Patchwork: A Positive Vision (Part 1)

• The author acknowledges that recent blog posts have explored grim and controversial themes like Confederate fascism and Obama Derangement Syndrome.
• To pivot away from cynicism, the author introduces Patchwork as a positive, futuristic political system for the twenty-first century.
• It is claimed that implementing even a crude version of Patchwork would outperform and eventually destroy existing democratic regimes.
• Future generations are predicted to view the democratic era dismissively as a degenerate historical interregnum starting from 1688.
• The author diagnoses modern governance through a lens that equates declining authority and increasing bureaucracy with a terminal disease called leftism.
• The proposed cure for leftism is its complete excision from government influence, likened metaphorically to a dark counterpart of John Lennon's dream.

Leftism is cancer.

• The author contrasts moderate conservatism with full-bore reactionism, advocating for bold systemic transformation rather than minor reforms.
• The primary objective is to provoke progressives into abandoning their ideological delusions through unapologetically confrontational rhetoric.
• The Patchwork model proposes replacing failed historical governments with a global network of hundreds of thousands of sovereign mini-countries.
• These sovereign mini-countries would be governed as joint-stock corporations entirely without regard to resident opinions, relying purely on exit rather than voice.
• The historical inspiration for this political fragmentation is drawn from eras of intense division like ancient Greece and medieval Italy, where civilization flourished.

The design is all “exit,” no “voice.”

• Progressives and internationalists are criticized for favoring transnational governance and global-scale solutions over local action.
• The author expresses total dissatisfaction with the current state system and demands a complete institutional reboot.
• Because anarchy is deemed unviable, a new sovereign operating system called Patchwork is proposed as a replacement.
• Patchwork envisions a global network composed of a large number of small, independent, and corporately owned sovereign states.
• While historical models like fourteenth-century Italy were unstable, modern Patchwork requires a robust security design to prevent violence and feudal collapse.

This paradox is just one more stimulus for a complete replacement of the State. We have had enough.

• Reactionaries borrow political designs across time and space, often drawing inspiration from the elegant structures of the feudal era.
• A new concept called Patchwork will feel like the future rather than a mere return to the past.
• The author envisions hyper-safe, ultra-clean, and highly regulated future cities where crime and chaos are entirely eliminated.
• Present-day democratic cities fail to achieve this utopian efficiency because they are not governed in the proper interests of their inhabitants.
• Democratic governance has decayed significantly from its progressive origins into an enervating and contentless modern state.

The past — that is, the democratic past — will feel increasingly gray, weird, and scary.

• Early American progressivism attempted to solve every cultural and social deficiency through institutional founding and financial endowment.
• Historical progressive figures like Herbert Croly envisioned transforming American cities into beacons of high culture like Athens, Florence, and Paris.
• Modern reality starkly contrasts with these utopian aspirations, as major cities exhibit a fragmented mix of beauty, decay, and danger.
• Progressive discourse often masks the expansion of state power behind naive, appealing civic values of good government.
• While 1911 civic values serve as a better proxy for competitive governance, they still fail to protect citizens from urban chaos.

And then imagine trying to explain that despite all this, NYC looks more like a combination of Paris, East Berlin and Port au Prince.

• The central question surrounding the Patchwork system is whether its proposed authority structure will remain stable over time.
• Historical precedent, such as the Constitution of 1789, shows that designed governments often diverge rapidly from their intended operational envelope.
• Multipolar frameworks face severe risks of degeneration, including centralization, dominance by a single state, or catastrophic civil war.
• The Patchwork philosophy views security as a monotonic desideratum where there is no such thing as being too secure.
• It asserts that security and liberty do not conflict because private infringements on liberty far exceed official ones, and security always wins.
• Axiomatically, security and complexity are treated as opposites, requiring authority structures to be kept as simple as possible.

No cop ever stole my bicycle.

• Realms function as sovereign businesses or corporations that profit by maximizing the value of their owned real estate and territories.
• The administration of these realms mirrors the modern joint-stock corporation, owned by anonymous shareholders and run by a powerful chief executive.
• Joint-stock corporate design is presumed to maximize efficiency, outcompeting other management structures as proven by the history of the Industrial Revolution.
• Sovereign joint-stock companies differ from historical chartered companies and are best understood as a modernized, financially responsible version of absolute monarchy.
• Unlike historical monarchies plagued by weak rulers or democratic constitutional ceremonies, a joint-stock realm maintains strong, executive-led governance akin to a Fortune 500 company.

