It's common knowledge that the talk of town in the Bay Area, at least in terms of "The Future of Government", circles around technocracies and Network States (as presented by Balaji Srinivasan). Between Balaji's book of the same name, the holier-than-thou attitude of most tech people, and Elon Musk's bid for power earlier this year, I’d say there's a pattern we oughta look at.

There are few things more dangerous in this world than a powerful individual believing they can do things better by themselves. Bar said individual believing a country should be run like a software platform.

"Running a Government like Software" is the new "Running a Government like a Business." We all know how well that’s worked out.

I was recently chatting with a career philosopher friend of mine. He's the kind of person to have a premeditated opinion for any possible topic, complete with citations ranging from Eric Fromm and Hannah Arendt to the latest academic papers on whatever you deigned to bring up. We talked about Worldcoin amid raised eyebrows and jokes at crypto's expense.

But when I dropped the line: "They scan your iris, tie it to an identity system, and tie your finances to said identity system," we were no longer joking.

The conversation quickly turned to our current crisis of meaning, manifested for now as the rise of authoritarianism across the world. But most importantly, we discussed how that authoritarianism, built on shoddy foundations, would later open the gate for something more sinister.

Our current generation of personality cult authoritarians are nothing more than the dying throws of the old guard of politicians. The kind that will lie and cheat and steal to maintain their power, but they won't move a finger to actually strengthen the system that gave them their brand of coercive power.

Today's rulers are experts at playing *their* game, no matter the political system or party, but the game is quickly changing in front of them.

We've all noticed how current governments struggle to regulate technology that has the potential to change society – and oftentimes does. The Facebook senate hearings, TikTok’s clown show of a hearing, the UK trying to eliminate encryption as if it's a "bad" technology. No government is even ready to discuss how to properly prepare for AI, let alone govern in a world where artificial intelligence shapes daily life.

It's very intentional when I call today's ruling class "coercive." Their playbook is that of cliques, systematic exclusion, bullying, and limiting access. But they have little to no carrots to back the stick.

What happens when someone comes along who can say "yes" in ways that traditional governments never could?

I’m in no way trying to create yet another framework around what power is. But, throughout my life, it’s helped me to navigate power as if there’s three main ways to approach it: coercive, persuasive, and manipulative.

• Coercive power is what traditional public institutions wield. It's the power of the stick: laws, regulations, police, military force. It works by limiting options and punishing non-compliance. This is what Erdogan uses when he shuts down social media, what Trump wielded when he threatened to ban TikTok, what Macron deploys when he pushes through pension reforms despite massive protests. And sure, there’s a bit of social welfare to go around, but only for those who conform.

• Persuasive power is the realm of traditional PR, media, and rhetoric. It works by convincing people to choose what you want them to choose. Campaign speeches, propaganda, advertising in its more straightforward forms. It respects human agency while trying to influence it.

• Manipulative power is something altogether different. It doesn't limit choices or argue for them; instead, it shapes the architecture within which choices are made. Algorithms, and interfaces, and the default setting of existing in today’s digital sphere is manipulative. It works by making certain choices feel natural, obvious, or inevitable while others become non-existent.

Tech oligarchs have mastered this third type of power. They have the big advantage of incentives within their control: algorithmic reach, computation credits, supply chain incentives for those who play by their rules without even knowing it. We all know the dopamine hit of getting a couple likes, does that influence what kind of vacation pictures you share?

Altman can offer twenty dollars, or whatever the hell Worldcoin offers people at malls for scanning their eyeballs. Zuckerberg can afford to lose cash with every VR headset and AI glasses sold. Bezos can offer "hassle-free" return policies for every product on his platform, at the seller's expense. These are the exercises in manipulative power we’ve grown to expect, to create systems where compliance feels like convenience and resistance feels like going uphill both ways.

What happens when Erdogan, or Trump, or Macron are threatened by a technocrat who can sweeten the deal for their populace in a way no state government could?

Why would we fear AI governing us when we know these people will never let go of the fantastic trump card that is algorithm and platform-fueled manipulative power? What's more likely to happen over the next century is the quiet rise of technofeudalism, as many have observed before me.

We're already living under a form of technofeudalism in some sense. Most of our social lives, commerce, romance, and intellectual endeavors already happen through the lens of a tech platform and an algorithm. The libertarian dreams of technostates, digital identities, and digital cash; they’re already paving the way for wielding data like a lord would’ve wielded an army or grain quota.

The technologies that will bring on full technofeudalism each promise freedom, comfort, a challenge to the status quo. Individually, each seems benign or even beneficial.

