Post

Just finished @laurenshof.online's powerful piece: "No Change" It is a critical read But I'd push back a bit on the history; I think the sovereignty of nations has, by its nature, always been in flux. And the desire for decentralized "sovereignty" without the state is part of the same story 1/n

A claim of sovereignty is only ever a kind of bet. It exists as a challenge, in the form: "you won't stop me" And anyone, at any time, may call your bluff And then you'll have to concede, or prove it 2/n

This is why the crypto sovereignty narrative could only end the way it did: with people getting kidnapped and extorted, with "not your keys, not your crypto" proving only too true Individual humans can't sustain claims of sovereignty alone - we need to work together 3/n

I was born in a time when state sovereignty felt (in some communities, at least) more immutable than it may have been historical... but the illusion is fading away I don't think I'm saying anything profound noting that the new era is one where we should expect every claim to be tested 4/n

In such an era, there are two paths: The first is to position yourself to benefit as much as possible from the consolidation of sovereignty. This is, I think, the default path for the the capitalist class (at least in the US), as evidenced by... well, pick your news article The second... 6/n

The second path is to prepare to defend your sovereignty Against a materially more powerful adversary, this means cooperation and coordination with peers that stand to win with you by resisting the consolidating power FWIW, most people (historically) chose option A... they fold, and defect 7/n

However unpleasant, it shouldn't be surprising if those who already hold much power don't want to risk losing ALL of it when they can (they think) retain at least some of it But I don't think that was the OP's real challenge... I think the hard part is why this happens in democratic states 8/n