Coherence Is Not Coercion, and Atomization Is Not Freedom
Making it work, 1. (DN 5.11)
The nation we are creating is not a state. It is an open membership polity—a global diaspora of people who share a belief in a small number of fundamental ideas.
We will have no central authority. No monopoly of force.
We will not have borders—save for the borders of each individual’s property or sovereign space. We will not have enforced laws, though we will have founding documents and a set of moral principles.
We will not be of any one particular ethnicity or religion. We will not have gatekeeping or official tests. But we will be a people. A distributed nation.
I will occasionally encounter an objection:
Why do we need this? We are already decentralized. We already believe in similar principles. Why go beyond that?
This objection isn’t wrong, per se. Indeed, it has some valid points…
Decentralization is an indispensable tactic and a desirable end-state. Our philosophy is, after all, based on the reality that the only legitimate natural authority is that which you exercise over yourself. And, of course, groups can become power centers, and power centers can become coercive.
So why do we need to be anything other than atomized individuals?
We have discussed this matter before (here, here, and elsewhere), and we honor and respect the objection. But now, as we slowly move from theory to practice, let us do a final recap of the reasons we want to do this—why we will benefit from being more than isolated individuals.
Why atomization tends to lose in practice
Organization risks creating inescapable hierarchies. We don’t want to fall into the trap of playing follow-the-leader right into the jaws of a controlling system. These are valid concerns, and we must be vigilant.
But the stay atomized/don’t organize viewpoint gets a crucial thing wrong:
Atomization, in and of itself, is not a guarantor of freedom. Freedom is based in non-coercion, not in non-coordination. And it is possible for us to coordinate or cohere without coercion.
Atomization is just what it says—a condition of being separated into tiny pieces. And ultimately, that puts us at a strategic disadvantage in a world full of organized actors. Here are a few reasons why.
1) Coordination and synergy
Institutions and organizations coordinate individual efforts to achieve specific shared objectives. They pursue greater efficiency, respond to feedback signals, and avoid duplicating efforts. Through this coordination, they become more than the sum of their parts.
Some organizations do good things with this coordination. Some do bad things. But the coordination itself is not bad.
I have worked for organizations in the freedom movement. They can be incredibly effective. An organization of 50 people can move mountains!
Meanwhile, 50 atomized freedom-loving individuals usually looks something like this:
Twenty bitching on social media about everything that is wrong.
Ten popping their heads up from the doom scroll just long enough to demoralize everyone around them.
Fifteen trying to wake everyone up about *—insert bottomless rabbit-hole conspiracy here—*
Five arguing about whether intellectual property is real property (or having some other doctrinaire debate).
I am sorry to be so blunt, but … well, I don’t know how to finish that sentence. Saying “You know I’m right” will probably annoy some people, but … I don’t know how to finish that sentence either. You know I’m right.
Yes, some people are doing impressive things.
Yes, spreading information is an essential activity. Absolutely!
And yes, it is good to have millions of uncoordinated people doing all these things spontaneously, without any central direction. Yes, yes, yes. Emergent order is a magical thing, and definitely a part of our philosophy and approach.
But the movement can also spare a few of us to operate at a higher level of coordination.
We are not even talking about NGO-levels of coordination here. The nation we are imagining into existence will not be that sort of organization. I am simply using such organizations to illustrate a point: coordination, coherence, working together, shared goals—these things are not the enemy.
In our case, we are just talking about cohering large numbers of us in a very loose way. The movement will benefit, and so will each of us as individuals.
Believe me, there will still be plenty of people left over diving down rabbit holes and waking people up. Indeed, you can continue to do so yourself.
But there will be multiple benefits to a slightly higher level of ……… let’s not even call it coordination, so much as just a higher level of shared intentionality. A common identity that just goes a little bit beyond nothing at all.
A lone person can do his or her best to live free. Each of us must try. But we also live in a world that is structured by institutions. We would do well to consider higher levels of coordination, or at least coherence, when possible.
2) Information economies favor networks
To reiterate—emergent order is essential to freedom. It is good to have lots of people sharing info spontaneously. But there are also benefits to networking information.
For one thing, it helps avoid endlessly reinventing the wheel. Spontaneous information-sharing helps saturate the market, moving through organic networks in unexpected ways. But it is also beneficial to create repositories of reliable, useful, trusted information.
Coordination also leverages the power of swarm intelligence. Groups working on a problem together often demonstrate faster learning, better decision-making, and a broader range of knowledge, with fewer mistakes. This alone can be a decisive advantage.
Indeed, I have been using this power from the beginning of our project here, by soliciting your input and updating the project accordingly. (See Josh Ketry over at the Society of Problem Solvers for more on swarm intelligence.)
3) Coordination creates leverage without force
We are only at the beginning of this journey. At some point, however, if our numbers have grown large enough, we will have bargaining power.
If we
have sufficient numbers,
have credibly distanced ourselves from the system,
maintain a good reputation (we spoke about this at length in Chapters 3 and 4), and
demonstrate the ability to reliably act towards our goals,
we will enjoy a degree of peaceful leverage. At some point down the road, that will be quite valuable.
And we will get none of that if we are all alone on our separate islands.
4) Humans need belonging
I cannot stress this enough.
Yes, we classical liberals—libertarians, conservatives, voluntaryists, and the rest of the freedom movement—tend to be more independent and self-reliant. We are more likely to have an internal locus of control and to feel less dependent on the collective. This is right and good and as it should be.
But to suggest that we must be atomized—that anything more than that is dangerous and unnecessary—is counterproductive, and in my view, just plain incorrect. And frankly, it is part of why people sometimes describe libertarians as “autistic.”
Loneliness is a disaster for humans. There are ample data that a lack of social connection is damaging to one’s health, happiness, and quality of life. It shortens life expectancy. And many of us do not realize just how alone we have become, or the damage it is causing, in this modern, tech-driven society.
It’s even harder for us to realize it because we are so self-reliant. But we truly will benefit from greater togetherness, interaction, and closeness. Trust me.
By treating the social instinct as a weakness rather than a fact of human nature, as libertarians often do, we shoot ourselves in the foot. Humans form groups and tribes. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and there are myriad benefits.
So what is better? To be alone on our individual islands, all shouting the same words into the same void? Or to form the right kinds of tribes? Tribes that respect consent and individuality. Tribes that do not demand submission. Tribes that model peace.
We can be coherent and happy and enjoy togetherness without being controlling. Let’s show the world how it’s done.
What a shared identity gives you that philosophy alone doesn’t
A) Motivation and stamina
Movements fail not because ideas are bad, but because people burn out. Or because the ideas do not get translated to the next generation.
By having a shared identity, even a very loose one, we gain a sense of pride and meaning. This does not have to look like ugly nationalism. Not every shared principle is bad. Indeed, we already share the principles, and they are very good principles! Why not take a little pride in it?
Identity also creates continuity—something that we can pass on to our kids. Yes, each of us, as an individual, can teach our children well, and we should. (My son is one of the most ideologically inoculated 20-year-olds there is!) But there is nothing like a shared, generational identity. Not just “this is what we believe,” but “THIS IS THE KIND OF PEOPLE WE ARE.” (Sorry for the all caps, but it matters.)
B) Recognition
A shared identity doesn’t communicate everything, but it communicates a heck of a lot. If you meet someone and they tell you that they are “conservative” or “libertarian,” you know something about them. If they tell you they are a member of a group of which you are also a member, you know a lot more.
This creates cognitive compression and lower social transaction costs. Yes, you still have to assess each person’s character individually, but you already have a baseline.
Our promise
There are legitimate concerns about the ways in which some humans behave when gathered in groups. We must be mindful of those concerns. And we will be.
But atomization, in and of itself, isn’t freedom—it’s a lack of capacity. Real freedom includes the ability to cooperate voluntarily, and at scale.
And whether or not you choose to cooperate, coordinate, or cohere, you can be assured that the enemies of freedom are doing so, and gaining the upper hand in the process.
Thus, we can and should find a way to gain the benefits without the drawbacks. And we can. I firmly believe we can be a people without being a state.
1) Many tribes, one nation
First, we will never subsume or supplant anyone’s other associations. As we have discussed, there are many different ways people can and do organize and many different things with which they identify. That is good and organic and beautiful.
We can cohere without destroying our other identities. Many channels, many communities, many nodes.
Many tribes, one nation.
2) Identity without jurisdiction
“We are a people” ≠ “we govern you.”
3) Belonging without submission
Everything about us is open. Participate if you want. Opt out anytime. We want to build joy and enhance life, not dissolve distinctions.
4) Strength without conquest
As discussed above—we live in a world where coherence produces advantages. We can benefit from this phenomenon, and do so peacefully.
5) Shared principles without totalizing ideology
The principles around which we will cohere are basic and universal. They do not replace anything. They are the necessary baseline for peace, but beyond that, let pluralism and distinction thrive!
It’s a big world—and an even bigger universe—and the future is bright if we can work together on a few shared goals. Or at very least know that we can rely on our fellows to hold these important principles.
Next installment: How we can foster all this without forcing it.
I wondered why this was making me think of slime mold and what I read about the design of the Tokyo subway system (which would have been effectively achieved using slime mold rather than human engineers), so I asked Brave AI about it and it makes sense that your article and slime mold are related in a very beautiful and inspiring way (slime mold is beautiful despite the name): “Slime mold solves mazes by using a decentralized, self-organizing system—not through a central leader or brain. When placed in a maze with food at the start and end, it spreads across all paths, then retracts from dead ends and inefficient routes, leaving only the shortest path. This happens because the mold leaves behind a trail of slime that acts as a memory, helping it avoid revisiting areas it has already explored.
This process mirrors how diverse groups of people can work together effectively without top-down control. Like the slime mold, organizations can solve complex problems by relying on simple, local rules—such as "move toward resources" or "avoid paths already taken"—and by communicating through shared signals (like digital tools or feedback loops). The result is a collective intelligence that emerges from interaction, not hierarchy.
Studies show that slime molds optimize networks—like Tokyo’s railway system or highway layouts—by finding the most efficient connections. Similarly, diverse teams, when aligned around a shared goal and equipped with clear communication, can innovate and adapt rapidly, much like the mold’s ability to reconfigure its network in response to environmental changes. “😉🎈❤️
Love it! It is so comforting in a way to know that there is someone who is truly focused on these vital issues intelligently working to clarify, educate, and inspire us to see there is a better way. Thanks so much Christopher. May your important work reach an ever growing number of freedom lovers who sometimes can become discouraged that there will ever be an answer.