The Network State in One FAQ

The first edition of The Network State started a conversation that became a global movement. But with every new idea comes a flood of questions, objections, and misconceptions-each colored by the worldview of the critic. Here, we answer the most common questions and criticisms, grouping them by ideological perspective: from the left, from the right, and from libertarians. Finally, we include practical questions from builders and founders.

FAQ for the Left: Consent, Democracy, and Equity

"Democracy is about self-determination: who sets the boundary of a community? If I do not consent to be part of your community, why should I be forced to stay?"

Isn't this undemocratic, even authoritarian?

Network states begin with explicit consent. Membership is voluntary-opt-in, not inherited or coerced. If democracy means self-determination, then it is fundamentally about who has the right to define the boundaries of a polity. Should the consent of the governed matter, or should people be forced into political unions they no longer want? In the network state, consent is not just a slogan. If you don't want to be part of a network state, you can simply leave. This is a more effective democracy than the legacy 51--49 model: unanimous, continuous, and explicit.

Isn't this just a rebrand of failed ideas like seasteading or charter cities?

The network state is a deliberate response to what didn't work in earlier models. Seasteading and charter cities failed, in part, because they treated territory as primary-pouring capital into empty land or remote locations before a true community existed, only to discover that social cohesion, legitimacy, and day-to-day operations were far harder to engineer than concrete and steel. By contrast, network states start with a real, aligned digital community. But even once you have that, the next lesson is practical: where you land matters. Rather than fighting entrenched interests in legacy cities, or overreaching for utopian blank slates, network states target distressed real estate-places that have existing infrastructure but have been neglected, depopulated, or abandoned by the previous order. This allows the community to focus its energy on revitalization and innovation, rather than on raw construction or political resistance.

Is this just neo-colonialism or elite enclaves for techies?

This is not about extracting value or building gated fortresses for the wealthy. The best sites for network states are regions left behind, often ignored or dismissed by legacy states. We do not propose taking what is already thriving; we propose reviving what is broken. And because network states are both digital and physical, they are open to anyone-local or global-who wants to contribute. The internet ends the old dichotomy between "insider" and "outsider." Value flows to those who show up to build.

Will network states worsen inequality, serve only the wealthy, or enable discrimination?

It's a valid concern: many past experiments in new governance became little more than enclaves for the affluent, or ended up excluding outsiders. The network state model is designed to counteract that. First, by beginning with a digital-first approach, anyone-regardless of wealth or location-can participate, contribute, and even lead. The process is transparent by default, with on-chain records of governance and funding. This visibility makes exclusion, discrimination, or rent-seeking far harder to hide or perpetuate. Second, by focusing on distressed real estate, network states unlock opportunity in places long neglected by the old order, creating jobs and value where there was none, not simply pricing out locals. And finally, the network state model is forkable and reproducible: if a given community ever becomes exclusionary or misaligned with its founding values, members can exit, start anew, or compete in the open marketplace of network societies. In this sense, network states turn governance from a monopoly into a competitive landscape-one where diversity and opportunity expand, not contract.

Aren't you ignoring public infrastructure, healthcare, policing, and other social needs?

The legacy critique assumes we are starting from a blank slate, but the network state deliberately starts where infrastructure already exists but is underused-distressed real estate. Rather than reinventing everything, the first step is to upgrade, not rebuild. Early network states may rely on existing public services and law enforcement, then iterate and improve as the community grows. Over time, new models for healthcare, security, and welfare can be tested-public, private, or hybrid-but the focus is pragmatic, not utopian.

FAQ for the Right: Patriotism, Exit, and Legacy

"America is a nation built on exit. Every group that came here left somewhere else, seeking a better deal for themselves and their children."

Aren't you undermining loyalty, duty, and the nation-state?

Network states are the modern heirs to the American founding. America was built by those who left: Puritans leaving England, Irish leaving famine, Jews leaving persecution, Chinese and Indians seeking opportunity. Every American-except for Native and African Americans-descends from people who chose exit. Did they betray their homelands, or did they choose a better future for themselves and their children? The network state updates this core logic of Americanism-exit plus build-for the cloud age. It is not a betrayal of loyalty but the highest form of civic innovation.

Is this just "globalism" that hollows out countries and communities?

Globalism implies rootlessness, a world of tourists and speculators. The network state is not rootless-it is rooted in a new place, one that was neglected by the old order. Rather than hollowing out, it fills in; rather than destroying, it rebuilds. New communities can be local in action, even if global in membership. The ultimate test is: who shows up and stays to build, not just who logs in.

When the going gets tough, will members just leave?

The right to exit is absolute, but so is the value of commitment. Network states select for the kinds of people who are willing to invest, to pioneer, to solve real problems in tough places. The tourists and speculators won't last. The founders will. The model is self-selecting: only those willing to endure the frontier will stay.

What about religion, tradition, and cultural heritage?

Network states are not blank slates; they are vessels for living traditions, ethical codes, and cultural identities. The structure is modular. A network state can be built around religious values, philosophical principles, or even ancient languages. Instead of flattening diversity, the model multiplies it-one network state for every imaginable creed.