All it really takes in the end is for the right moment. For one of these technocrats to have a serious enough falling out with traditional power structures (not just for the press). And we might see the first attempt at a nation without territory, led by software and incentives, with everyone yielding tribute to a sovereign CEO.

The fact that Musk launched his own political party recently is paving the way for this moment to eventually unfold.

I won't dwell too long on how bad living under technofeudalism would be. I'm making a conscious effort to keep my essays a bit more optimistic. Even if everything I've said so far seems bleak, the ebbs and flows of power are seasonal, as Aristotle would've told you.

Instead, I want to focus on what it would actually be like to live under such a system when it comes - and it very likely will come.

Medieval society is known for two things in popular culture:

• Kings, princesses, castles, and courtly love

• Remarkably bad living conditions for everyone else.

Or at least, that's what most people imagine when they picture living during the so-called "dark ages." Reality was a lot more complicated than that, as always.

Medieval society and feudalism actually worked surprisingly well for most people most of the time. People were generally well fed, everyday serfs enjoyed some types of freedom and autonomy that today's labor force would dream of: You got assigned a piece of land, and yes, you had to pay tribute on it, but overall you were pretty much in charge of what you did with your life, so long as you produced. You had little to worry about beyond your immediate responsibilities.

That sounds remarkably like the lives most people live nowadays, doesn't it?

Back then, not everyone was under the thumb of a king, though. The feudal system created multiple pathways for different types of people to find their place and exercise their talents. And I think technofeudalism will have the same effect.

We’ve already established that tech oligarchs will become the new kings, which they arguably already are. As for the rest of us…

The monks and abbots who dedicated their lives to faith and wisdom, and who wielded unruly quantities of political power, wealth, and influence, even against the nobility. A cleric was as much a politician as a lord, sometimes even moreso. The absolute best way to guarantee a good life during the middle ages, with little effort and plenty of leisure time, was to book it to your nearest monastery.

If I had to stretch the parallels, I'd say clerics are closest to what the public servants of our time would become under technofeudalism. If the CEOs and venture capitalists take over the executive and legislative power of their new nations, career politicians, academics, and public servants would have to go somewhere.

And where is people's belief better held than in their faith in public institutions and communal answers? Even if they'd lose their coercive power, politicians would still get a chance at wielding people's belief to enact local change. They'd become the interpreters of the platform's terms of service, so to speak.

It could actually suit them better than what they do today, come to think of it. Maybe stripping them of some stagnant power would do their constituents some good for once.

What people fear about technofeudalism is the perceived loss of their freedoms and autonomy, but even within such a crystallized system, people under feudalism found ways to break the mold and create their own paths.

The merchant class would take on the perils of the highwayman-filled roads for the chance of earning great riches. Some of them even amassed larger fortunes than the kings and queens they did commerce with. The Renaissance came to be on the backs of rich merchants who wouldn't be welcomed into the ruling class, so they built their own.

The fact that the current sitting president of the United States is a reality TV star speaks to how the ruling class reacts when an outsider tries to join their ranks. Call that a rocky road.

Similar to the merchants of old, the world of entrepreneurs and celebrities fits the role quite perfectly. You take on the risk, you leave the gated garden of the tech platform that would offer you comfort and safety. And if you're lucky enough, you get to build your own gated garden of influence, wealth, and prosperity under your own rules.

But. They don't get to rule until they amass enough to build their own system, which is a big "if" when the system they're challenging is built to pivot and adapt algorithmically to everyone's personal needs.

No, being a merchant wasn't freeing then, and being an entrepreneur won't be freeing under technofeudalism. The risks you have to incur, the heavy burden of maintaining your wealth, the constant feeling of not belonging with either villagers nor courtesans. No wonder the medieval merchants got bored.

I'd much rather become an errant knight.

The knightly tales we've all heard have romanticized what being an armor-wearing, lance-wielding, horse-riding adventurer would've actually been like. In real life, knights were more like today's citizen scientists, social media influencers, or small-town freelancers. They were skilled professionals who, through well-leveraged talent and resources (horses, armor, weapons, training), sold their services to whoever needed them most.

You'd roam around, play by the local lord's rules when necessary, spend the night at a local tavern, or set up a tent under the stars. Errant knights wielded their ability to navigate the system, solving the problems of cleric, villager, lord, or lady love equally.

They were the owners of their destiny and would adapt to the circumstances, knowing full well their entire lives could fit into a rucksack. They lived by their wits, their skills, and their reputation.

And hey, if you did a good enough job and sold out in the end, a local lord might reward you with a castle to call your own and a small fief to upkeep it.

Ain't that the technofeudalistic dream?

Maybe I’ve read too much Cervantes.

