Patri Friedman

2/ Naturally, since they were a cult, their startup society experiment was a theocracy headed by a God-king, which turned out predictably poorly. But it was still an intentional, novel, (partially) self-governing community.

3/ In the parlance of my dad's book "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours" (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsContents.htm …), it was an "Embedded Legal System" - non-sovereign but with substantial ability to enforce its own rules through social pressure like threat of ostracism.

4/ The controversial actions taken by the society's leaders make perfect sense if viewed as a clash between a semi-sovereign entity, discontent with its level of autonomy, and the city, county, state, and country in which it was embedded.

5/ These actions were, of course, criminal **when viewed from the context of the surrounding legal system**. Acts of war, including terrorism and guerrilla tactics, are naturally considered crimes by the warred-upon.

6/ So if the cult leader's mental context was "US Citizen/Resident", then of course their actions were absurd. "How could anyone think they could get away with that?"

7/ Easy - by seeing themselves as the government of what *felt* like a meaningfully sovereign community (which, by balance of power, it never was). From this perspective, their actions were natural acts of war against a state that refused to recognize their legitimacy.

8/ Given the mismatch between their views if sovereignty & reality, plus the inherent precariousness of any cult of personality, their community did not last long. Yet their journey was one with numerous lessons for those interested in creating a startup sector for governance.

9/ I felt sad seeing them pour so many resources into building up land where they weren't wanted, much like I feel sad seeing people put so much effort into building Burning Man, to abandon it a week later.