I think some people are mentally ill, and think decentralization is a libertarian ideal where they can have all benefits of society, but they don't have to pay for the roads, the fire department, etc. That some how, those things will spontaneously appear because of <free market babble>.
Others recognize there's some kind of more comfortable middle ground where decentralization means the same as a town/city/state type of social good that is independent and capable of working without larger centralized structures. Having to work towards it, pay money into it, etc, are expected but because the work that goes into maintaining the infrastructure has a clear line of derivation (taxes clearly go to X, Y, Z) would be a benefit.
It's typically the first class tho that dominates all conversations regarding decentralization, and that class includes the Epstein billionaires who just dont want laws to apply anywhere they want to do unethical, immoral and whatever. eg, money is the only law.
It could be a strategy, or it could be a sense of ethics. And your point makes sense, and I also agree with you. The first part of your comment is a bit harsh, but if you soften your reply a bit, it matches my thoughts. I'm giving you an upvote because I agree with your idea.
Thank you for taking the time to commen.
It's great to see someone who shares a similar mindset. Have a wonderful day, and I'll make sure to read the article you linked.
Epstein files remind me of the first line from《삼국지연의》or Pan-Asianists who raise the Universalism flag..
>The Himalayas divide, only to accentuate, two mighty civilisations, the Chinese with its communism of Confucius, and the Indian with its individualism of the Vedas. But not even the snowy barriers can interrupt for one moment that broad expanse of love for the Ultimate and Universal, which is the common thought-inheritance of every Asiatic race, enabling them to produce all the great religions of the world, and distinguishing them from those maritime peoples of the Mediterranean and the Baltic, who love to dwell on the Particular, and to search out the means, not the end, of life.
I always feel this, but your writing is quite challenging—not because of the readability, but because the content itself is deeply complex for me to grasp.
I spent about two hours reading your writings. Your arguments, such as those regarding the Taiwanese digital democracy movement and how to break the endless cycle of centralization and decentralization, are quite profound. If I were to summarize what you are trying to tell me, it seems to boil down to: "Your previous point was too generalized, and the attempt itself [at building alternatives] should not be dismissed."
Also, your Romance of the Three Kingdoms analogy confirms we are definitely both East Asians: "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide."
Overall, if I have understood your work correctly, your core message is this: while historical attempts at universalism or a 'new order' may eventually turn into new centralized powers, we shouldn't look at them only through that cynical lens. Instead, we must simply remain constantly vigilant.
Hey. It's hard not to be a bit envious of how many points you, jdw, can rack up with one or two comments while I languish at negative :)
No need to learn nuance, you seem to be doing better than most of the natives here just by being yourself (with the help of modern tools)
I just wanted to get more people to read the vitalik.eth articles along with me. Hope you got something out of 2hours! I had been nibbling at them and steeping in their diagrams for weeks, your centralisation comments provoked me (in a good way)
Vitaliy Buterin and Balaji Srinivasan are both based in SEAsia, Audrey Tang is in Taiwan, Glen Weyl from California is the only Westerner--- but UCBerkeley is like 80% East Asians? Surely they also know about the lore.
I don't know if "staying vigilant" is the mood I was going for. Maybe "being aware of emerging centralising entities and be prepared to engage fruitfully with them"?
These days, "emerging centralising entities" might even be old programming languages like APL that have become popular again..
In the context of the links above, such entities need to provide an "exit option" in order to gain wider traction. For example, APL is clearly an escape from C-like syntax, but there might be new directions that that such "array languages" can take from Python or even natural language:
Others recognize there's some kind of more comfortable middle ground where decentralization means the same as a town/city/state type of social good that is independent and capable of working without larger centralized structures. Having to work towards it, pay money into it, etc, are expected but because the work that goes into maintaining the infrastructure has a clear line of derivation (taxes clearly go to X, Y, Z) would be a benefit.
It's typically the first class tho that dominates all conversations regarding decentralization, and that class includes the Epstein billionaires who just dont want laws to apply anywhere they want to do unethical, immoral and whatever. eg, money is the only law.