Donald Trump is a vehicle for Musk and Thiel to implement their radical ideas of replacing accountable governance with an unaccountable techno-monarchy
Utterly failed attempt to tarnish the genuine Austrians / Libertarians / Private Law / Private Property advocates Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe.
For starters, wtf is free man if not a Jeffersonian? Who can be so pathetically insane as to "love" digital shit?
Hoppe distinctly states monarchy is bad and democracy is worse. And I bet the ranch that he would add techno algorithmic tyranny is worst ffs. Is it or is it not the most blatantly obvious case of "ubermenschen und untermenschen"??
Hoppe's private law and private property order exquisitely respects each and every individual's real rights.
Bums, fools and frauds ban themselves from entering Hoppean society, the civilising process all things woke are incompatible with.
Real men and real women, traditional values, free entry to free market and physical gold and silver are essential.
Thanks for sharing! The article seems simultaneously salient and hyperbolic. I agree that citizens that can, should stay engaged and stay the course of liberal democracy where possible. But what's the pathway to reversing or slowing this present course of events?
I, personally, like Hoppe's Democracy The God that Failed. Not because I like his conclusions, per se, but because I like the analysis. It is possible to take analysis like Hoppe's and Marx's and other people's and draw your own conclusions, instead of going along with theirs. For instance, it is totally reasonable to say that democracy as we currently practice it leads to high time preference. But, something else is important, the implications of his analysis. We need to reform our democracy. I just wrote a piece comparing our democracy as it has evolved from its founding til now to a tragedy of the commons. Hoppe says monarchy is better and why. Isn't it possible, maybe, to understand what makes it better and work some of those features, commons regulations features, into our democracy? Anyway, this was an interesting read!
One could say that about Hoppe's work, I suppose. But my critique somewhat more deeper than I chose to distract with in this piece, which was focused on a broader point.
What the article describes is not even government run the way existing public corporations are run, but the way CEOs would like to be able to run those businesses, where boards of directors and stockholders have no power and the CEO is a permanent dictator. The arrogance and conceit of these people is astounding.
There are two types of libertarian. The ones who believe we should expand human freedom, and the ones who believe they, individually, should be made freer, screw the rest of the world. The latter admires a dictator because a dictator, after all, his made himself maximally free.
An interesting aspect of decentralized technology, as mentioned in the article, is its impact on media. Advocates of technological decentralization often emphasize co-creation, including collaborative media production, reporting, and the ways in which we, as humans, construct our understanding of social reality. This means that decentralized technology and decentralized forms of co-creation play a crucial role in fostering awareness of our world and the events shaping it.
Therefore, the future of media is not necessarily about expanding traditional outlets like The New York Times or Los Angeles Times, but rather about developing decentralized media platforms. These would allow individuals to actively participate in shaping narratives, collectively constructing an understanding of reality, and ensuring a more inclusive approach to truth-seeking.
Regarding Balaji Srinivasan and The Network State, I have read his book several times, and while I do not agree with everything he writes, I think it's important to clarify that the book is not against democracy but rather advocates for decentralized democracy.
Srinivasan is indeed critical of national-level representative democracy, arguing that it often leads to unrealistic and unsustainable popular demands. In his view, citizens expect politicians and institutions to deliver on promises that they simply cannot fulfill. However, rather than rejecting democratic governance altogether, Srinivasan proposes that people should self-organize into network states, where decision-making is based on continuous discussions and deliberations about governance.
Another key aspect of his vision is constitutionalism. Network states, as he presents them, are not lawless or anarchic entities but rather structured governance models built around constitutions, rights, and citizenship. This means that network states, network cities, or network societies can take on a variety of political forms—not just libertarian ones. For example, they could be organized around environmentalist principles, social democratic values, or cooperative economic models.
Thus, the concept of network states is not necessarily about escaping democracy but rather about evolving and decentralizing it. Instead of relying on centralized bureaucracies and national governments, governance could become more fluid, adaptable, and community-driven while still maintaining democratic principles.