If there existed a more effective structure — if firms were more productive when managed not by a committee but by an executive, or by the collective decisions of their customers or employees, by separate legislative and judiciary branches, etc, etc — we would know.

• Most readers likely lack any real understanding of the intellectual case for divine-right monarchy.
• Sir Robert Filmer and his work Patriarcha represent the ultimate reactionary defense of absolute government.
• Justifying divine-right monarchy to modern atheists requires bridging a seemingly impossible ideological gap.
• A central thrust of European Christianity has historically been the quest to justify existing political structures.
• Filmer's ultimate argument boils down to the theological stance that whatever ruler holds power does so by divine will.

Filmer was the baddest-ass reactionary who ever lived.

• Accepting the status quo of arbitrary rule serves as a Schelling point for nonviolent social agreement.
• The relationship between a ruling realm and its territory functions fundamentally as a property right.
• Divided sovereignty and separation of powers are viewed as engineering errors that weaken governance.
• No sovereign can truly be subject to law, as the entity judging and enforcing the law ultimately holds supreme power.
• Unifying the chief executive, lawmaker, and justice is presented as a natural and elegant model of authority.

In reality, no sovereign can be subject to law. This is a political perpetual motion machine.

• Laws require a supreme power to enact them, meaning sovereigns in any system must inherently stand above the laws they create.
• The method by which a monarch acquires power is irrelevant compared to the actual exercise of supreme lawmaking authority.
• Historical precedents from Aristotle and Roman law confirm that a true king or sovereign prince is not bound by the laws.
• Because laws are silent and require interpretation, the lawmaker is most reasonably trusted with their application and adjudication.
• Modern corporate sovereigns and traditional realms operate identically, remaining unbound by the very rules they enforce on residents.

Besides, all laws are of themselves dumb, and some or other must be trusted with the application of them to particulars, by examining all circumstances, to pronounce when they are broken, or by whom.

• Patchwork realms enforce strict rule of law not from moral obligations, but purely for economic incentives.
• Property values drive the enforcement of fair and consistent laws because orderly real estate is significantly more valuable.
• A self-assessed property tax regime allows realms to efficiently collect revenue without intrusive government agencies.
• Residents sign a bilateral contract promising good behavior in exchange for fair treatment from the realm.
• Although citizens lack direct enforcement mechanisms, market reputation and the threat of emigration ensure realms maintain good customer service.

Real estate on which the rule of law prevails is much, much more valuable than real estate on which it doesn’t, and the value of a realm is the value of its real estate.

• A realm that unilaterally strips away the right of emigration effectively reduces its population to slavery, turning itself into a human plantation.
• The profit motive acts as a crucial deterrent against tyranny, as abusive states destroy their own tourism, real estate value, and worker productivity.
• Unlike tyrannies and mafia states where murder is systemic and subordinates constantly plot to kill the boss, monarchies maintain clearer successions.
• In a joint-stock realm, internal security is defined as protecting shareholder property against all threats, including the chief executive.
• Cryptographic chains of command and technological dependencies ensure that power ultimately remains with the shareholders rather than rogue security forces.

Ouch! Taste the pain, traitors.

• Exploring the governance goals of a hypothetical 21st-century corporate sovereign named Friscorp ruling San Francisco.
• Friscorp aims to transform the city into an expensive, culturally vibrant global hub resembling Paris, Monaco, and Babylon.
• Residency requirements dictate that inhabitants must not be dangerous and must be able to afford the high cost of living.
• Current residents who fail to meet financial or behavioral standards face displacement and demolition of their neighborhoods.
• The text acknowledges the unresolved humanitarian dilemma of where these displaced, unprofitable individuals, termed bezonians, will go.

Sell their slums out from under them, obviously; demo everything, spray for roaches, rodents and pit bulls, smooth the rubble out with a bulldozer or two, and possibly a little aerial bombing; erect new residential districts suitable for Russian oligarchs.

• The author apologizes for a previous grim and incendiary essay while acknowledging that the blog requires addressing its authoritarian political philosophy.
• First-time readers must be deprogrammed from standard political thinking to understand the unconventional perspective of UR.
• People typically ask what a government should do, whereas the correct and practical question is what a government will actually do.
• Democratic citizens mistakenly believe in the concept of limited government, relying on self-imposed rules to prevent overreach.
• True analysis reveals that limited government is an impossible perpetual-motion machine because final authority always rests with humans rather than rules.
• While the rule of law distinguishes certain governments, marketing it as an infinitely self-limiting mechanism is fundamentally fraudulent.

