I’m so conflicted - there is a paradox here. What you’re proposing, these tools against tyranny, can also backfire and fragment power in ways that make states vulnerable to private domination… especially from billionaires with tech libertarian ambitions of reshaping governance.
What additional steps do the states need to take to protect against walking right into the so called network state..?
It seems like there is no way for the tech bros to lose here.
Maybe it’s just time to cut our losses and move to Antarctica.
WellAreWe, your instincts are right, but we’re already past the point of speculation—this isn’t just a theoretical risk anymore.
A self-professed billionaire is now president. A centibillionaire—the richest man on Earth—is effectively running federal infrastructure. And the same Peter Thiel-backed network that paved the way for this outcome is already working to entrench it.
This is what happens when a system never bothered to place guardrails around moneyed power. The American presidency was always vulnerable to takeover by billionaires, but like death, its inevitability seemed far off—until it wasn’t.
* Bloomberg made a serious bid at outright buying the Democratic nomination in 2020.
* Zuckerberg was actively setting the stage for a run before media scrutiny derailed him by sheer luck.
* And now, billionaire control of government isn’t an exception—it’s the new normal.
—————————————————————————————————-
Radical Federalism Doesn’t Stop at the State—It Descends to Cities
—————————————————————————————————-
For years, the fight for state autonomy has been framed as resistance against federal overreach. That’s still true. But now there’s a second front opening: making sure state independence doesn’t turn into corporate capture.
Decentralization, done right, is a safeguard against billionaire dominance. Done carelessly, it can create new vulnerabilities. That’s why Radical Federalism can’t stop at the state level. It has to descend to cities, counties, and municipalities—creating layers of power distribution that no single entity, public or private, can easily capture.
—————————————————————————————————-
Why Local Power is the Best Defense Against Megawealth Capture
—————————————————————————————————-
When governance is highly centralized—whether at the federal or state level—it’s easier for billionaires to buy influence at the top and impose control downward. But when power is layered and decentralized, it becomes much harder for wealth to concentrate its influence in any one place.
Some approaches states and cities need to consider:
1. Sortition-based local governance—randomly selected citizen panels overseeing major decisions to prevent elite capture.
2. Hard wealth caps on political influence—strict limits on lobbying, PACs, and direct political donations.
3. Public banking & sovereign wealth funds—municipal and state-run financial institutions to counter corporate monopolization of credit.
4. Worker and stakeholder governance—requiring major employers to include workers and local representatives in decision-making.
5. Multi-layered economic autonomy—cities forming regional economic compacts that keep wealth circulation local and resilient.
And we have further thoughts on this planned for the future.
The states are one layer of defense. Cities are the next.
—————————————————————————————————-
The Next Battle: How States and Cities Can Resist Corporate Capture
—————————————————————————————————-
The world’s wealthiest individuals aren’t interested in democracy beyond what they can extract from it. That means states and cities have to be proactive—not just in cutting ties with Washington, but in making sure they don’t become wholly-owned subsidiaries of billionaire overlords.
There are moves states and cities can make to avoid this. But we’ll start laying some of that groundwork tomorrow.
For now, what matters is understanding that this fight is already here.
—————————————————————————————————-
No More “Too Early”
—————————————————————————————————-
This California piece didn’t hit the way some of my others have—maybe it’s too early for readers to get into the weeds for specific states. But billionaire control isn’t waiting for public consciousness to catch up.
I was set to publish a piece tomorrow on Radical Federalism for Massachusetts, but your comment has me thinking. I have some pieces in the backlog that lay the groundwork for what might address these concerns more directly—and we can only find our way forward through dialogue like this.
P.S. And apologies in advance—I share your concerns about “tech bros.” That said, tomorrow’s piece was planned as part of a broader series incorporating contributions from the technocrats whose expertise complements our federalist approach.
And actually, the analogy we’ll be making in tomorrow’s piece? That one’s all mine. I’ll admit, I’m a little proud of it—but they say "kill your darlings", so we’ll have to see.
