In his recent book The Network State, Balaji Srinivasan presents a thought-provoking vision for the future of societal organization: the Network State. The network state is described as a “highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states”.

Despite its allure in our increasingly digital and divided world, Balaji’s idea of a network state faces a critical problem: the founding premise, what he calls the One Commandment, must be radical enough to compel its members to seek sovereignty but must also be palatable enough to gain recognition from existing nations. This, I argue, is the fatal flaw in the approach.

The Radical Premise Problem

The heart of the issue lies in the contradiction inherent in the network state’s founding premise. It must be radically different from the prevailing norms of society to compel the formation of a new sovereignty; otherwise, its members would be content to practice it within the existing social framework. Yet, the very radical nature of the premise, which fuels its formation, can act as a barrier to its acceptance by existing nation-states. This is especially true due to the geographical distribution, or “networkness”, of the network state.

For a network state to succeed, its radical premise must be both compelling to its members and palatable to existing societies. Yet, the more radical the premise, the less likely it is to be tolerated by those societies, especially if the network state exists within their geographical boundaries. The “out of sight, out of mind” principle applies here; you’re more likely to tolerate a radically different way of life from yours if it occurs far away from you.

Consider two examples societies from Srinivasan’s book, the Keto Kosher Society and the Post FDA Society.

The Keto Kosher Society, which rejects the consumption of sugar, may not be radical enough to drive its members to seek sovereignty. It’s a lifestyle choice that could, in theory, be practiced within the existing societal framework. To Balaji’s credit, a later section of the book points out that the Keto Kosher society may happily exist as a Network Archipelago without ever desiring to become a state.

On the other hand, the Post FDA Society, which advocates for medical sovereignty and an FDA-free zone, presents a more radical premise. It proposes a significant departure from prevailing medical regulations, which would likely necessitate the establishment of a new sovereignty to fully realize its objectives.

The radicalness of the Post FDA Society would make it difficult to accept, particularly if it were to coexist within the geographical boundaries of existing states. Unfettered human biological experimentation is not something a lot of people would want to see their nextdoor neighbor doing. Then, would the Post FDA society’s request for sovereignty be more palatable to existing states if they had experimentation labs and Post FDA communities scattered across countires and geographies, or by having all its physical property and activities concentrated in a single place?

The radicalness of the Post FDA Society would make it difficult to accept, particularly if it were to coexist within the geographical boundaries of existing states. Unfettered human biological experimentation is not something a lot of people would want to see their next-door neighbor doing. Then, would the Post FDA Society’s request for sovereignty be more palatable to existing states if they had experimentation labs and Post FDA communities scattered across countries and geographies, or by having all its physical property and activities concentrated in a single place, far removed from those who will accept or reject the request?

Is there a way out?

I think new states will come to be recognized, but not as networks. While they will have a network component, with people and property outside its sovereignty, the sovereignty itself will remain a contiguous physical landmass. The Vatican is sovereign. But when you walk in to the Notre-Dame de Paris you’re not walking into Vatican territory, although the Vatican still exerts supreme influence over it.

I believe new states will come to be recognized, but not as networks. While a new state will have a network component, with people and property outside its sovereignty, the sovereignty itself will remain a contiguous physical landmass. The Vatican is sovereign, and it (the Pope) exerts supreme authority over the Catholic churches of the world. But when you walk into the Notre-Dame de Paris in France, you don’t need to pull out your passport and cross into Vatican territory.

I wrote this blog post in conversation with a LLM. You may view the full conversation here