Swallowing the red pill, departing the Matrix and donning our alien-detecting Ray-Bans, we realize at once that no government can limit itself.

• Juridical supremacy functions as a corporate design where ultimate authority is placed in committees of procedural experts.
• While judicial supremacy can minimize personal graft, it remains vulnerable to becoming arbitrarily evil if led by corrupt judges.
• Comparing governance models like judicial supremacy and military dictatorship shows they are merely different tools, neither inherently superior or predictable.
• Invoking what a government should do relies on an ethereal democratic illusion, as no real external power exists to hold a sovereign government to its promises.
• Neocameralist realms structured as sovereign joint-stock companies replace moral demands with a profitable should driven by financial responsibility.
• Financially responsible organizations operate like a tight rope with only one efficient shape, avoiding the infinite ways wasteful organizations can fail.

By definition, they do not waste money. By definition, their irresponsible counterparts do, and by definition there are an infinite number of ways to waste money.

• Moral responsibility cannot be directly enforced by political structures, but financial responsibility can.
• Financial responsibility acts as a bridgeable raw material leading toward moral responsibility.
• A Patchwork realm uses a simplified corporate model with direct shareholder sovereignty and no board of directors.
• The governing figure is called a Delegate, who holds total sovereign power but can be replaced by proprietors at any time.
• Modern encryption technology and secret-sharing schemes make this fragile-looking sovereign design feasible.

If the Delegate turns on the proprietors, they may have to wait a day to authorize the replacement, and another day or two before the new Delegate can organize the forces needed to have her predecessor captured and shot.

• Modern cryptography enables new sovereign organizational structures, such as neocameralist sovereign corporations, which have no historical precedent.
• The sovereign corporation maintains its books in gold rather than fiat currency to ensure stability and reliable dividends for its proprietors.
• Proprietors are anonymous shareholders, though realms may restrict residents from holding shares to prevent conflicts of interest.
• The primary fiduciary responsibility of the Delegate is absolute security, as losing the territory renders the realm and its shares worthless.
• A realm must operate strictly as a business focused on maximizing return on investment to avoid corruption and deterioration.
• Good customer service and ethical conduct are essential business practices, akin to running a well-managed hotel.

If Delegate and proprietors alike somehow manage to forget this, in the long run their realm will deteriorate, develop red-giant syndrome, and become gigantic, corrupt and foul.

• Friscorp's proprietors profit by providing a pleasant, productive environment for resident hominids to prevent them from leaving.
• The Delegate exercises absolute, undivided sovereignty over San Francisco with invincible robot armies against which residents have no physical recourse.
• While the Delegate has the absolute power to exterminate or replace the city's population, economic profitability dictates their actions.
• Instead of physical force, residents rely on real economic incentives and formal covenants that guarantee mutual obligations.
• A detailed contract sets the rules for resident behavior and realm treatment, with conflicts resolved by appointed arbitrators and ultimately the Delegate.

Your residents are as ants in your kitchen. No combination of them can possibly oppose you.

• Realms establish order through legal systems, preferably pre-democratic common-law models predating the 20th century.
• Sovereign power is inherently asymmetric, allowing the realm to enforce promises while remaining legally immune to coercion.
• A sovereign realm must maintain its reputation by keeping promises, otherwise risking becoming an uninhabitable ruin.
• Residents must personally sign the social covenant or be represented by a responsible guardian who holds authority over them.
• The realm guarantees protection, indemnification against crime, and the right to depart with person and property.
• In exchange, subjects promise to keep the peace and take full responsibility for the actions of their dependents.

Congratulations on your new burned-out ruin. The views, at least, remain spectacular.

• Residents carry RFID IDs and undergo genotyping and iris-scanning, allowing comprehensive tracking through ubiquitous cameras and smart vehicles.
• The governance model eliminates traditional crime and security theater by treating dangerous individuals like loose animals.
• Seamless border crossings between sovereign patches are managed through automated vehicle tracking rather than physical checkpoints.
• The system represents a form of Orwellian omniscience and omnipotence without engaging in psychological manipulation or thought control.
• A significant unresolved challenge involves managing unproductive adults or wards of the realm who cannot earn a living or find a guardian.

Friscorp has no reason to tolerate the presence of dangerous or unidentified hominids at large in its city, any more than it would tolerate leopards on the loose.

• The author humorously considers turning societal liabilities into biodiesel before dismissing it as socially unacceptable.
• The stated goal is to achieve the practical outcome of mass murder—removing undesirables—without the moral stigma.
• Virtualization places unwanted individuals in solitary confinement with an immersive VR interface for a fulfilling imaginary life.
• This method allows for productive labor through telepresence while being significantly cheaper than traditional imprisonment.
• Before resorting to virtualization, individuals can be adopted and rehabilitated by private guardians or organizations.