Yes, from the very beginning, the conflict over how to use Bitcoin emerged between liberal and reactionary-minded individuals and networks. To make things even more complex, today there is even greater competition, as some of the newest ideas about cryptocurrencies are being developed by people who identify as ecologists, environmentalists, regenerators, tech hippies, planetarians, and more.
This highlights the potential of cryptocurrencies not just as financial instruments, but as tools for decentralizing economics, entrepreneurship, business, and markets—allowing them to function both locally and globally at the same time.
In a way, cryptocurrencies represent a new form of globalization that, in practice, could help integrate and create a truly global economy. At the same time, they offer the potential for democratic governance through decentralized democracy and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), enabling people to participate in conversations and decision-making processes in a more direct and inclusive manner.
So regarding, for example, Balaji Srinivasan, his criticism of the network state is very much based on that he is very tech libertarian and more right-wing in his approach. But, for example, one of the critics is an activist who has a blog and website called Blockchain Socialist.
The point is that that type of decentralized technology can be used for very different models of governance, not only libertarian models. My experience with people using decentralized technology is that they are very green, are ecologists or environmentalists, and promote themselves as planetary citizens.
That's why, for example, we have terms such as REFI, which stands for Regenerating Finance, and an idea of how cryptocurrencies can be used for climate-friendly transformation and green market economics. I know a guy in the Netherlands who thinks that a cryptocurrency could be used, for example, to help refugees worldwide.
One thing to understand here is that decentralization is also about diversity. Srinivasan and others are promoting the idea that not everyone should be a network state or network city libertarian but that everybody who wants to create a network state, network city, or network society can do that according to different ideas.
One could say that this type of technology actually complements what Mahatma Gandhi was promoting regarding village republics as a main unit for community, identity, engagement, and daily relations. Therefore, I think this type of technology is not about people becoming completely sovereign individuals. It's more about people being able to cooperate in different ways by using decentralized technology.
You can cooperate by creating an anarcho-capitalist area or a green-left area if you want. It all depends on the ideas and social constructs you want to achieve.
The point is that technology cannot and should not replace democracy. However, democracy needs technology to improve itself, to regenerate, to reform, and to become better.
Right now, as this article points out, there are cases of people and organizations using decentralized technology for populism and other alternatives to democracy. That is why those of us who support democracy need to use the same technology to strengthen it.
For the last ten years, I have mostly seen people arguing about the importance of defending democracy, the rule of law, and institutions. However, I believe that mere defense is not enough. Democracy must evolve and adapt to the 21st century. That is why decentralized technology is crucial, alongside physical relationships, community engagement, and civic assemblies
"Decision-making power is being transferred from elected officials and career bureaucrats to algorithms controlled by a small network of Silicon Valley elites."
Who apponts those within the executive branch? Surely you know that we don't vote for them but rather who appoints them.
"What’s happening inside “DOGE” is the final phase of this plan. The old democratic institutions, weakened by years of deliberate destabilization, are being replaced in real-time by proprietary AI systems controlled not by elected officials"
DOGE doesn't have any real power by itself - rather its suggestions and execution are derived from what the executive permits.
What are these "proprietary AI" systems and what exactly are they replacing? This article is very verbose while simultaneously being very vague about what is actually happening. It's fine if you don't like how things are handled or be in objection to the existence of DOGE - but the hysteria in this article does not make sound arguments against it and weakens your credibility via your ambiguity and exaggeration with the hypothetical.
Reading your excellent piece, there's a clear and alarming similarity between "reactionary" and "progressive" techbros. Both have equally lost faith in real democracy, and believe only they know better. The only material difference is that one wants to control society from outside of government and the other seeks control through it.
There is another strange and, I would say, absurd aspect of the so-called decentralized technology mega-enthusiasts and fake libertarians—the belief that cryptocurrencies and blockchains will create a freer market, but only within a nation. The idea seems to be that by using decentralized technology and cryptocurrencies, they can establish an open and unrestricted market within the United States, while simultaneously restricting global trade, migration, cooperation, and integration.
