My good friend Mr Charrington doesn’t feel the general population have the wherewithal to become conscious of, let alone enact on, personal sovereignty in the way necessary for such decentralized (fractal) social structures to be realised. He may be right. We may have nurtured generations so conditioned to be fed by the top-down control model of society that we can’t imagine another way (and the socialist dreams always end up more top-down/totalitarian than most other models of society - and I don’t see this model as anything like socialism - individual rights would be upheld, not banished).
Nevertheless there’s something very attractive to this ‘fractal sovereignty’ model, especially given the personal sovereignty inherent in the model that is then represented on a very local level and then on a broader level. I like it a lot. It’s an organic complex system - not a mechanical driven one.
BUT, and here’s the problem for the modern member of the Western world… It requires RESPONSIBILITY for yourself and the society immediately around you - and an ability to respond (same thing). For a society that has subcontracted responsibility out to the government and all it’s myriad manifestations, this is probably something very alien (Unless you are one of those living-off-grid-in-Alaska types). But maybe I’m being way too cynical.
I do love this…
in a fractal society, there would be an ever present awareness of the whole; each sovereign individual would be loosely bound to all other individuals and to the whole through a network of branches that converge on a central nexus. This network would be self-organizing, resilient and adaptive so the central nexus would reconfigure organically in response to changing circumstances.
But again, this requires us to brush off and engage our right hemisphere of the brain - stop thinking about everything in terms of ‘utility’ and start thinking in terms of relationships, the whole, the Gestalt. This would be a wonderful revolution for humankind and go a long way in halting the divisions created by Marxist philosophies in the hopes of some revolution to utopia. Not only would the network be “self-organizing, resilient and adaptive” but so would the individual and the families involved.
Now I’m not saying this is the answer or even if this is possible, but it’s interesting to ponder. And I’m not putting this out there because I’m some expert on political/social structures, I’m far from it. But as a thinking individual it caught my attention and would like to know what you think as well.
I wonder if we are already creating such a parallel society in the virtual environment? But to really have an impact we’d have to think geographically local - that means talking to your neighbour! Gosh, another roadblock.
The Citizen Doctor (whom I don’t know at all except from the few articles on fractal sovereignty) has written other pieces about specific aspects of society and how they might look in this fractal sovereignty model (you can find them at the bottom of the above Substack article).
Hmmm yes, but I think a lot of people don't want the burden of being a responsible person. Think of it this way, all of occupied people in Europe in WWII were occupied, but not all of the people were in the resistance. Somehow I think talking to my redneck football hooligan neigbour will not change his mind.
"in a fractal society, there would be an ever present awareness of the whole; each sovereign individual would be loosely bound to all other individuals and to the whole through a network of branches that converge on a central nexus."
Consensus culture is a denial of this reality. "Education" is enculturalization into this denial.
Recently the bad cat was talking on this point of personal sovereignty, governments seizing assets and freezing bank accounts and crypto, saying of the internet...
" ...will need to be rethought as well, probably all the way down to layer 1. there is no one who can be trusted to control the internet, so it must be controlled by no one.
we need an open source, massively distributed peer to peer internet with swarm sourced DNS and end to end strong encryption built into the protocols from the ground up.
it must be a system of stakeholders, not customers and they must all possess the agency to control their data, their information, and to associate and live in peace. arguments about “we must have the right to surveil you to keep you safe or because of what you MIGHT do” must fall away and the very ideas of supervision, surveillance, and censorship must be rendered anachronistic.
this is the only way to preserve the integrity of the public square and establish enduring free access to information.
as a side benefit, in such a system, the sheer volume of encrypted traffic will provide a steganographic substrate of such magnitude that all commerce, savings, investment, and value transfer will not even be identifiable must less interruptible."
Hmmm yes, but I think a lot of people don't want the burden of being a responsible person. Think of it this way, all of occupied people in Europe in WWII were occupied, but not all of the people were in the resistance. Somehow I think talking to my redneck football hooligan neigbour will not change his mind.
This is what already exists:
"in a fractal society, there would be an ever present awareness of the whole; each sovereign individual would be loosely bound to all other individuals and to the whole through a network of branches that converge on a central nexus."
Consensus culture is a denial of this reality. "Education" is enculturalization into this denial.
Recently the bad cat was talking on this point of personal sovereignty, governments seizing assets and freezing bank accounts and crypto, saying of the internet...
" ...will need to be rethought as well, probably all the way down to layer 1. there is no one who can be trusted to control the internet, so it must be controlled by no one.
we need an open source, massively distributed peer to peer internet with swarm sourced DNS and end to end strong encryption built into the protocols from the ground up.
it must be a system of stakeholders, not customers and they must all possess the agency to control their data, their information, and to associate and live in peace. arguments about “we must have the right to surveil you to keep you safe or because of what you MIGHT do” must fall away and the very ideas of supervision, surveillance, and censorship must be rendered anachronistic.
this is the only way to preserve the integrity of the public square and establish enduring free access to information.
as a side benefit, in such a system, the sheer volume of encrypted traffic will provide a steganographic substrate of such magnitude that all commerce, savings, investment, and value transfer will not even be identifiable must less interruptible."
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/governments-are-about-to-come-for