Mini-thread: against the "One Commandment" Balaji's The Network State (see my review https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/07/13/networkstates.html ) has a concept called "the one commandment": a new startup society should have one key moral value that differs from the outside world. I argue that this is wrong.
Instead, any realistic new community is going to have a complicated jumble of various legible and illegible values (and "vibes") that appeals to a particular group of people. And this is the *only* realistic way to define a new (or existing) community.
I would say startups with 1 morale, move faster but fail faster too while startups with 3+ morales survive longer and pivot smarter 🤝
Is there a world where you are both correct? That the network state does have one key moral value, but over time and with size that value is reinterpreted within the state many times over
Agreed, this was one of the few points I found less convincing. It’s one way comparing NSs to startups is an oversimplification. I (& @balajis) respect Coinbase’s “let’s not talk about external politics, instead focus on our mission at work” policy but you can’t tell citizens of your country to ignore “external
Good thread. TLDR: one commandment is an oversimplification, but a useful oversimplification. One way to think about it: when you pitch your community to a new recruit, how do you describe it? Culdesac: car-free Kift: van life Praxis: vitalist Note what this is *not*. It's not an economic pitch. It's a values pitch.
>I argue this is wrong Not sure "wrong" is a useful frame here. Feels like you both just approach the idea from different perspectives. him: absolutes, structure, convex you: nuance, essence, concave IMHO both are needed. Former for the idea to captivate & spread. Latter for the idea to actually get implemented.
At Cabin, we've generally agreed that "One Commandment" is one of the practically worst (yet still directionally useful) parts of Balaji's Network State framework. We prefer Three Suggestions—Conserve, Colive, Create—but even these aren't written in stone or definitive representations of our community.
Really enjoyed the post and (to me at least) this was the first time I’d seen someone lay out the “limitations to exitocracy” in a simple manner — feels like there’s a good philosophy paper hidden in that concept that should be written
The difference between a city and an intentional community. Praxis is aiming to be a giant intentional community w all that entails, not a city.
Interesting examples. What's the deeper reason if there is one? I would guess many of us find communities built around a single principle somewhat repelling, which may be a protective mechanism to stop us from joining dangerous cults?
The point about global negative externalities is a crucial one. We want future generations to have a beautiful whole world (and solar system!) to live in, not a scattered handful of enclaves!
similar to the debate between fragile vs. anti-fragile startup focus in the last 10 years, starting super fragile apps has been mostly en-vogue (e.g. early on do things that don't scale - PG, uber launching 1 market at time, FB college students, Gas app HS) protocols however are intended to be anti-fragile, agree?