A virtualized human is in permanent solitary confinement, waxed like a bee larva into a cell which is sealed except for emergencies.

• The concept of an entrepreneurial sovereign contrasts sharply with democratic philosophy yet offers a compelling alternative vision.
• Libertarian opposition to state sovereignty paradoxically contributes to the growth and complexity of modern big government.
• Ininefficiency in public institutions stems from a lack of financial responsibility rather than sovereignty itself.
• Democratic megastates are compared to cancer, suggesting that society needs a healthy sovereign rather than no government.
• The author views the blog as part of the entertainment industry, employing a deliberately neutral or acid tone rather than seeking mass political appeal.

Today’s democratic megastates are to healthy sovereigns as liver cancer is to liver.

• UR deliberately minimizes its audience size to maximize audience quality by appealing exclusively to the intellect.
• The text questions the foundational modern belief that constitutional democracy is the ultimate mechanism for responsible government.
• Constitutional democracy is provocatively compared to a parasite that must be surgically extracted from society's consciousness.
• The author advocates for a return to royalism, suggesting alternatives like restoring the King of Thailand or the Stuart lineage.
• As an ultra-modern alternative to old-fashioned royalism, the blog introduces neocameralism, where governments operate as sovereign joint-stock companies.

Here at UR, we see constitutional democracy as a sort of large hydatid cyst, cuddled gently in the skull alongside one’s actual neural tissue.

• The text contrasts the financial responsibility of joint-stock corporate government with the moral responsibility of constitutional democracy.
• The author acknowledges that replacing democratic systems with untested corporate governance is a dangerous and traumatic proposition.
• Constitutional democracies are described as morally driven, expanding bureaucracies operating on a principle of universal benevolence.
• Joint-stock sovereigns are portrayed as amoral, efficient revenue-extracting machines dedicated strictly to profit.
• Despite the harsh and unapologetic imagery of corporate exploitation, the author attempts to rationalize the philanthropy of such a city-state.

A joint-stock sovereign is a clean, lean and mean revenue-extracting machine.

• Sovereign institutions must rely on multiple independent safety mechanisms to prevent unacceptable outcomes.
• The outermost safety mechanism is public relations, as maintaining an image of benevolence is essential for a sovereign realm.
• Pure evil is generally not profitable once negative image effects and public relations costs are factored into the return on investment.
• Sane societies will naturally reject extreme abuses like rendering citizens into diesel or letting the unproductive starve.
• Private philanthropy serves as the next crucial safety barrier, historically functioning as a core obligation of the church before being largely absorbed by the state.

For example, we’ll be lucky if we can squeeze $25 worth of industrial fats out of Granny’s cadaver.

• The demand for charity can be measured against government tax levels, as citizens view the state as a sovereign charity.
• Historically, a tithe of ten percent was considered an ample donation for a civilized society to support the unfortunate.
• Modern governments extract significantly higher revenues than the traditional tithe to fund their extensive operations.
• Private charity offers advantages over state welfare by allowing providers to assume direct authority over dependents.
• Dependency on a charitable agency or guardian places individuals in a position legally comparable to children.
• Neocameralists argue that the democratic social welfare model is inefficient and easily improved.

The voluntary nature of the contact between provider and recipient frees the former to assume authority, informal or formal, over the latter.

• The text argues that people lack political wisdom and that the electoral component of government should be eliminated entirely.
• Public policy and budget allocations should be insulated from the contamination of democratic politics.
• Government spending allocations for various causes can be made constant, mirroring the steady outcomes of traditional budgeting.
• This restructuring transforms constitutional democracy into a neocameralist joint-stock company.
• Charitable and philanthropic funding, such as budgets for the NIH, would be converted into secure state shares providing constant dividends without red tape.

In fact, we have improved our constitutional democracy so completely that we have turned it into a neocameralist joint-stock company.

• Replacing state charity and entitlements with diversified financial endowments creates a Pareto optimization.
• Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare can be similarly transformed into secure payment streams.
• Funding public goods through allocated shares or bonds solves the problem of voluntary alms insufficiency.
• Imperium translates to supreme command or authority, representing sovereignty that must be above the law.
• The summum imperium, or power of final decision, resides in institutions like the Supreme Court or Politburo.

Sovereignty, as we saw last week, is not sovereignty unless it is above the law.

