Accept Your Decentralized Overlords

05/08/2018 11:14

by Chris Campbell


Talks of “decartelization” of big corporations, like Amazon, for example, is seen as economically progressive by the mainstream politicos.

To them, it makes perfect sense that we would need to unravel the great tyranny of products and services.  And yet, those who call for the decartelization of large and powerful nation-states (or supranational states) are deemed by the same flock as “reactionaries” … or “backwards” … against progress.

Why? Because, in the current paradigm of modern democracy, power is a fixed pie. Peter must take from Paul in order to thrive. And government is the great doler. Thing is, modern democratic states have a terrible track record of addressing large problems — resorting to kicking the proverbial can down the road for someone else to fix.  Meanwhile, new layers of bureaucracy are caked on top of old ones. (It is easier to take than create.)


This dysfunctional political bureaucracy naturally places politics at center stage of everything — and, for someone who wants to rise to the top, the only way to thrive is to be a better politician. The objective, then, is to maximize votes. Not solve problems. And, for the underlings, those who have no choice but to participate, the only objective is to amass some of that power for themselves — to impose their personal objectives on others (by force) and keep from being imposed on.

In such an environment, the overall time preference is high. Individuals, especially those in the higher rungs, care more about today than they do ten years from now. They do not feel they have the luxury of delaying gratification. In the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment, they are all the kids who eat the marshmallow.

And, in the armor of the status quo exists a fatal chink — the future.   Politicos always fail to clearly see the real potential impact of any given technology. Not just its impact, either, but how quickly it can take effect. This is nothing new. For example, in 1878, the British parliamentary committee said Thomas Edison’s incandescent lamp was “good enough for our transatlantic friends … but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men”.

And, of course, in the ‘90s, establishment lackey Paul Krugman famously said the Internet would have no larger impact on society than the simple fax machine. Instead, the Internet gave us an infrastructure that, increasingly, turns ideas, rather than resources, into the greatest source of wealth.  And, on top of this great digital mezzanine, a new, decentralized infrastructure is emerging.

Take, for example, OpenBazaar, a decentralized marketplace.

– There are no fees to use the platform.
– There’s no central authority collecting data.
– There’s no central authority to take down a store or force terms and conditions
– Users have total, 100% control of their experience 

Each individual is in control. Ownership is inherently sovereign.

I, for one, look forward to our potential decentralized overlords.

Until tomorrow,


This article is published under a Creative Commons License Here.