It’s a bizarre contradiction, as they advocate for decentralization and free markets, yet fail to recognize that true economic freedom cannot be confined within national borders. Instead of fostering a truly open and global market, their vision often seems to reinforce nationalist and protectionist tendencies, which is quite ironic given the fundamental principles of decentralization.
What is crucial to understand in discussions about decentralized technology, libertarianism, democracy, and the threats posed by right-wing populists and collectivists is that while some believe decentralized technology will enable them to escape nation-states—regardless of whether the alternatives are democratic or not—the same technology, particularly cryptocurrencies and blockchains, can also be harnessed to strengthen and expand democracy at both global and local levels.
Decentralized technology offers a powerful tool for advancing ideas related to world federalism and the vision of a united planetary governance system. By leveraging blockchain and similar innovations, it becomes possible to create democratic global institutions that serve all of humanity and protect the planet, fostering a truly inclusive and participatory world order.
This is why understanding the potential of decentralized technology is so important. It provides a direct countermeasure to the rise of populism and the influence of figures like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, who promote techno-libertarian and hyper-individualist visions that often disregard democratic values. Instead of reinforcing privatized or corporate-controlled structures, decentralized tools can be utilized to create transparent, democratic, and cooperative global governance models that benefit society as a whole.
The inevitability argument is so tiresome: half my college professors swore that the state would fade away and yield to a dictatorship of the proletariat. And before my time, Khruschev said he would bury us. Same shit, different day. I don’t need any galaxy brains telling me democracy is obsolete any more than I need progressive clout-chasers on social media bemoaning that we live in “late-stage capitalism”, whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.
I may be an ex-objectivist / ex-libertarian, but when I look at the ideas in this piece, I can’t help but have the most selfish thought of all: “what’s in it for me?” There is nothing about this supposed techno-utopia that inspires me to bring my best self into the world, to innovate, or even to produce. At least democracy has some built-in ability to self-correct. There’s no reason for those at the top of this nerd monarchy to do anything but consolidate their own power, and ensure that nobody can ever rise to challenge them. Pretty much what you see with Putin and how he brought Russia’s oligarchs to heel. For the rest of us, this world offers little more than serfdom with smartphones. No f’in thanks.
Regarding democracy, von Mises, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and libertarianism in general, there are, of course, differences among these thinkers, but also notable similarities. One common thread is that classical liberals—especially those from the 19th and early 20th centuries, including von Mises and Friedrich Hayek—were skeptical of mass democracy or popular democracy. They were particularly critical of the idea that majoritarian voting could be used to control the economy and influence markets and trade.
Von Mises, for instance, argued that representative democracy inevitably leads to corruption and the abuse of public institutions. His reasoning was that as bureaucracy expands, it creates a class dependent on state employment. These individuals, in turn, will always vote to maintain and expand their public-sector jobs, leading to an ever-growing state apparatus. This critique remains relevant today, as we see similar patterns in many parts of the world, including Europe and the United States.
However, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and some other self-described libertarian thinkers—who could arguably be called fake libertarians—misunderstand democracy by equating it solely with electoral representation. They claim that since representative democracy is dysfunctional, it should be replaced with an entirely different system. The problem is that their alternative is often some form of majoritarian populism, where a ruling majority can impose policies that may directly contradict democratic principles or violate individual rights.
The key issue with Hoppe's approach is that he and others do not propose a democratic alternative to representative democracy. Instead of advocating for decentralized democracy, civic assemblies, participatory budgeting, or deliberative democracy, they argue for the outright abolition of democracy, often suggesting its replacement with systems that are either highly collectivist or authoritarian in nature.
This is why thinkers like Hoppe can be described as brutalists or even bordertarians—libertarians in name, but ultimately more focused on rigid hierarchy and exclusion rather than genuine individual liberty and democratic self-governance.