How is social cohesion achieved with niche or micro-identities?

Deep cohesion does not require total uniformity. Network states start with a "moral innovation"-a sharp, shared purpose-but always leave room for pluralism. Members can leave, fork, or found something new. Loyalty is earned by results, not imposed by fiat.

Isn't fragmentation dangerous-will it lead to endless secession and chaos?

Fragmentation is a risk, but so is enforced unity. Every successful country, faith, and movement began as a minority-sometimes violently opposed, sometimes just outvoted. The key question is not whether splits occur, but whether they are peaceful, voluntary, and generative. Without the option to exit, dissent festers into dysfunction. With it, peaceful pluralism becomes possible.

FAQ for Libertarians: Sovereign Individuals and the Limits of the Digital

"The left wants power over you; the libertarian wants no one to have power. But both must reckon with the physical world."

Why do we need any state at all? Why not just sovereign individuals and DAOs?

For some, pure sovereign individualism is the dream-no ties, no taxes, no state. But even the most committed libertarian depends on others for food, shelter, infrastructure, and even meaning. Steve Jobs didn't build his own furniture. Human flourishing is social. The point is not to abolish the collective but to unbundle coercion from coordination. The network state is what happens when you let individuals freely associate, then re-bundle as needed. It is voluntary, opt-in, exit-friendly.

Why rely on territory at all-can't everything be digital?

A purely digital life is possible, but most people want-or need-a place to live, a space to gather, a site to build. The internet let us unbundle the nation-state; the network state lets us re-bundle it, on our own terms. Food, energy, and security are still physical. To ignore this is to confuse the map for the territory.

Isn't this just another power structure?

Every collective is a power structure. The difference is consent. Network states eliminate inherited power and replace it with voluntary, explicit association. Power becomes fluid, not fossilized. If you dislike the leadership, you leave-no revolution required.

Doesn't it lead to cultism and groupthink?

The answer to groupthink is the right of exit. No one is forced to join; no one is forced to stay. Exit keeps leaders accountable and communities sane. In a world of network states, pluralism is not just tolerated but engineered. If you dislike a group's values, you leave and join-or found-another. The safety valve is built in.

FAQ for Builders and Founders: Practical Implementation

"The network state is not just an ideology; it's a playbook for real-world execution, with distressed real estate as the new frontier."

What are the concrete steps to launch a network state?

Start with an online community, united by a clear mission-a "moral innovation." Run real governance experiments: on-chain voting, transparent census, shared reputation. Hold pop-ups and conferences to test your alignment in the real world. Only then, raise funds and acquire territory-focusing on distressed real estate that is cheap, editable, and underused. Build up, not from scratch. Iterate from temporary presence to permanent community.

Isn't this all too idealistic and impractical?

The network state is a practical response to the sclerosis of the old system. It is not utopia; it is a new option. It creates space for experimentation, for building where the legacy world can't or won't. The goal isn't to solve every problem overnight, but to unlock progress again.

What about legal frameworks and dispute resolution?

This is one of the biggest practical questions, and the answer is not to pretend legacy systems have a monopoly on fairness or effectiveness. In fact, most people only interact with the legal system as a source of frustration: it's expensive, slow, and often inaccessible to ordinary citizens. Network states offer a different path. For everything that can be precisely defined-property rights, simple contracts, group membership-smart contracts and cryptographic proofs automate enforcement and make outcomes verifiable. But not all justice fits into code, so network states deliberately set aside space to experiment: with private arbitration, transparent mediation, elected or rotating judges, even entirely new models like "on-chain juries" or crowdsourced justice. Crucially, every dispute system is open to forking, auditing, and improvement, rather than being locked in by history or special interests. The ambition isn't to perfect justice overnight, but to make legal processes transparent, competitive, and constantly evolving-turning law from a black box into open code.

Where are the success stories?

Since the first edition, hundreds of startup societies have formed around the world, testing every phase of the playbook. This is a generational project: Singapore, Dubai, and Israel - some of the most successful states today - were all startups once. The signs are clear-membership growth, land acquisition, new experiments. The movement is underway.

How do network states handle financing, recognition, and scaling?

Network states invert the traditional model of both nation-building and startup scaling. Instead of first seeking permission from legacy authorities, they begin by building legitimacy from the bottom up: with transparent on-chain funding, open census data, and auditable governance visible to anyone in the world. Financing comes from aligned communities-sometimes hundreds, sometimes thousands-pooling capital digitally and tracking every transaction in real time, creating a level of accountability that legacy institutions can't match. Recognition isn't the first hurdle-it's the last. Just as startups demonstrate traction before listing on the stock market, network states prove their viability with actual residents, land, and economic activity before seeking formal diplomatic status. In this model, scaling is not about grand announcements or empty declarations, but about steadily accumulating evidence: more members, more territory, more transactions, and eventually, more credibility in the eyes of both citizens and the international system. The process is gradual, meritocratic, and-crucially-public. Anyone can inspect the books; anyone can see the census. In a sense, the network state is "recognized" first by its people, then by the world.