• Constitutional democracy fails to truly solve the ancient problem of who guards the guardians.
• Real power in any state is structured in layers of delegation, beginning with the military at level zero.
• The military holds the ultimate sovereignty because it can unilaterally reclaim power if it chooses to act.
• The electorate occupies level one as the ultimate civil authority because it can resist everyone except the military.
• A sufficiently motivated electorate could theoretically elect a dictator who would be immediately obeyed by Washington.

They would say: “duh, okay. We welcome our new green-beret overlords. Sure. Frankly, we were a little electioned-out, anyway.”

• Judges generally avoid making public policy, leaving those tasks to executive agencies while Congress shapes broader policies.
• Washington exhibits remarkable stability even when pursuing paths that appear counterproductive to outside observers.
• The electorate acts as the crucial hinge of power in the United States, dictating the actions of the permanent government.
• Voters approach the ballot box making an altruistic attempt to influence government policy direction.
• Few voters possess a true understanding of Washington's inner workings, maintaining only a dim grasp of the official story.

The attempt is altruistic because no voter seriously expects his or her vote to affect his or her life.

• Voters conceptualize their participation in democracy through three distinct modes: tribal, populist, and institutionalist.
• Tribal voters act on ethnic or familial identity to benefit their group, often serving as vote banks for dominant political players.
• Populist voters seek to compel the government to act based on tradition and personal experience, yet often harbor structural misconceptions about how government actually functions.
• Modern Washington is deliberately designed to resist populist politics and separate public policy from democratic influence.
• The historical progressive and New Deal programs largely succeeded in eliminating the threat of democracy from daily governance, mirroring the central administration seen in the EU.

The fact of the matter is that Washington as it exists today, 21st-century Washington, is designed to resist populist politics in roughly the same way that a lighthouse is designed to resist waves.

• American populism is rapidly fading in influence within a political system where politics itself is losing importance.
• While populist common sense provides a check on educated delusions, it lacks the necessary tradition and suffers from ideological manipulation.
• The American populist political structure inherently selects against organization, making the movement both undesirable and ineffective.
• Even when populists capture the presidency and Congress, they lack real authority over the institutionalist civil service and ultimately accomplish very little.
• Unaware of their structural powerlessness, populists enthusiastically participate in a political sham where they are always the suckers at the table.
• In contrast to populism, the ruling institutionalist class relies on the Cathedral—comprising universities and the press—to determine government policy.

Somehow no one has ever explained to Middle America that if you don’t know who the sucker at the table is, the sucker is you.

• Institutionalist voters passionately believe in democracy, but define it differently than populists.
• Democracy to institutionalists relies on an educated electorate guided by credentialed experts.
• Elected leaders function primarily as educational figures using the bully pulpit rather than mere managers.
• Populists serve as a perpetual bogeyman that drives institutionalist voters to the polls.
• Tribal voters offer guaranteed support in exchange for permanent government dependency.
• The institutionalist ruling network operates as a selective aristocracy known as the Cathedral, which lacks any clear mechanism of accountability.

However, there is just one little problem: the Cathedral is not responsible.

• Institutional power lacks any external checks and balances, allowing fields like economics to fail completely without accountability.
• Historical empires like the Roman, Qing, and British successfully produced periods of peace through centralized control.
• The modern theory of world peace descends from Kant and manifests as the Pax Americana.
• Despite preventing some carnage, the current global system is not becoming more harmonious or efficient over time.
• The existing world order exhibits rising entropy and a growing potential for catastrophic conflict rather than true stability.

Consider the possibility, for example, that the people we call “economists” in fact know nothing at all about economics.

• Systems must be designed for bipedal land apes rather than idealized angels.
• Kant argued that republican governments naturally prevent war because citizens must bear its costs.
• Non-republican rulers treat war lightly since they do not personally suffer its consequences.
• Kant assumed that ordinary voters would always act reasonably when given political power.
• Writing in 1795, Kant lacked historical examples of modern democracy to correct his assumptions.
• His idealized view of the People overlooked how actual democratic governance behaves in practice.

For the ruler is not a citizen, but the owner of the state, and does not lose a whit by the war, while he goes on enjoying the delights of his table or sport, or of his pleasure palaces and gala days.

• State power combined with public opinion creates vulnerable targets for malicious or sincere ruling oligarchies.
• True religions acting as parasites convince hosts to fund them while discrediting all competitors.
• Kantian republican federations empirically result in mega-states, massive civil wars, or corrupt bureaucratic jokes.
• Popular governments can produce far more irresponsible leadership than classical monarchies with their mild wars.
• The modern international community disguises Washington's hegemony and its network of client states as a federation of equals.

