Your critique is spot on: trying to reform the system from within is indeed a Quixotic struggle. However, your call to "start in a new place," much like the hero of Anthem, sounds even more utopian in the 21st century.
There are no more "uncharted forests" where one can hide from Leviathan. Any physical "new place" will either fall under existing jurisdictions or become an easy target for their regulators the moment it thrives.
Here are my counterarguments to your manifesto:
- Territory is an atavism. Why search for land when we can build a Network State? Today, Web3 and blockchain allow us to build courts, insurance, and property rights in a digital layer that is borderless by design.
- Infrastructure without coercion. Instead of forced taxes, we can use opt-in pools and smart contracts. If the system provides real value (secure transactions, verified expertise), people will pay for it.
- Simulate, don't wait. Instead of waiting 600 years for the "Dark Ages" to end, I propose turning this into a venture project. Let’s build a "game" — a high-fidelity simulation of this state with a real internal economy.
"Anthemism" is a great ideological foundation. But let’s face it: a new country today won't start with seizing land; it will start with the first line of code and the reputation capital of its citizens. Are you ready to move from manifestos to designing a system that cannot be simply "shut down"?
At least in United States, and Canada, barter is taxable and regulated. Any game with virtual tokens that allows you to trade skills and work, hoping to side-step the whole regulated state, will be eventually discovered and regulated. If you don't comply to make your game just as regulated as the regular way (trading via fiat), it will be shut down. This happened to eGold (shutdown) and to Kickstarter (regulation). It also happened to crypto exchanges (KYC, no offshore accounts).
It's not worth trying to build something with a Network State, or a game, because in the end it will be taken away from you.
As for land, you don't need to have Terra Nullius to start a country. Montenegro is a new country that appeared on land that wasn't Terra Nullius. New countries appear as a result of balkanization or post war.
Your points are well-taken: you are betting on "realpolitik," wars, and the collapse of nations. But that leads to a logical question: what is your actual roadmap?
If digital systems are a dead end and new countries are born only from the ashes of the old through balkanization, is your strategy simply to "wait for the end of the world"? What does your action plan look like for the next 10 years?
Are you suggesting we just sit tight and wait for the historical moment when the system collapses under its own weight of taxes and inflation?
Or do you believe we should be preparing the ground for physical secession, despite the risk of being crushed?
It sounds like you are proposing to be a spectator during the "Dark Ages," hoping to survive until the finale. But isn't the core of Ayn Rand’s philosophy about creation against all odds?
Absolutely not to wait around. That's the whole point: not to wait around for 600 years, but to do something now. No need to wait for the world to end, instead need to plug into geopolitical processes that could yield a new country in a region. And that requires to be early at the discussion table, when a territory is being divided. That's what Herzl and Weizmann did, and they were successful. Collecting subscribers to the idea, or donators, via a Network State, won't hurt, but it won't be a virtual country or an unregulated trade network.
The example of Herzl and Weizmann is brilliant, but they didn’t come to world leaders empty-handed. They were backed by powerful financial institutions and a cohesive global community. What do you believe should be the first practical step today to get things moving?
Let's leave the back-and-forth for the Anthemism chat on Telegram. But just for the sake of completeness of this thread, briefly: we are already seeing big financial interests looking for an escape: Destiny.com, investors into Prospera, California Forever. And that's only on the surface, more will follow once an equivalent of a "Balfour declaration" is obtained for a target territory. Second, there would be no shortage of immigrants. There are millions of people who would leave their bad countries in a heartbeat, if there were a place to go to.
The practical step to start is where Herzl and Weizmann started: meeting with existing leaders of communities, not community members.
Your critique is spot on: trying to reform the system from within is indeed a Quixotic struggle. However, your call to "start in a new place," much like the hero of Anthem, sounds even more utopian in the 21st century.
There are no more "uncharted forests" where one can hide from Leviathan. Any physical "new place" will either fall under existing jurisdictions or become an easy target for their regulators the moment it thrives.
Here are my counterarguments to your manifesto:
- Territory is an atavism. Why search for land when we can build a Network State? Today, Web3 and blockchain allow us to build courts, insurance, and property rights in a digital layer that is borderless by design.
- Infrastructure without coercion. Instead of forced taxes, we can use opt-in pools and smart contracts. If the system provides real value (secure transactions, verified expertise), people will pay for it.
- Simulate, don't wait. Instead of waiting 600 years for the "Dark Ages" to end, I propose turning this into a venture project. Let’s build a "game" — a high-fidelity simulation of this state with a real internal economy.
"Anthemism" is a great ideological foundation. But let’s face it: a new country today won't start with seizing land; it will start with the first line of code and the reputation capital of its citizens. Are you ready to move from manifestos to designing a system that cannot be simply "shut down"?
At least in United States, and Canada, barter is taxable and regulated. Any game with virtual tokens that allows you to trade skills and work, hoping to side-step the whole regulated state, will be eventually discovered and regulated. If you don't comply to make your game just as regulated as the regular way (trading via fiat), it will be shut down. This happened to eGold (shutdown) and to Kickstarter (regulation). It also happened to crypto exchanges (KYC, no offshore accounts).
It's not worth trying to build something with a Network State, or a game, because in the end it will be taken away from you.
As for land, you don't need to have Terra Nullius to start a country. Montenegro is a new country that appeared on land that wasn't Terra Nullius. New countries appear as a result of balkanization or post war.
Your points are well-taken: you are betting on "realpolitik," wars, and the collapse of nations. But that leads to a logical question: what is your actual roadmap?
If digital systems are a dead end and new countries are born only from the ashes of the old through balkanization, is your strategy simply to "wait for the end of the world"? What does your action plan look like for the next 10 years?
Are you suggesting we just sit tight and wait for the historical moment when the system collapses under its own weight of taxes and inflation?
Or do you believe we should be preparing the ground for physical secession, despite the risk of being crushed?
It sounds like you are proposing to be a spectator during the "Dark Ages," hoping to survive until the finale. But isn't the core of Ayn Rand’s philosophy about creation against all odds?
Absolutely not to wait around. That's the whole point: not to wait around for 600 years, but to do something now. No need to wait for the world to end, instead need to plug into geopolitical processes that could yield a new country in a region. And that requires to be early at the discussion table, when a territory is being divided. That's what Herzl and Weizmann did, and they were successful. Collecting subscribers to the idea, or donators, via a Network State, won't hurt, but it won't be a virtual country or an unregulated trade network.
The example of Herzl and Weizmann is brilliant, but they didn’t come to world leaders empty-handed. They were backed by powerful financial institutions and a cohesive global community. What do you believe should be the first practical step today to get things moving?
Let's leave the back-and-forth for the Anthemism chat on Telegram. But just for the sake of completeness of this thread, briefly: we are already seeing big financial interests looking for an escape: Destiny.com, investors into Prospera, California Forever. And that's only on the surface, more will follow once an equivalent of a "Balfour declaration" is obtained for a target territory. Second, there would be no shortage of immigrants. There are millions of people who would leave their bad countries in a heartbeat, if there were a place to go to.
The practical step to start is where Herzl and Weizmann started: meeting with existing leaders of communities, not community members.