Utterly failed attempt to tarnish the genuine Austrians / Libertarians / Private Law / Private Property advocates Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe.
For starters, wtf is free man if not a Jeffersonian? Who can be so pathetically insane as to "love" digital shit?
Hoppe distinctly states monarchy is bad and democracy is worse. And I bet the ranch that he would add techno algorithmic tyranny is worst ffs. Is it or is it not the most blatantly obvious case of "ubermenschen und untermenschen"??
Hoppe's private law and private property order exquisitely respects each and every individual's real rights.
Bums, fools and frauds ban themselves from entering Hoppean society, the civilising process all things woke are incompatible with.
Real men and real women, traditional values, free entry to free market and physical gold and silver are essential.
In short, fuck all artificial crap.
Thanks for sharing! The article seems simultaneously salient and hyperbolic. I agree that citizens that can, should stay engaged and stay the course of liberal democracy where possible. But what's the pathway to reversing or slowing this present course of events?
I, personally, like Hoppe's Democracy The God that Failed. Not because I like his conclusions, per se, but because I like the analysis. It is possible to take analysis like Hoppe's and Marx's and other people's and draw your own conclusions, instead of going along with theirs. For instance, it is totally reasonable to say that democracy as we currently practice it leads to high time preference. But, something else is important, the implications of his analysis. We need to reform our democracy. I just wrote a piece comparing our democracy as it has evolved from its founding til now to a tragedy of the commons. Hoppe says monarchy is better and why. Isn't it possible, maybe, to understand what makes it better and work some of those features, commons regulations features, into our democracy? Anyway, this was an interesting read!
One could say that about Hoppe's work, I suppose. But my critique somewhat more deeper than I chose to distract with in this piece, which was focused on a broader point.
What the article describes is not even government run the way existing public corporations are run, but the way CEOs would like to be able to run those businesses, where boards of directors and stockholders have no power and the CEO is a permanent dictator. The arrogance and conceit of these people is astounding.
There are two types of libertarian. The ones who believe we should expand human freedom, and the ones who believe they, individually, should be made freer, screw the rest of the world. The latter admires a dictator because a dictator, after all, his made himself maximally free.
An interesting aspect of decentralized technology, as mentioned in the article, is its impact on media. Advocates of technological decentralization often emphasize co-creation, including collaborative media production, reporting, and the ways in which we, as humans, construct our understanding of social reality. This means that decentralized technology and decentralized forms of co-creation play a crucial role in fostering awareness of our world and the events shaping it.
Therefore, the future of media is not necessarily about expanding traditional outlets like The New York Times or Los Angeles Times, but rather about developing decentralized media platforms. These would allow individuals to actively participate in shaping narratives, collectively constructing an understanding of reality, and ensuring a more inclusive approach to truth-seeking.
Regarding Balaji Srinivasan and The Network State, I have read his book several times, and while I do not agree with everything he writes, I think it's important to clarify that the book is not against democracy but rather advocates for decentralized democracy.
Srinivasan is indeed critical of national-level representative democracy, arguing that it often leads to unrealistic and unsustainable popular demands. In his view, citizens expect politicians and institutions to deliver on promises that they simply cannot fulfill. However, rather than rejecting democratic governance altogether, Srinivasan proposes that people should self-organize into network states, where decision-making is based on continuous discussions and deliberations about governance.
Another key aspect of his vision is constitutionalism. Network states, as he presents them, are not lawless or anarchic entities but rather structured governance models built around constitutions, rights, and citizenship. This means that network states, network cities, or network societies can take on a variety of political forms—not just libertarian ones. For example, they could be organized around environmentalist principles, social democratic values, or cooperative economic models.
Thus, the concept of network states is not necessarily about escaping democracy but rather about evolving and decentralizing it. Instead of relying on centralized bureaucracies and national governments, governance could become more fluid, adaptable, and community-driven while still maintaining democratic principles.
