"The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed." Carl von Clausewitz, On War

War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, huh! Except when a country attacks. Are you just supposed to lie down and take it?

"Strong opinion, loosely held" is a stupid retort. If you wish to take a strong stance, at least have the courage to defend it with evidence and logic. That’s the essence of debate. On the other hand, retreating without a fight after someone challenges you is the epitome of cowardice. Don’t be a wuss.

Human life is action: people speak, trade, and associate by nature. Sovereign orders overlay hindrance through taxation, censorship, and control, while parasovereign orders preserve continuity when overreach occurs. The central tension today is between action itself and the hindrance imposed upon it.

Bitcoin and Nostr are brilliant parasovereign protocols. They give individuals real autonomy in money and speech. But too many Bitcoiners and Nosterati treat government as pure evil and dream of fleeing to hidden valleys. For someone who starts from this perspective, the mission shapes the epistemology. If the mission is escape from corruption, then “truth” is built to serve that mission. The wiser path is to recognize complementarity. Sovereign orders secure collective defence. Parasovereign orders secure individual freedom. One without the other collapses into fantasy.

I've been challenged by @Alex Romayev to produce evidence of Darryl Cooper's pseudo historical claims about Churchill, the Holocaust, and Hitler. As I have neither the time nor the inclination to do a detailed rebuttal and analysis myself, I got ChatGPT to do it in deep research mode. See the attachment.

Chokepoints and the Limits of Parasovereignty Sovereignty is anchored in the physical world. Its strength comes from control of territory and chokepoints; mountains, straits, rivers, ports, and borders shaped by topography, oceanography, and geology. When combined with geopolitics and geoeconomics, these natural features become powerful attractors that channel the flow of goods and people. Parasovereign protocols, by contrast, operate in cyberspace. Their strength lies in bypassing digital chokepoints and checkpoints through cryptography, decentralization, and voluntary participation. Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor reduce dependence on state-controlled rails. But their nodes remain physically vulnerable to sovereign coercion, sovereign-dependent capture, or even criminal attack. What makes parasovereign protocols unique is not invulnerability, but resilience. Once invented, they cannot be uninvented. Their concepts can always be redeployed, replicated, and revived. This is the whack-a-mole effect: even if individual nodes or edges are suppressed, the network persists at scale. Sovereigns hold physical space; parasovereigns persist in digital space. Together they define the modern strategic terrain.

Any private security organization strong enough to defend against state-level threats inevitably becomes indistinguishable from a state itself. History shows that mercenary companies, militias, or private armies eventually either dissolve into banditry or establish their own sovereignty.

Anybody who thinks that military defence can be assured by private businesses is delusional. That includes all the Mises Institute libertarians who follow Rothbard and Hoppe. The keyword in the term Austrian economics is economics. It has nothing to do with defence or security. Even Ludwig von Mises, the namesake of the institute was clear that only the state can provide defence and security. For that it requires the monopoly of force suitably constrained by a vigilant population and enforced through effective institutions of governance.

No parasovereign system can abolish sovereignty, for human action remains rooted in territory, resources, and defence. No sovereign order can abolish parasovereignty, for once discovered these systems cannot be uninvented. The flourishing of human society requires both: the state as guardian of the collective, and parasovereign protocols as guardians of the individual. #parasovereignty #sovereignty #autonomous individual #peace #security #prosperity

Parasovereignty is the authority of protocols and practices that empower individuals to act freely in commerce, expression, and association. Its purpose is autonomy: to protect individuals from coercion by enabling voluntary, permissionless action. Its legitimacy derives from decentralization, persistence, and voluntary participation. Its limit is reached when convenience or centralization reduces it to dependence on custodians or corporate intermediaries. #parasovereignty

Sovereignty is the authority to order collective human action within a defined territory. Its purpose is protection: to secure peace, defend the community, and enable prosperity. Peace-Security-Prosperity. Its legitimacy derives from fulfilling this protective role for the people under its care. Its limit is reached when it becomes an instrument of domination, captured by elites or ideologies, exceeding its mandate of defence and order.