Such oligarchies come in two categories: conscious cults and conspiracies, in which at least some top echelons of believers is insincere and consciously malicious, and true religions, in which everyone can be sincere.

• Russia and China maintain sovereign independence while managing their imbalanced financial ties to the West and remaining generally submissive to the US.
• Iran, Syria, and Venezuela exist in a state of perpetual hostility that separates them from other nations but paradoxically undermines their true sovereignty.
• Many nominally independent foreign governments function in practice like locally-staffed branches of the US State Department.
• The official advisory role of US missions abroad contrasts sharply with the unequal influence they exert compared to foreign embassies in Washington.
• The blurred line between supervising and advising raises fundamental questions about whether Washington is actually running the world.

However, if you were to describe them as locally-staffed branches of the State Department, you would be also be grasping at a truth.

• The rhetoric of American leadership implies a distinct inequality in global relationships.
• Unequal relationships generally operate through two primary models: authority and dependence.
• Authority represents direct executive control and obedience, while dependence involves patronage and assistance.
• In typical scenarios, such as parenting or traditional alliances, dependence and authority go hand in hand.
• The Pax Americana presents an unusual dynamic where client states like Pakistan are dependent on Washington without being subject to its direct authority.

A holds authority over B if B must obey A’s instructions.

• American foreign policy fails to provide security or tangible benefits for its citizens.
• The pseudo-empire primarily benefits the Washington bureaucracy and foreign policy establishment.
• Client states suffer from degraded governance because they act as dependents rather than true sovereigns.
• Local civil servants resort to corruption since the state lacks genuine independent authority.
• Washington insiders are motivated by the psychological thrill of global influence and prestige.

Of course this applies only to a few people who work inside the Beltway, or who are influential enough in policy studies that their policies actually get adopted.

• American foreign policy relies on giving advice rather than exercising direct supervision over client states.
• Attempting to issue absolute orders to foreign governments usually increases recalcitrance and resistance.
• The State Department actively avoids transforming its advisory role into authoritative supervision to prevent military involvement.
• American voters place a high value on international public opinion and how the nation is perceived globally.
• Shaping foreign opinion serves to indirectly influence domestic political consensus and voter behavior within the United States.

Foreigners are people too, like to have their own power, and don’t like to be ordered around.

• Washington's foreign policy primarily functions as a self-sustaining mechanism to enrich and employ the domestic ruling class.
• Unlike historical empires that ruled conquered lands honestly, America maintains insidious client states plagued by profound fraud and incompetence.
• Global client states suffer from rampant graft, banditry, and failing infrastructure despite decades of supposed peace.
• The author's alternative reactionary theory defines peace strictly as security and order, forming an absolute good.
• Democratic conditioning ultimately rejects absolute order and total security because they fundamentally conflict with democratic systems.

In short, like most of what Washington is today: a self-licking ice-cream cone.

• Patchwork consists of rational absolute sovereigns managed entirely for financial benefit.
• Realms within this system maintain absolute internal security without slums, gangs, or politics.
• Administration is driven by a desire to produce return on equity, prioritizing profitable cooperation.
• Peace within Patchwork is achieved when every realm maintains total control over its designated patch.
• Stability between different realms is maintained through conventions rather than a centralized authority.

Society within a Patchwork realm has none of the running sores of the democratic era: there are no slums or dirty streets, no gangs, and no politics.

• The Patchwork system tolerates minor overreaches like global warming policies to maintain a peaceful, albeit imperfect, global order.
• The ultimate goal of the Patchwork model is total security, complete stability, and the complete elimination of war and traditional politics.
• Mergers into a single global state must be prevented through specific resident covenants to preserve independent ownership.
• Constructing rules for rational sovereigns is much easier than for irrational ones because deterrence consistently works among orderly entities.
• Predation is effectively discouraged through collective social disapproval and the threat of unprofitable military retaliation.

Ideally, politics is at a complete end, and war as a means of political endeavor.

• Cross-border conflict will cease as realms de-escalate armaments and rely on mutual deterrence and police forces.
• Complete de-escalation requires an entirely Patchwork world, as irrational external sovereigns remain unpredictable and underrable.
• Patchwork realms will maintain strict neutrality toward the outside world, echoing historical American foreign policy principles.
• Realms will prioritize self-defense, economic independence, balanced trade, and the absolute preservation of sovereignty.
• Despite democratic fears of global tyranny, the system is designed to ensure permanent world peace through extreme decentralization.