Yes, from the very beginning, the conflict over how to use Bitcoin emerged between liberal and reactionary-minded individuals and networks. To make things even more complex, today there is even greater competition, as some of the newest ideas about cryptocurrencies are being developed by people who identify as ecologists, environmentalists, regenerators, tech hippies, planetarians, and more.
This highlights the potential of cryptocurrencies not just as financial instruments, but as tools for decentralizing economics, entrepreneurship, business, and markets—allowing them to function both locally and globally at the same time.
In a way, cryptocurrencies represent a new form of globalization that, in practice, could help integrate and create a truly global economy. At the same time, they offer the potential for democratic governance through decentralized democracy and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), enabling people to participate in conversations and decision-making processes in a more direct and inclusive manner.
So regarding, for example, Balaji Srinivasan, his criticism of the network state is very much based on that he is very tech libertarian and more right-wing in his approach. But, for example, one of the critics is an activist who has a blog and website called Blockchain Socialist.
The point is that that type of decentralized technology can be used for very different models of governance, not only libertarian models. My experience with people using decentralized technology is that they are very green, are ecologists or environmentalists, and promote themselves as planetary citizens.
That's why, for example, we have terms such as REFI, which stands for Regenerating Finance, and an idea of how cryptocurrencies can be used for climate-friendly transformation and green market economics. I know a guy in the Netherlands who thinks that a cryptocurrency could be used, for example, to help refugees worldwide.
One thing to understand here is that decentralization is also about diversity. Srinivasan and others are promoting the idea that not everyone should be a network state or network city libertarian but that everybody who wants to create a network state, network city, or network society can do that according to different ideas.
One could say that this type of technology actually complements what Mahatma Gandhi was promoting regarding village republics as a main unit for community, identity, engagement, and daily relations. Therefore, I think this type of technology is not about people becoming completely sovereign individuals. It's more about people being able to cooperate in different ways by using decentralized technology.
You can cooperate by creating an anarcho-capitalist area or a green-left area if you want. It all depends on the ideas and social constructs you want to achieve.
The point is that technology cannot and should not replace democracy. However, democracy needs technology to improve itself, to regenerate, to reform, and to become better.
Right now, as this article points out, there are cases of people and organizations using decentralized technology for populism and other alternatives to democracy. That is why those of us who support democracy need to use the same technology to strengthen it.
For the last ten years, I have mostly seen people arguing about the importance of defending democracy, the rule of law, and institutions. However, I believe that mere defense is not enough. Democracy must evolve and adapt to the 21st century. That is why decentralized technology is crucial, alongside physical relationships, community engagement, and civic assemblies
Quite the hysterical article, eh?
"Decision-making power is being transferred from elected officials and career bureaucrats to algorithms controlled by a small network of Silicon Valley elites."
Who apponts those within the executive branch? Surely you know that we don't vote for them but rather who appoints them.
"What’s happening inside “DOGE” is the final phase of this plan. The old democratic institutions, weakened by years of deliberate destabilization, are being replaced in real-time by proprietary AI systems controlled not by elected officials"
DOGE doesn't have any real power by itself - rather its suggestions and execution are derived from what the executive permits.
What are these "proprietary AI" systems and what exactly are they replacing? This article is very verbose while simultaneously being very vague about what is actually happening. It's fine if you don't like how things are handled or be in objection to the existence of DOGE - but the hysteria in this article does not make sound arguments against it and weakens your credibility via your ambiguity and exaggeration with the hypothetical.
Reading your excellent piece, there's a clear and alarming similarity between "reactionary" and "progressive" techbros. Both have equally lost faith in real democracy, and believe only they know better. The only material difference is that one wants to control society from outside of government and the other seeks control through it.
There is another strange and, I would say, absurd aspect of the so-called decentralized technology mega-enthusiasts and fake libertarians—the belief that cryptocurrencies and blockchains will create a freer market, but only within a nation. The idea seems to be that by using decentralized technology and cryptocurrencies, they can establish an open and unrestricted market within the United States, while simultaneously restricting global trade, migration, cooperation, and integration.
