not fully achieved.)
Once you agree it is desirable — and morally superior if feasible — then you start thinking about whether we can build it.
The fundamental concept is that democracy is about the *consent of the governed*.
If you have only 51% support, you have the absolute minimum necessary level of consent.
That is, I agree it's not exit *only*. You can't run forever.
But exit can get you to a high ground. You can beat a tactical retreat, to a place where you can speak and act freely, demonstrate a better system, and thereby reform the old.
Thesis: the assembly line trained people for the top-down mass politics of the 1900s.
Today's workplace is network-based. With the crucial exception of China, which still builds things, any viable political ideology will scale up what people are doing on their devices.
Put another way: you don't get communism, fascism, or mid-century democratic capitalism without mass production. Top-down politics pantomimed the assembly line. Centralized states told the masses what to do.
This detailed post by a retired colonel reviews everything from ground forces to air defenses, and concludes that the US military is overmatched against a peer like Russia — especially in its backyard. smallwarsjournal.com/index.php/jrnl…
All the observable parts of the American state are failing. That may include the military, and in more places than Afghanistan. And that means updating our mental models.
Autonomous DAO — a group that interacts with a truly self-running smart contract with no admin keys and no CEO
Bureaucratic DAO — a mess of politics
CEO DAO — a single clear leader
Yes, I’m well aware that the A in DAO in theory already stands for “autonomous”, but today’s DAOs mostly aren’t autonomous — so the distinction is worth making.
A non-obvious point is that a single decision maker in a CEO DAO may protect user rights more reliably than the groupthink of a bureaucrat DAO.
No decision makers (autonomous) or one decision maker (CEO) can both be better than a group of decisionmakers (bureaucratic).