It's common knowledge that the talk of town in the Bay Area, at least in terms of "The Future of Government", circles around technocracies and Network States (as presented by Balaji Srinivasan). Between Balaji's book of the same name, the holier-than-thou attitude of most tech people, and Elon Musk's bid for power earlier this year, I’d say there's a pattern we oughta look at.

There are few things more dangerous in this world than a powerful individual believing they can do things better by themselves. Bar said individual believing a country should be run like a software platform.

"Running a Government like Software" is the new "Running a Government like a Business." We all know how well that’s worked out.

I was recently chatting with a career philosopher friend of mine. He's the kind of person to have a premeditated opinion for any possible topic, complete with citations ranging from Eric Fromm and Hannah Arendt to the latest academic papers on whatever you deigned to bring up. We talked about Worldcoin amid raised eyebrows and jokes at crypto's expense.

But when I dropped the line: "They scan your iris, tie it to an identity system, and tie your finances to said identity system," we were no longer joking.

The conversation quickly turned to our current crisis of meaning, manifested for now as the rise of authoritarianism across the world. But most importantly, we discussed how that authoritarianism, built on shoddy foundations, would later open the gate for something more sinister.

Our current generation of personality cult authoritarians are nothing more than the dying throws of the old guard of politicians. The kind that will lie and cheat and steal to maintain their power, but they won't move a finger to actually strengthen the system that gave them their brand of coercive power.

Today's rulers are experts at playing *their* game, no matter the political system or party, but the game is quickly changing in front of them.

We've all noticed how current governments struggle to regulate technology that has the potential to change society – and oftentimes does. The Facebook senate hearings, TikTok’s clown show of a hearing, the UK trying to eliminate encryption as if it's a "bad" technology. No government is even ready to discuss how to properly prepare for AI, let alone govern in a world where artificial intelligence shapes daily life.

It's very intentional when I call today's ruling class "coercive." Their playbook is that of cliques, systematic exclusion, bullying, and limiting access. But they have little to no carrots to back the stick.

What happens when someone comes along who can say "yes" in ways that traditional governments never could?

I’m in no way trying to create yet another framework around what power is. But, throughout my life, it’s helped me to navigate power as if there’s three main ways to approach it: coercive, persuasive, and manipulative.

• Coercive power is what traditional public institutions wield. It's the power of the stick: laws, regulations, police, military force. It works by limiting options and punishing non-compliance. This is what Erdogan uses when he shuts down social media, what Trump wielded when he threatened to ban TikTok, what Macron deploys when he pushes through pension reforms despite massive protests. And sure, there’s a bit of social welfare to go around, but only for those who conform.

• Persuasive power is the realm of traditional PR, media, and rhetoric. It works by convincing people to choose what you want them to choose. Campaign speeches, propaganda, advertising in its more straightforward forms. It respects human agency while trying to influence it.

• Manipulative power is something altogether different. It doesn't limit choices or argue for them; instead, it shapes the architecture within which choices are made. Algorithms, and interfaces, and the default setting of existing in today’s digital sphere is manipulative. It works by making certain choices feel natural, obvious, or inevitable while others become non-existent.

Tech oligarchs have mastered this third type of power. They have the big advantage of incentives within their control: algorithmic reach, computation credits, supply chain incentives for those who play by their rules without even knowing it. We all know the dopamine hit of getting a couple likes, does that influence what kind of vacation pictures you share?

Altman can offer twenty dollars, or whatever the hell Worldcoin offers people at malls for scanning their eyeballs. Zuckerberg can afford to lose cash with every VR headset and AI glasses sold. Bezos can offer "hassle-free" return policies for every product on his platform, at the seller's expense. These are the exercises in manipulative power we’ve grown to expect, to create systems where compliance feels like convenience and resistance feels like going uphill both ways.

What happens when Erdogan, or Trump, or Macron are threatened by a technocrat who can sweeten the deal for their populace in a way no state government could?

Why would we fear AI governing us when we know these people will never let go of the fantastic trump card that is algorithm and platform-fueled manipulative power? What's more likely to happen over the next century is the quiet rise of technofeudalism, as many have observed before me.

We're already living under a form of technofeudalism in some sense. Most of our social lives, commerce, romance, and intellectual endeavors already happen through the lens of a tech platform and an algorithm. The libertarian dreams of technostates, digital identities, and digital cash; they’re already paving the way for wielding data like a lord would’ve wielded an army or grain quota.

The technologies that will bring on full technofeudalism each promise freedom, comfort, a challenge to the status quo. Individually, each seems benign or even beneficial.