Statement of Parasovereign Principles 1. Parasovereignty is Necessary for Individual Autonomy Human beings are not only members of collectives; they are also individuals with needs, choices, and responsibilities. Parasovereign systems empower individuals to act freely in commerce, communication, and association without requiring permission. The printing press broke the monopoly of church and crown over knowledge. Samizdat publications pierced censorship in the Soviet bloc. Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor extend this tradition digitally. 2. The Purpose of Parasovereignty is Constraint Parasovereign protocols are not alternatives to sovereignty but constraints upon its excess. They ensure that money cannot be endlessly debased, that speech cannot be wholly suppressed, and that association cannot be fully surveilled. Bitcoin constrains financial coercion. Nostr constrains censorship. Tor constrains surveillance. Each narrows the range of coercion available to sovereign or corporate power without violence. 3. Parasovereignty is Not Inherently Good or Evil Just as sovereignty can protect or oppress, parasovereign protocols can empower or harm. Nostr can host human rights activism, or it can host antisemitism. Bitcoin can provide lifelines to those under tyranny, or it can facilitate fraud. Parasovereignty is not a moral guarantee. Its value depends on how individuals choose to use the autonomy it provides. 4. The Problem is Capture Through Centralization Parasovereign systems remain resilient so long as individuals uphold their responsibility to keep them decentralized and voluntary. When users default to custodians, central relays, or corporate platforms, the system drifts toward sovereign-dependency. This is the ever-present danger: autonomy conceded not by suppression, but by convenience. Like the countless Bitcoin forks abandoned by the market, parasovereign systems persist only when autonomy is actively chosen. 5. The Challenge is Persistence Parasovereign systems cannot prevent suppression, but they can outlast it. Each time a sovereign power blocks a Tor exit node, another reappears. Each time a Nostr relay is censored, new ones come online. Each time Bitcoin is banned, miners and nodes shift to new jurisdictions. This is the “whack-a-mole” principle: degradation is possible, capture is not. Parasovereignty is a social commitment as much as a technical design, requiring vigilance, responsibility, and persistence.

Statement of Sovereign Principles 1. Sovereignty is Necessary for Collective Survival Human beings cannot survive alone. From the smallest kinship band to the modern nation-state, sovereignty organizes collective defence against threat and disorder. The lesson is dramatized in Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven: villagers, though many, cannot defend themselves without organizing under capable leaders. Sovereignty exists to ensure survival through collective action. 2. The Purpose of Sovereignty is Protection The sovereign order exists to defend the community and maintain peace within its territory. When governments meddle in every aspect of private life, they neglect this primary duty. This was the strongest criticism of Canada’s Trudeau government after 2021: it interfered in markets, provincial responsibilities, and daily life while ignoring its irreducible, primary responsibility, which is to defend Canadian territory, Canadians and Canadian institutions. 3. Sovereignty is Not Inherently Good or Evil Power itself is morally neutral. Like Bitcoin or Nostr, which can be used to empower or to harm, sovereign power can protect or oppress. There is a difference, however, between authoritarian dictatorships and liberal democracies. The latter, though flawed, embody institutions and norms that restrain abuse and better serve the collectivity. 4. The Problem is Concentration of Power Those most capable of leading in conflict are also most tempted to hold power indefinitely. Seven Samurai makes this point explicitly: warriors are necessary in crisis but dangerous if left unchecked in peacetime. The Roman ideal was Cincinnatus, the farmer who accepted dictatorial power only long enough to win a war, then returned to his fields. George Washington, though flawed, modeled the same restraint. Churchill led Britain through war, but was dismissed by the electorate the moment the war ended. True sovereignty requires leaders who are effective when needed, but restrained when not. 5. The Challenge is Restraint Across history, societies have developed institutions to limit sovereign overreach. Ancient Athens used ostracism to curb leaders who grew too powerful. As anthropologist Christopher Boehm observed, even small-scale hunter-gatherer societies practised “reverse dominance hierarchy,” banding together to check domineering leaders. These mechanisms, from ancient customs to modern checks and balances, ensure sovereignty remains a protector, not an oppressor.

Sovereignty and Parasovereignty in Balance Sovereignty secures peace and prosperity in the material world. This is the classical liberal ideal, sometimes dismissed by collectivists as the “night watchman state.” The problem is not sovereignty itself, but what happens when collectivists, do-gooders, or corrupt elites capture the state and extend its remit beyond maintaining social peace and defending territory. Parasovereign systems, especially those deliberately engineered as engines of individual autonomy and cooperation, serve as the ultimate tools of constraint. They do not overthrow sovereignty but limit its excesses. By removing the most impactful means of coercion short of violence, they narrow the scope of state overreach. -Sound money (Bitcoin) constrains monetary manipulation and debasement. -Freedom of expression (Nostr) constrains censorship and narrative control. -Freedom of association (Tor) constrains surveillance and forced isolation. Together, these protocols rebalance the relationship between state power and individual autonomy. Sovereignty provides order; parasovereignty provides constraint. Both are necessary for human flourishing.