Just think of it as a cross between the Holy Alliance, the Hanseatic League, and the National Basketball Association — with all the advantages of each, and the downsides of none.

• The author diagnoses modern governance through a lens that equates declining authority and increasing bureaucracy with a terminal disease called leftism.

Leftism is cancer.

• These sovereign mini-countries would be governed as joint-stock corporations entirely without regard to resident opinions, relying purely on exit rather than voice.

The design is all “exit,” no “voice.”

• Patchwork envisions a global network composed of a large number of small, independent, and corporately owned sovereign states.

This paradox is just one more stimulus for a complete replacement of the State. We have had enough.

• A new concept called Patchwork will feel like the future rather than a mere return to the past.

The past — that is, the democratic past — will feel increasingly gray, weird, and scary.

• Modern reality starkly contrasts with these utopian aspirations, as major cities exhibit a fragmented mix of beauty, decay, and danger.

And then imagine trying to explain that despite all this, NYC looks more like a combination of Paris, East Berlin and Port au Prince.

• It asserts that security and liberty do not conflict because private infringements on liberty far exceed official ones, and security always wins.

No cop ever stole my bicycle.

• Joint-stock corporate design is presumed to maximize efficiency, outcompeting other management structures as proven by the history of the Industrial Revolution.

If there existed a more effective structure — if firms were more productive when managed not by a committee but by an executive, or by the collective decisions of their customers or employees, by separate legislative and judiciary branches, etc, etc — we would know.

• Sir Robert Filmer and his work Patriarcha represent the ultimate reactionary defense of absolute government.

Filmer was the baddest-ass reactionary who ever lived.

• No sovereign can truly be subject to law, as the entity judging and enforcing the law ultimately holds supreme power.

In reality, no sovereign can be subject to law. This is a political perpetual motion machine.

• Because laws are silent and require interpretation, the lawmaker is most reasonably trusted with their application and adjudication.

Besides, all laws are of themselves dumb, and some or other must be trusted with the application of them to particulars, by examining all circumstances, to pronounce when they are broken, or by whom.

• A self-assessed property tax regime allows realms to efficiently collect revenue without intrusive government agencies.

Real estate on which the rule of law prevails is much, much more valuable than real estate on which it doesn’t, and the value of a realm is the value of its real estate.

• In a joint-stock realm, internal security is defined as protecting shareholder property against all threats, including the chief executive.

Ouch! Taste the pain, traitors.

• The text acknowledges the unresolved humanitarian dilemma of where these displaced, unprofitable individuals, termed bezonians, will go.

Sell their slums out from under them, obviously; demo everything, spray for roaches, rodents and pit bulls, smooth the rubble out with a bulldozer or two, and possibly a little aerial bombing; erect new residential districts suitable for Russian oligarchs.

• True analysis reveals that limited government is an impossible perpetual-motion machine because final authority always rests with humans rather than rules.

Swallowing the red pill, departing the Matrix and donning our alien-detecting Ray-Bans, we realize at once that no government can limit itself.

• Financially responsible organizations operate like a tight rope with only one efficient shape, avoiding the infinite ways wasteful organizations can fail.

By definition, they do not waste money. By definition, their irresponsible counterparts do, and by definition there are an infinite number of ways to waste money.

• Modern encryption technology and secret-sharing schemes make this fragile-looking sovereign design feasible.

If the Delegate turns on the proprietors, they may have to wait a day to authorize the replacement, and another day or two before the new Delegate can organize the forces needed to have her predecessor captured and shot.

• A realm must operate strictly as a business focused on maximizing return on investment to avoid corruption and deterioration.

If Delegate and proprietors alike somehow manage to forget this, in the long run their realm will deteriorate, develop red-giant syndrome, and become gigantic, corrupt and foul.

• While the Delegate has the absolute power to exterminate or replace the city's population, economic profitability dictates their actions.

Your residents are as ants in your kitchen. No combination of them can possibly oppose you.

• A sovereign realm must maintain its reputation by keeping promises, otherwise risking becoming an uninhabitable ruin.

Congratulations on your new burned-out ruin. The views, at least, remain spectacular.

• The governance model eliminates traditional crime and security theater by treating dangerous individuals like loose animals.

Friscorp has no reason to tolerate the presence of dangerous or unidentified hominids at large in its city, any more than it would tolerate leopards on the loose.

• Virtualization places unwanted individuals in solitary confinement with an immersive VR interface for a fulfilling imaginary life.

A virtualized human is in permanent solitary confinement, waxed like a bee larva into a cell which is sealed except for emergencies.

