leewardbound on Farcaster

balajis pfp

🙂 All right. Let’s go a few rounds. Our mutual friend @mazmhussain can adjudicate. (1) First: startup societies are based on 100% consent. No one is there who hasn’t chosen to be there. No one is in a hierarchy if they haven’t opted into that hierarchy. Signing the social contract to join a community is much like signing a contract to join a company: you view the docs, make an informed decision, and opt out if it doesn’t work. That right to exit is the fundamental right. (2) Second: not all existing laws are good laws, like the PATRIOT Act. Sunsetting *some* laws doesn’t mean you don’t believe in laws in the abstract. (3) Third: you likely have views on what your ideal community would be. Maybe it’s a vegan village. Maybe it’s modern Amish, where tech is paused at the level of flip phones and people enjoy each other’s company. If you ever decided to build such a peaceful, opt-in community, then we would support you. And that’s what startup societies are about.

14 replies

31 recasts

133 reactions

Ryan Grim pfp

You’re probably already deeply familiar with the sordid history of utopian communities in the 19th and 20th century but for those aren’t, basically all of them collapsed or worse. That doesn’t mean nobody should be able to try again it doesn’t bode well. And of course, there’s no such thing as fully cleaving yourself off from society. What you allow to happen there will require external resources and will influence the rest of the world. And usually there will also be people already there. I’ve interviewed several residents of the Honduran island prospera has tried to take over and they never opted in and are appalled by it. I didn’t directly address some of your other points but will try again later.

3 replies

0 recast

13 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

+1 for the local consent argument, it's not a "network state" but i moved to PR for tax benefits in 2018 not knowing what i was getting into... i learned quickly that the locals largely hate the tax program and they hate the colonizer youtube star cryptobros who are driving them out of their homes and disrupting communities (and they are super justified in that because the US oppression is long-standing and systemic) i left 18mo later feeling bad and questioning my values, i couldn't stand being a part of that. im curious what could be done to improve the relationship of a network state with the local community and win legitimate consent - if anything, or maybe it will always be a colonial and disruptive practice?

3 replies

0 recast

7 reactions

balajis pfp

Puerto Rico passed a tax incentive to attract people. It attracted them. Then apparently some locals didn't like the newcomers. OK. Please explain: (1) How is this different from hating immigrants? (2) How is this not what Puerto Rico itself voted for? (3) Why would they not change the policy if they didn't want it? (4) Did you personally "drive someone from their home" — or did you maybe just rent an apartment? 🙂 In general, I want to point out that it's "immigration" when you like the people coming and "gentrification/colonization" when you don't. It's just Russell Conjugation, a prejudging of the conclusion via vocabulary. All that said, on the substantive point, I do absolutely agree there should be the best possible relationship between newcomers and pre-existing inhabitants. Many ways to solve for this, including: (a) actually new land, like Dubai's artificial islands (b) essentially uninhabited land ceded by the state (c) economic/cultural relationships w/ local communities And so on.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Leeward Bound pfp

sincerely thanks for responding, i am happy to be talking about this with you i hope to kindly convince you to rethink some of these positions; i know you are a smart dude, we agree on wanting positive outcomes for the locals. we def agree new land is best for network states. but network states aside, PR is in a different and unique circumstance. first colonized by spain 500y ago, US acquired it in 1898, it is a territory with limited ability to self govern, trade is tightly restricted by the jones act, it's in deep debt to US, and has no meaningful congressional representation. whether PR is technically a "colony" or a "commonwealth" is an ongoing scholastic debate. so re: #1 and Russel, no, the line btwn "immigration" and "colonization" is drawn by socioeconomic power disparity + history, not how i feel about it. whenever wealthy americans or europeans move to a place that they prev colonized, "immigration" increasingly looks like "colonization", in proportion to harm caused. sorry for long, but 1/5

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

2/ ON PR - it's my opinion that the tax programs are harmful, and at least halfway (see /4) unwelcome. i know the counterarguments, i joined act20/22 groups, attended meetups - it creates jobs, brings tax revenue (20/22 pay 4% tax on regular income), stimulates the economy. IMHO this is mostly just lipservice. virtually every grantee i met (all but 1-2?) wasn't starting local offices + hiring skilled workers, they rented a we-work and put a "secretary" on payroll to satisfy their grant reqs, + spent the exact min number of days on the island to be compliant. re: #4 - one req, for most decrees, is buying a home w/in 3 years of arrival. i left in 2y. the displacement of locals from VSJ, the historic capital, was a key political issue and a source of protests when i was there; few locals can afford to live in VSJ anymore. in Dorado, a high end gated community, grantees live in million dollar mansions, and have private access to their own beachfront - private beaches are illegal, every PR beach is public by law.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

3/ ON GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION - PR is deeply troubled with many internal problems. many politicians are openly corrupt; shortly after i left, corruption protests outside the governors mansion forced him to resign. the laws 20+22 were contentious when they were passed (by legislature, not popular vote). they remained contentious when i was there. on THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS i was informed by legal+cpa that the legislature was planning to cancel all programs, immediately and retroactively. i think we both know that politicians pass laws, not people, and i believe it was your own point earlier that not all laws are good, and some laws shouldn't exist; so re: your points #2+3 "how is this not what they voted for" and "why wouldn't they change it" - i'm sure you can see the other side of it, the people never voted for it. the people openly protest it. when your elected political representation fails to deliver for you over and over again, how else could a common lawful citizen change it, except in protest?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Leeward Bound pfp

4/ ON WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT AND SOCIAL CONSENSUS - societies are complicated and diverse. for example, roughly half the island wants statehood and half wants independence. in both 2020 and 2024, we saw about half of america vote for trump and half for biden. isn't it weird to talk about "what the people want"? when a pro-immigration leader wins an election with 51%, is it fair to say "the people want immigration"? did the other 49% suddenly change their mind? and if 51% voted in favor of robbing and murdering the other 49% - what are the ethical limits of "majority rules"? is a policy that helps 70% and hurts 30% an acceptable compromise? 90-10? 99-1? you say "puerto rico passed a tax incentive", "why wouldn't they change the policy", and sorry friend, i just can't see it that way. at least half the puerto ricans i know do not see it that way, and that was a significant enough signal for me to question if what i was doing was morally right.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Leeward Bound pfp

/5 ON CREATING POSITIVE IMPACTS - this is my biggest concern w/r/t your network state solution (c) above, and this is why i left - i think many locals believe these laws were passed by a corrupt, non-representative body, to the displeasure of the people, and the net effect has been harmful. it didn't take some "FUCK LEY22" and "GRINGO GO HOME" graffiti on my block to convince me, but that was about when i finally left. i think rich people with financial interest in the programs fund lobbying and a gubernatorial-rolex-scholarship program to keep the programs alive. if you take one thing away from my message, i hope you at least understand that **network states need to fix this** - such corruptions are **increasingly likely** wherever foreign wealth tries to influence local policy, and even with legislative or majority support, any time wealthy immigrants arrive in a large group it can be disruptive, extractive, and harmful to a significant portion of the community. unless you make sure it's actually not.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions