NO MORE MASTERS.

Focusing on a vision, not a leader. (DN 2.16)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 |1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16

Chapter 2.16
A Leaderless Nation

As we have discussed, the distributed nation is one among the wealth of ideas and efforts in the growing exit-and-build movement. It incorporates a number of different framework characteristics into a unique package…

It begins with individuals who deem themselves to be a part of a dispersed population. It has the decentralized character of a diaspora, but, like a modern tribe, it coheres around a shared set of principles, ideals, and values.

It is panarchic, in that individuals can participate from wherever they are in the world. However, it also has a territorial component, since the sovereignty of the property and spaces that each individual member occupies is an essential aspect of the distributed nation's ethos and approach.

So far, so good. But then where do we go from here?

Do we wait and hope for states to weaken, so we can form de facto autonomous zones? Do we try to negotiate for increased autonomy, and even perhaps one day for full independence?

Do we form local communities, each of which achieves a measure of de facto autonomy through self-determination and internal self-governance? Do we wait for states to collapse due to their own weight and unsustainable trajectories and then just do what we want?

Or do we pursue a comprehensive, long-term strategy that includes all of these approaches?

We will have to discuss answers to these questions in the coming weeks. But in the meantime, we must address an elephant in the room:

What about leaders?

A generic distributed nation as described above could, I suppose, be centrally directed by a strong leader. However, I am about to argue that for we don't need such a leader, nor should we want one. I believe that any implementation of a distributed nation that we here create will be better off without a controlling central authority.

Before I make that argument, however, let me steel-man the opposing view somewhat.

First, we must acknowledge a reality: leaders and hierarchical systems are a part of human life, and have been for longer than history can remember. This is not some cruel imposition by the psycho control freaks among us (or at least not exclusively so). Dominance hierarchies are a natural fact of life.

We are wired to compete for status in hierarchies. To some extent, we are biologically conditioned to abide by the results of that competition—to follow leaders.

In tribal terms, following a meritorious leader—one who has shown the sagacity and strength to lead well—makes a lot of sense. Some people really do make better decisions than others. Some are smarter or wiser. The benefits of working together under the guidance of such a person are enormous.

As this arrangement grows more complex, and as the size of a group grows, a hierarchy forms. A hierarchy allows the vision of a single leader to be conveyed and executed, focusing the efforts of a large group towards the realization of a single purpose. This too has proven to be an efficient arrangement.

So…if a system of hierarchical authority can be very effective, and its advent was a logical outcome of natural forces…why does it so often go so terribly wrong?

#1
Having a central authority may provide focus, but it also provides a single point of failure.

A hierarchy may lack sufficient power to check the excesses or failures of a bad leader. They may be loathe or afraid to try. They may have divided loyalties. They may be saddled with bureaucratic or democratic hurdles that prevent action from being taken in time to prevent serious damage.

‘Democracy‘ offers no relief for the problem. A voting majority often lacks the wisdom to make good choices. Arguably, they always lack that wisdom, and a democratic system just adds a variety of perverse incentives that make the problem worse.

In a system of hereditary rule, of course, there is no choice at all, and the death of one monarch is no guarantee of relief. How often has a bad king been replaced by a worse son? A cruel son. An ineffectual son. An idiot son.

We all love it when we have a good king. But how long must we wait? How long must we suffer in quiet longing for that one truly great king? And why are the really good ones so often semi-mythical (Arthur) or fully fictional (Aragorn)?¹

We know why. Human beings are flawed, and power usually magnifies, rather than mitigates, those flaws. A system of centralized authority takes a flawed human being, makes those flaws worse, and then gives him the power to compel the actions and choices of others by force.

Is that really the best plan?

#2
Power tends to attract psychopaths, sociopaths, and malignant narcissists.

Most people do not seek power so that they can reduce that power, or the power of the government around them. (The Ron Pauls and Barry Goldwaters of the world are extremely rare.) Most people seek power in order to use power.

Power (in the political sense) is the ability to compel the actions and choices of others. Authority is the official license to use that power. What sort of person wants this ability and authority?

Yes yes, I know—some politicians go in with the “best of intentions.” So and so is a “good man.” Senator Suchandsuch “means well.” And yes, democratic systems really do create the perverse incentive of needing to get control of the system to keep the other guy from using that same system against you. I get all that.

But this system also attracts people who want power over others. Then it gives them that power. And the higher the office, the more the effect is magnified.

This subject could easily lend itself to several long books. For now, suffice it to say that the likelihood of a truly great leader arising, in either a monarchy or a democracy, is incredibly low. And the likelihood of them remaining great once they have the power, and once all the perverse incentives begin working upon them (and upon their flaws), is even lower.

The likelihood that power will attract and retain psychopaths, sociopaths, and malignant narcissists is much higher. And—surprise surprise—look at the world we live in now.

#3
‘The people’ don’t make these problems any better.

How often do we see people fall in line behind a charismatic leader and then fiercely defend whatever he does, no matter what he does, simply because he is “their guy”? How often do we see team-based loyalties trump first principles?² How often do people seem to outsource their decisions, their very responsibility to think, to the party or the great leader?

Our tribal tendency to play follow-the-leader may have served us well in our hardscrabble primordial past, but is that our only option? For all time?

I propose that we follow another path.

Yes, leader-based hierarchy is one possible outcome of natural and biological realities. But it is not the only one. Emergent order is also quite natural.

Emergent order (a.k.a. spontaneous order) is the phenomenon whereby an order arises from the aggregated voluntary private actions and choices of individuals. The free market and language are the classic examples, but they are by no means the only ones. Nor does emergent order require the aggregation of millions of actions—it can also happen among two people, or a dozen or a hundred or a thousand. Emergent order is natural law in action.

Creating a nation without a controlling central authority will require some evolution. We must evolve beyond our limbic-system tendency to play follow-the-leader. We must evolve beyond the lazy desire to outsource our personal responsibility to others. We must evolve beyond the belief that we are slaves in need of masters.

It sounds hard. But think back to our first principles…

No one has, as a mere fact of his existence, any ontological, automatic, birthright authority over any other. This, coupled with the natural reality of individual self-ownership, render consent to be a prerequisite of natural law.

Thus, involuntary authority of any sort would be a violation of the very principles that we hold dear. The principles that undergird our righteous claim that we are sovereign beings. That we are, and of right ought to be, independent and free.

Other framework proposals do center on strong voluntary leadership, and we respect that choice of direction. (Let a thousand seedlings grow!)

In Democracy: The God That Failed, for example, Hans-Hermann Hoppe advocates for the advent of private-law jurisdictions owned and administered by meritorious individuals who, because of their upstanding moral character, rise to the status of a “natural aristocracy” of “voluntarily acknowledged elites.”³ In Balaji Srinivasan’s vision, the founder of a network state must play a central role as a “recognized leader.”

Hoppe and Srinivasan are preeminent advocates for liberating humanity from all forms of nonconsensual governance. Guided by the lessons of history and certain aspects human nature, they would like to see polities form under the guidance of meritorious leaders.

There is plenty of logic to support such an approach. After all, human beings do very much tend to key in on personalities. A strong leader can provide excellent focus, especially in the early going. As we will begin discussing a few weeks from now, however, my vision for a distributed nation is more long-term.

A lot more long term.

I do not wish simply to see a single generation liberated from the clutches of unchosen and unchecked power. I want to see humanity liberated.

And if it is not possible to take our whole species with us, then I would like to see a nation of people—our people—liberate ourselves. Not just now, not just for ourselves, but for generations yet unborn.

And when our children’s children’s children are ready to journey into the solar system, and then to the stars beyond, I want to see them do it as free people. And there too—if they are not representing an entirely liberated human species, then I want them to at least represent a distributed nation of free, sovereign humans from all across the globe.

This sort of generational project cannot be dependent on any controlling central authority. It must be dependent upon a vision.

Good leaders are transitory. Good ideas are forever.

Any group that is dependent on the charisma, strength, or ability of individual leaders simply cannot last. Once a good leader is gone, entropy and organizational drift take their toll. As Robert Conquest noted in his second and third laws, power structures are eventually corrupted and become the opposite of what they were intended to be.

If an organization is to survive for generations, it cannot be leader-dependent. It must have a central vision that shines bright above all.

That vision must begin with solid principles. Those principles, in turn, will naturally produce short- and long-term goals. If meritorious individuals arise to help provide guidance, energy, and enthusiasm in pursuit of those goals, they must be just as focused as everyone else on the greater vision. The vision itself must lead.

Earlier this year, I read a novel that described a group of people, traveling into the stars, who embodied much of this kind of approach. They had an expression: “We did not light the torch; we will not see the bonfire.” Though there were other aspects of this fictional group I would certainly not wish to emulate, the sentiment of that expression is potent. It spoke to a commitment not to any leader, but to a generational vision rooted in a set of principles, and in the goals that arose from those principles.

That is the sort of commitment we need.

For too long, we have focused solely on short-term goals. For too long, we have been mired in inertia and dazzled by the mystique of power. For too long, we have allowed ourselves to believe that we are rotten slaves in need of rotten masters.

We need a bigger vision. What that is and how we get there will be the subject of our future discussions.

For now, just say it with me: No more masters.

---

Help keep me rolling so we can make this vision a reality. (Please note also that I am trying to keep this content free for those who truly cannot afford it. So if you can, please do!)

No matter how many times I tried, I could not get ChatGPT to stop making the people look like Amish/Mennonites/etc. (Oh well—perhaps that fact is also instructive, in a way…)

1. With respect to Catholics, we might also look at the current pope. The plans of the Holy Spirit are obviously beyond my ken, but just on the merits of the question here on Earth, Francis is clearly a communist masquerading as a religious leader. He is doing damage to the Church, and to the hundreds of millions worldwide who are impacted by his leadership. I would hate to be saddled with the cognitive dissonance of having to follow him.

2. The word “trump” in that sentence was le mot juste, not a slam at Donald Trump or his supporters specifically.

3. “The further the process of secession proceeds to the level of small regions, cities, city districts, towns, villages, and ultimately individual households and voluntary associations of private households and firms, the more difficult it will become to maintain the current level of redistributive policies. At the same time, the smaller the territorial units, the more likely it will be that a few individuals, based on the popular recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, superior judgment, courage, and taste, will rise to the rank of natural, voluntarily acknowledged elites and lend legitimacy to the idea of a natural order of competing (non-monopolistic) and freely (voluntarily) financed peacekeepers, judges, and over- lapping jurisdictions as exists even now in the arena of international trade and travel. A pure private law society — as the answer to democracy and any other form of political (coercive) rule.” Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed, pg. 106