I think they suck and I hope we can find a way to move beyond them within the 21st century.
-
-
Are you in favour of property?
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Yep!
4 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
How would you "move beyond" borders then? In terms of protocol design, there's not a lot of difference from an individual restricting access to their property and a nation state restricting their border
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @mwilcox @VitalikButerin and
In both cases, the optionality of invitation is what creates mutual respect between agent & state
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
It's a zero-sum game in a way that personal property isn't. We haven't yet figured out how to manufacture more territory, attempts like seasteading notwithstanding.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I don't think it is. The more nations there are, the more opportunity for diversity, and the more value each nation gets from openness. We think we need mega-armies of super-powers for internal freedom, but with the right balance of incentives we could have much more competition
3 replies 3 retweets 18 likes -
-
Replying to @SambodhiPrem @mwilcox and
No borders means no systems and no diversity. There is a thermodynamic metaphor where a system can only exist with a border, and if you take down all borders, you get heat death. To have a diversity of political systems requires strong borders between them.
3 replies 4 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @patrissimo @SambodhiPrem and
I feel like this doesn't account for how provinces, cities, and towns maintain their selfness and systems without formal borders.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Also, the costs of travel constitute a natural, ubiquitous boundary. Like insulation, which prevents instant heat death. Difference persists only to the degree that insulation exists.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.