Sovereignty in the Physical, Parasovereignty in the Digital Sovereignty is the king of the physical world. States order territory, population, infrastructure, and resources because all human action ultimately takes place in space and time. Unless someone invents teleportation to bypass physical chokepoints, the sovereign order will persist as the framework for collective survival and security. Parasovereign protocols exist on a different plane. They operate in cyberspace, made possible by cryptography, distributed networks, and voluntary participation. Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor do not command territory; they bypass it. Their resilience lies not in physical force, but in replication, persistence, and the refusal of users to bend to central control. The two orders are not rivals but complements. Sovereignty secures peace and prosperity in the material world. Parasovereignty secures autonomy in the digital world. Both are indispensable.

Parasovereignty is Fundamentally Social, Not Technological. Parasovereign protocols are not sustained by technology alone. Code and cryptography provide the rails, but they are only means to an end. The end is human action: individuals choosing to transact, communicate, and associate freely, without permission. Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor persist because people continue to run nodes, sign messages, and route traffic. The resilience of these systems depends not only on their technical design but also on the willingness of individuals to uphold their rules voluntarily. Without this social foundation, the protocols degrade into tools captured by states or corporations. With it, they remain engines of autonomy.

The Whack-a-Mole Principle of Parasovereignty Individual parasovereign actors (node operators, relays, channel managers) can always be suppressed. States can arrest operators, seize hardware, block internet routes, or freeze communication channels. Suppression at this level is real and inevitable. Yet suppression at the node level is not capture at the network level. Parasovereign systems persist because new nodes can always be spun up, code can be redeployed, and protocols can be re-instantiated by anyone, anywhere. This creates the whack-a-mole effect: sovereign powers can degrade a network locally, but every act of suppression triggers reappearance elsewhere. The key distinction is between degradation and capture. Degradation happens when suppression reduces efficiency or scale. Capture would mean altering the rules of the system itself. Parasovereign protocols cannot be captured in principle, but they can be captured in practice if their individual operators renege on the responsibility to maintain protocol integrity. Persistence depends not only on design but also on users choosing to uphold the rules. Guarantee: Parasovereign systems survive because they are harder to eliminate than to regenerate, provided their participants remain committed to autonomy. Example 1: Bitcoin Mining Ban in China (2021) China banned all Bitcoin mining in May 2021. At the time, Chinese miners contributed over 50% of global hashpower. The network’s computational strength fell sharply, showing how vulnerable individual actors are to sovereign suppression. But within a year, hashpower fully recovered and exceeded past highs as miners relocated to North America, Central Asia, and elsewhere. No central authority coordinated this recovery. The Bitcoin protocol endured, but only because miners and node operators voluntarily upheld the rules. Lesson: Sovereign power can degrade Bitcoin, but cannot capture it unless operators themselves abandon protocol integrity. Example 2: Nostr Relays and Censorship Nostr relays are easy to suppress: a state could shut down a relay operator, seize servers, or block domains. But because the protocol is so lightweight, new relays can spin up quickly, and users can switch connections freely. The system persists as long as individuals continue to run relays and sign messages. Capture is only possible if users en masse default to using a single corporate or sovereign-dependent relay, thereby centralizing the network. Lesson: Resilience depends not just on code but on the willingness of individuals to keep participation decentralized. Example 3: Tor Exit Nodes Under Fire Tor exit nodes are frequent targets of law enforcement, ISPs, and regulators. Operators face harassment, lawsuits, or worse. Individual nodes vanish all the time. Yet Tor continues to function globally, because new exit nodes regularly appear and traffic reroutes through them. The protocol ensures persistence, but if users and volunteers stopped shouldering the risk of operating nodes, Tor could degrade into irrelevance. Lesson: Tor survives because enough individuals continue to run nodes despite risk. Suppression plays whack-a-mole, but capture becomes possible only if the community abdicates responsibility. Core point across all three: Parasovereign resilience is never absolute. It depends on individuals who uphold the rules voluntarily. Sovereigns can degrade networks, but capture only occurs if participants concede their autonomy.

I’ve been working on a new framework for leaders and entrepreneurs who want to thrive in this world of autonomous consumers. Stay tuned.