• Democratic megastates are compared to cancer, suggesting that society needs a healthy sovereign rather than no government.

Today’s democratic megastates are to healthy sovereigns as liver cancer is to liver.

• Constitutional democracy is provocatively compared to a parasite that must be surgically extracted from society's consciousness.

Here at UR, we see constitutional democracy as a sort of large hydatid cyst, cuddled gently in the skull alongside one’s actual neural tissue.

• Joint-stock sovereigns are portrayed as amoral, efficient revenue-extracting machines dedicated strictly to profit.

A joint-stock sovereign is a clean, lean and mean revenue-extracting machine.

• Pure evil is generally not profitable once negative image effects and public relations costs are factored into the return on investment.

For example, we’ll be lucky if we can squeeze $25 worth of industrial fats out of Granny’s cadaver.

• Private charity offers advantages over state welfare by allowing providers to assume direct authority over dependents.

The voluntary nature of the contact between provider and recipient frees the former to assume authority, informal or formal, over the latter.

• This restructuring transforms constitutional democracy into a neocameralist joint-stock company.

In fact, we have improved our constitutional democracy so completely that we have turned it into a neocameralist joint-stock company.

• Imperium translates to supreme command or authority, representing sovereignty that must be above the law.

Sovereignty, as we saw last week, is not sovereignty unless it is above the law.

• The military holds the ultimate sovereignty because it can unilaterally reclaim power if it chooses to act.

They would say: “duh, okay. We welcome our new green-beret overlords. Sure. Frankly, we were a little electioned-out, anyway.”

• Voters approach the ballot box making an altruistic attempt to influence government policy direction.

The attempt is altruistic because no voter seriously expects his or her vote to affect his or her life.

• Modern Washington is deliberately designed to resist populist politics and separate public policy from democratic influence.

The fact of the matter is that Washington as it exists today, 21st-century Washington, is designed to resist populist politics in roughly the same way that a lighthouse is designed to resist waves.

• Unaware of their structural powerlessness, populists enthusiastically participate in a political sham where they are always the suckers at the table.

Somehow no one has ever explained to Middle America that if you don’t know who the sucker at the table is, the sucker is you.

• The institutionalist ruling network operates as a selective aristocracy known as the Cathedral, which lacks any clear mechanism of accountability.

However, there is just one little problem: the Cathedral is not responsible.

• Institutional power lacks any external checks and balances, allowing fields like economics to fail completely without accountability.

Consider the possibility, for example, that the people we call “economists” in fact know nothing at all about economics.

• Non-republican rulers treat war lightly since they do not personally suffer its consequences.

For the ruler is not a citizen, but the owner of the state, and does not lose a whit by the war, while he goes on enjoying the delights of his table or sport, or of his pleasure palaces and gala days.

• True religions acting as parasites convince hosts to fund them while discrediting all competitors.

Such oligarchies come in two categories: conscious cults and conspiracies, in which at least some top echelons of believers is insincere and consciously malicious, and true religions, in which everyone can be sincere.

• Many nominally independent foreign governments function in practice like locally-staffed branches of the US State Department.

However, if you were to describe them as locally-staffed branches of the State Department, you would be also be grasping at a truth.

• The Pax Americana presents an unusual dynamic where client states like Pakistan are dependent on Washington without being subject to its direct authority.

A holds authority over B if B must obey A’s instructions.

• Washington insiders are motivated by the psychological thrill of global influence and prestige.

Of course this applies only to a few people who work inside the Beltway, or who are influential enough in policy studies that their policies actually get adopted.

• Shaping foreign opinion serves to indirectly influence domestic political consensus and voter behavior within the United States.

Foreigners are people too, like to have their own power, and don’t like to be ordered around.

• Washington's foreign policy primarily functions as a self-sustaining mechanism to enrich and employ the domestic ruling class.

In short, like most of what Washington is today: a self-licking ice-cream cone.

• Administration is driven by a desire to produce return on equity, prioritizing profitable cooperation.

Society within a Patchwork realm has none of the running sores of the democratic era: there are no slums or dirty streets, no gangs, and no politics.

• The ultimate goal of the Patchwork model is total security, complete stability, and the complete elimination of war and traditional politics.

Ideally, politics is at a complete end, and war as a means of political endeavor.

• Despite democratic fears of global tyranny, the system is designed to ensure permanent world peace through extreme decentralization.

Just think of it as a cross between the Holy Alliance, the Hanseatic League, and the National Basketball Association — with all the advantages of each, and the downsides of none.