All it really takes in the end is for the right moment. For one of these technocrats to have a serious enough falling out with traditional power structures (not just for the press). And we might see the first attempt at a nation without territory, led by software and incentives, with everyone yielding tribute to a sovereign CEO.

The fact that Musk launched his own political party recently is paving the way for this moment to eventually unfold.

I won't dwell too long on how bad living under technofeudalism would be. I'm making a conscious effort to keep my essays a bit more optimistic. Even if everything I've said so far seems bleak, the ebbs and flows of power are seasonal, as Aristotle would've told you.

Instead, I want to focus on what it would actually be like to live under such a system when it comes - and it very likely will come.

Medieval society is known for two things in popular culture:

• Kings, princesses, castles, and courtly love

• Remarkably bad living conditions for everyone else.

Or at least, that's what most people imagine when they picture living during the so-called "dark ages." Reality was a lot more complicated than that, as always.

Medieval society and feudalism actually worked surprisingly well for most people most of the time. People were generally well fed, everyday serfs enjoyed some types of freedom and autonomy that today's labor force would dream of: You got assigned a piece of land, and yes, you had to pay tribute on it, but overall you were pretty much in charge of what you did with your life, so long as you produced. You had little to worry about beyond your immediate responsibilities.

That sounds remarkably like the lives most people live nowadays, doesn't it?

Back then, not everyone was under the thumb of a king, though. The feudal system created multiple pathways for different types of people to find their place and exercise their talents. And I think technofeudalism will have the same effect.

We’ve already established that tech oligarchs will become the new kings, which they arguably already are. As for the rest of us…

The monks and abbots who dedicated their lives to faith and wisdom, and who wielded unruly quantities of political power, wealth, and influence, even against the nobility. A cleric was as much a politician as a lord, sometimes even moreso. The absolute best way to guarantee a good life during the middle ages, with little effort and plenty of leisure time, was to book it to your nearest monastery.

If I had to stretch the parallels, I'd say clerics are closest to what the public servants of our time would become under technofeudalism. If the CEOs and venture capitalists take over the executive and legislative power of their new nations, career politicians, academics, and public servants would have to go somewhere.

And where is people's belief better held than in their faith in public institutions and communal answers? Even if they'd lose their coercive power, politicians would still get a chance at wielding people's belief to enact local change. They'd become the interpreters of the platform's terms of service, so to speak.

It could actually suit them better than what they do today, come to think of it. Maybe stripping them of some stagnant power would do their constituents some good for once.

What people fear about technofeudalism is the perceived loss of their freedoms and autonomy, but even within such a crystallized system, people under feudalism found ways to break the mold and create their own paths.

The merchant class would take on the perils of the highwayman-filled roads for the chance of earning great riches. Some of them even amassed larger fortunes than the kings and queens they did commerce with. The Renaissance came to be on the backs of rich merchants who wouldn't be welcomed into the ruling class, so they built their own.

The fact that the current sitting president of the United States is a reality TV star speaks to how the ruling class reacts when an outsider tries to join their ranks. Call that a rocky road.

Similar to the merchants of old, the world of entrepreneurs and celebrities fits the role quite perfectly. You take on the risk, you leave the gated garden of the tech platform that would offer you comfort and safety. And if you're lucky enough, you get to build your own gated garden of influence, wealth, and prosperity under your own rules.

But. They don't get to rule until they amass enough to build their own system, which is a big "if" when the system they're challenging is built to pivot and adapt algorithmically to everyone's personal needs.

No, being a merchant wasn't freeing then, and being an entrepreneur won't be freeing under technofeudalism. The risks you have to incur, the heavy burden of maintaining your wealth, the constant feeling of not belonging with either villagers nor courtesans. No wonder the medieval merchants got bored.

I'd much rather become an errant knight.

The knightly tales we've all heard have romanticized what being an armor-wearing, lance-wielding, horse-riding adventurer would've actually been like. In real life, knights were more like today's citizen scientists, social media influencers, or small-town freelancers. They were skilled professionals who, through well-leveraged talent and resources (horses, armor, weapons, training), sold their services to whoever needed them most.

You'd roam around, play by the local lord's rules when necessary, spend the night at a local tavern, or set up a tent under the stars. Errant knights wielded their ability to navigate the system, solving the problems of cleric, villager, lord, or lady love equally.

They were the owners of their destiny and would adapt to the circumstances, knowing full well their entire lives could fit into a rucksack. They lived by their wits, their skills, and their reputation.

And hey, if you did a good enough job and sold out in the end, a local lord might reward you with a castle to call your own and a small fief to upkeep it.

Ain't that the technofeudalistic dream?

Maybe I’ve read too much Cervantes.