People find it difficult to fathom sovereignty beyond their current idea of centralized nation states because they ignore underlying incentives and assume structures last forever. The modern nation-state emerged just over 100 years ago, best possible structure for the industrial era, yet prior to that sovereignty and the role of government into the daily lives of citizens was very different, and it will yet again be different as we go deeper into the “information age”.
This book 👇, written in 1996, is shockingly accurate about trends and technologies that came about in the last couple of decades. It doesn't get everything right, but enough to make you scratch your head in disbelief.
This is less about what's good or bad for retaining and maintaining sovereignty, but rather what is likely based on the coming era's mega-political conditions.
Sovereignty fragmentation is guaranteed for many reasons, but more interesting questions are how best to fragment in each given region and what will create lasting powerful sovereignties?
Technocrats believe it will be many smaller private kingdoms run by different oligarchs binding them by some arbitrary group identity like “bitcoiner” or “secular tech bro”. If everyone in the world is using bitcoin, then what is really holding together a Bitcoin sovereign society?
I disagree and reject their worldview. If humanity as we conceive it is to survive, we must embrace what makes us human, creating societies based on unifying characteristics like ethnicity, religion, tradition, and history. What works for one region may not for another, but one thing is certain: the centralized federal government's role and structure is going change forever in the near future.
https://video.nostr.build/76ac730eb92ae56309208807ceb216f6d3072a93c9c6a218c285691422362411.mp4