I’m so conflicted - there is a paradox here. What you’re proposing, these tools against tyranny, can also backfire and fragment power in ways that make states vulnerable to private domination… especially from billionaires with tech libertarian ambitions of reshaping governance.
What additional steps do the states need to take to protect against walking right into the so called network state..?
It seems like there is no way for the tech bros to lose here.
Maybe it’s just time to cut our losses and move to Antarctica.
WellAreWe, your instincts are right, but we’re already past the point of speculation—this isn’t just a theoretical risk anymore.
A self-professed billionaire is now president. A centibillionaire—the richest man on Earth—is effectively running federal infrastructure. And the same Peter Thiel-backed network that paved the way for this outcome is already working to entrench it.
This is what happens when a system never bothered to place guardrails around moneyed power. The American presidency was always vulnerable to takeover by billionaires, but like death, its inevitability seemed far off—until it wasn’t.
* Bloomberg made a serious bid at outright buying the Democratic nomination in 2020.
* Zuckerberg was actively setting the stage for a run before media scrutiny derailed him by sheer luck.
* And now, billionaire control of government isn’t an exception—it’s the new normal.
—————————————————————————————————-
Radical Federalism Doesn’t Stop at the State—It Descends to Cities
—————————————————————————————————-
For years, the fight for state autonomy has been framed as resistance against federal overreach. That’s still true. But now there’s a second front opening: making sure state independence doesn’t turn into corporate capture.
Decentralization, done right, is a safeguard against billionaire dominance. Done carelessly, it can create new vulnerabilities. That’s why Radical Federalism can’t stop at the state level. It has to descend to cities, counties, and municipalities—creating layers of power distribution that no single entity, public or private, can easily capture.
—————————————————————————————————-
Why Local Power is the Best Defense Against Megawealth Capture
—————————————————————————————————-
When governance is highly centralized—whether at the federal or state level—it’s easier for billionaires to buy influence at the top and impose control downward. But when power is layered and decentralized, it becomes much harder for wealth to concentrate its influence in any one place.
Some approaches states and cities need to consider:
1. Sortition-based local governance—randomly selected citizen panels overseeing major decisions to prevent elite capture.
2. Hard wealth caps on political influence—strict limits on lobbying, PACs, and direct political donations.
3. Public banking & sovereign wealth funds—municipal and state-run financial institutions to counter corporate monopolization of credit.
4. Worker and stakeholder governance—requiring major employers to include workers and local representatives in decision-making.
5. Multi-layered economic autonomy—cities forming regional economic compacts that keep wealth circulation local and resilient.
And we have further thoughts on this planned for the future.
The states are one layer of defense. Cities are the next.
—————————————————————————————————-
The Next Battle: How States and Cities Can Resist Corporate Capture
—————————————————————————————————-
The world’s wealthiest individuals aren’t interested in democracy beyond what they can extract from it. That means states and cities have to be proactive—not just in cutting ties with Washington, but in making sure they don’t become wholly-owned subsidiaries of billionaire overlords.
There are moves states and cities can make to avoid this. But we’ll start laying some of that groundwork tomorrow.
For now, what matters is understanding that this fight is already here.
—————————————————————————————————-
No More “Too Early”
—————————————————————————————————-
This California piece didn’t hit the way some of my others have—maybe it’s too early for readers to get into the weeds for specific states. But billionaire control isn’t waiting for public consciousness to catch up.
I was set to publish a piece tomorrow on Radical Federalism for Massachusetts, but your comment has me thinking. I have some pieces in the backlog that lay the groundwork for what might address these concerns more directly—and we can only find our way forward through dialogue like this.
Stay tuned.
P.S. And apologies in advance—I share your concerns about “tech bros.” That said, tomorrow’s piece was planned as part of a broader series incorporating contributions from the technocrats whose expertise complements our federalist approach.
And actually, the analogy we’ll be making in tomorrow’s piece? That one’s all mine. I’ll admit, I’m a little proud of it—but they say "kill your darlings", so we’ll have to see.