Numism, or the study of coins, puts a third Leviathan at the center of it all. The most powerful force in the world is considered to be neither god, nor the US military, but encryption. sotonye.substack.com/p/if-einstein-…
You can cut these as past, present, and future respectively. People who pay at least lip service to God, people who worship the State, and people who focus on the Network.
Breaking out that third category may be key — as it’s global, and differs in key ways from the others.
The thesis of the Sovereign Individual holds up well. But there are three major countertrends.
The Individual Sovereign, and Xi Jinping in particular.
The Sovereign Collective, the leverage of nomadic groups.
The Autonomous Robot, as drones also change the logic of violence.
The Individual Sovereign
Technology matters - but so do founders. A sufficiently motivated founder can change the direction of technology. And Xi Jinping has refounded the Chinese state as a formidable, centralized, militaristic surveillance machine. reuters.com/investigates/s…
The Individual Sovereign is a problem for the Sovereign Individual. A single man at the helm of a total surveillance state is just a different thing than the US establishment. The latter may well *want* to crush free speech & free markets, but lacks the state capacity to do so.
See the @rootsofprogress review of “Where’s My Flying Car” for more on the Henry Adams Curve, and the modern tendency to assume that even clean energy production is somehow bad.
International corporate law is much fuzzier than we think.
If a company in Brazil tries to buy one in Bangladesh, just getting the list of obligations on both sides is nontrivial. The deal may go through a US or PRC intermediate, a hub that has relations with both sides.
That is, there may not be that many legal precedents for Brazil/Bangladesh acquisitions, but there will be some for Brazil/US & US/Bangladesh. Or perhaps Brazil/PRC & PRC/Bangladesh.
So you go through that hub. It’s the lowest risk strategy. Till ETH and smart contract chains…
Why would someone start a limited conflict with a stronger power, then not make peace when offered? In a peacetime state they’d be vassals, but in a cold war state they can pretend to themselves they are equals.
This is the yapping dog problem, very common on social media.
The tell is the combination of (a) starting the fight, (b) engaging in histrionics over trivialities, and (c) refusing to make peace or engage rationally.
It actually stems from insecurity. The fight elevates them.
What the attacker characterizes as “punching up” is what the defender views as a yapping dog. Annoyance and bemusement on one side, resentment and envy on the other.
A yapping dog will start the fight & provoke, provoke, provoke…then when they get slapped, cry bloody murder.
FaceID scans hundreds of millions of faces per day. Can we articulate a difference between that vs Worldcoin, or any similar opt-in technology for proof-of-human?
If you run any service with more than a few trusted users, you'll immediately discover the need for some kind of proof-of-human. Not necessarily the state's old-fashioned and bureaucratic KYC impositions, but *something*. Otherwise you'll have bots, frauds, trolls, fakes, etc.
If you've ever taught a class, you have a point of view that a perpetual student alone does not.
Similarly, if you've ever built a service, you understand something a pure user does not.
One of those things is founder/user/community disalignment (1/2).
Well, a corporate journo basically called for invading Brazil after he saw a photo of fires. Then a verifiable timestamp proved the photo was actually taken at least 15 years prior. Encryption may even prevent invasions.