It’s a bizarre contradiction, as they advocate for decentralization and free markets, yet fail to recognize that true economic freedom cannot be confined within national borders. Instead of fostering a truly open and global market, their vision often seems to reinforce nationalist and protectionist tendencies, which is quite ironic given the fundamental principles of decentralization.
What is crucial to understand in discussions about decentralized technology, libertarianism, democracy, and the threats posed by right-wing populists and collectivists is that while some believe decentralized technology will enable them to escape nation-states—regardless of whether the alternatives are democratic or not—the same technology, particularly cryptocurrencies and blockchains, can also be harnessed to strengthen and expand democracy at both global and local levels.
Decentralized technology offers a powerful tool for advancing ideas related to world federalism and the vision of a united planetary governance system. By leveraging blockchain and similar innovations, it becomes possible to create democratic global institutions that serve all of humanity and protect the planet, fostering a truly inclusive and participatory world order.
This is why understanding the potential of decentralized technology is so important. It provides a direct countermeasure to the rise of populism and the influence of figures like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, who promote techno-libertarian and hyper-individualist visions that often disregard democratic values. Instead of reinforcing privatized or corporate-controlled structures, decentralized tools can be utilized to create transparent, democratic, and cooperative global governance models that benefit society as a whole.
The inevitability argument is so tiresome: half my college professors swore that the state would fade away and yield to a dictatorship of the proletariat. And before my time, Khruschev said he would bury us. Same shit, different day. I don’t need any galaxy brains telling me democracy is obsolete any more than I need progressive clout-chasers on social media bemoaning that we live in “late-stage capitalism”, whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.
I may be an ex-objectivist / ex-libertarian, but when I look at the ideas in this piece, I can’t help but have the most selfish thought of all: “what’s in it for me?” There is nothing about this supposed techno-utopia that inspires me to bring my best self into the world, to innovate, or even to produce. At least democracy has some built-in ability to self-correct. There’s no reason for those at the top of this nerd monarchy to do anything but consolidate their own power, and ensure that nobody can ever rise to challenge them. Pretty much what you see with Putin and how he brought Russia’s oligarchs to heel. For the rest of us, this world offers little more than serfdom with smartphones. No f’in thanks.
Regarding democracy, von Mises, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and libertarianism in general, there are, of course, differences among these thinkers, but also notable similarities. One common thread is that classical liberals—especially those from the 19th and early 20th centuries, including von Mises and Friedrich Hayek—were skeptical of mass democracy or popular democracy. They were particularly critical of the idea that majoritarian voting could be used to control the economy and influence markets and trade.
Von Mises, for instance, argued that representative democracy inevitably leads to corruption and the abuse of public institutions. His reasoning was that as bureaucracy expands, it creates a class dependent on state employment. These individuals, in turn, will always vote to maintain and expand their public-sector jobs, leading to an ever-growing state apparatus. This critique remains relevant today, as we see similar patterns in many parts of the world, including Europe and the United States.
However, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and some other self-described libertarian thinkers—who could arguably be called fake libertarians—misunderstand democracy by equating it solely with electoral representation. They claim that since representative democracy is dysfunctional, it should be replaced with an entirely different system. The problem is that their alternative is often some form of majoritarian populism, where a ruling majority can impose policies that may directly contradict democratic principles or violate individual rights.
The key issue with Hoppe's approach is that he and others do not propose a democratic alternative to representative democracy. Instead of advocating for decentralized democracy, civic assemblies, participatory budgeting, or deliberative democracy, they argue for the outright abolition of democracy, often suggesting its replacement with systems that are either highly collectivist or authoritarian in nature.
This is why thinkers like Hoppe can be described as brutalists or even bordertarians—libertarians in name, but ultimately more focused on rigid hierarchy and exclusion rather than genuine individual liberty and democratic self-governance.