First Principles, the State of Nature, and Effective Accountability
A new principle for driving innovation while preserving justice.
I recently went down the Network State rabbit hole.
As someone with a cynical worldview (empirically borne, but cynical nonetheless), the trip raised my blood pressure.
I couldn’t get past the implausibility of such a state receiving diplomatic recognition or finding a means of protecting itself against hostile threats, both domestic and abroad.
After a bit of reflection, I decided to drop the bone because I realized that the Network State milieu attracts dreamers, and the voice of a hater would ring hollow. No one likes a hater in a space built to incubate dreamers.
It’s trite to say, but the tech industry as a whole attracts dreamers—some who actually thrive off critics questioning their talents or the viability of their dreams.
So I thought a bit deeper, and I realized that part of the reason I was intellectually attracted to the Network State concept was that it’s a paradigm case for the wider conflict between the tech ethos and the more thoughtful sides of the professional managerial elite. First principles thinking versus state of nature thinking.
If you believe in first principles thinking, Network States may represent an inevitable step in human evolution toward a future of intergalactic abundance for organic and inorganic consciences alike.
If you believe in state of nature thinking, Network States are a laughable concept likely to devolve into a circus of scandal and violence.
Understanding the difference between these two frameworks is key to understanding the struggle between legacy political institutions and emergent technology-driven networks. Mastery of both is needed to innovate within this conflict, without crashing on the Charybdis of legacy political institution unimaginativeness or the Scylla of the tech elite’s naivety and arrogance.
State of nature thinking
State of nature thinking starts with the premise that anarchy leads to chaos. Without governance, societies fall into unproductive conflict and disorder—what Hobbes described as “nasty, brutish, and short.” Human societies seek to escape this by agreeing on institutions that provide order.
Initially, this perspective focused on security. Hobbes argued that without a strong authority, life would be violent and solitary, and governance’s primary goal was to prevent mutual destruction. Over time, the focus expanded to include economic justice, recognizing that stability also requires addressing inequalities in wealth and opportunity. Justice, then, is not only about survival but about systems that people perceive as fair.
The challenge is reaching a set of principles that parties with different beliefs and interests would agree to.
The key insight of state of nature thinking is that justice cannot be derived in the abstract. It is not an optimal solution that can be deduced from first principles. Justice is created through collective agreement. Institutions are only seen as just when they reflect the consent of the governed. Without that agreement, systems lose legitimacy, and people will defect, undermining the order those institutions seek to preserve.
In this framework, justice is not a platonic ideal. It is rooted in the practical consent of those living under it and expressed through axiomatic principles.
Take John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
The Difference Principle
John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, emphasizes fairness. He introduces the Difference Principle, suggesting that inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged. Rawls assumes that rational individuals, unaware of their own social positions, would choose systems that protect the worst off.
This isn't about enforcing extreme equality but about mitigating severe disparities while allowing for growth and innovation. Success should be permitted if it raises the baseline for those with the least power.
The Principle of Non-Interference
Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, advocates for a minimal state focused on protecting individuals and property.
He argues for maximizing individual freedom, believing that rational actors prefer systems minimizing interference and maximizing personal agency. The state's role isn't to redistribute wealth or enforce social fairness but to prevent harm and uphold voluntary agreements.
While appealing to libertarians and tech innovators, Nozick's approach can overlook the need for institutional accountability. In a decentralized system like a Network State, significant inequalities can emerge quickly. Without institutions to enforce fairness or provide recourse, individuals may become vulnerable to exploitation or powerless to change their circumstances.
First Principles Thinking
First principles thinking reduces complex systems to their most basic elements. Instead of bounding accepted solutions by accepted wisdom about what’s possible, what people will accept, etc it seeks to solve problems from an imagined blank slate.
The argument is that current institutions—governments, corporations, regulatory bodies—are weighed down by compromises and outdated assumptions. By stripping these away, we can rebuild based on fundamental truths.
Elon Musk applied this approach to space travel by asking, "What is physically possible?" rather than following NASA's incremental methods. Similarly, applying first principles to governance involves questioning: What's the minimum viable structure needed to maintain order and accountability in society?
This approach can lead to innovation unencumbered by tradition — what can be unburdened by what has been.
But without careful consideration of accountability, such innovation can falter. Systems built on first principles risk becoming detached from the social realities they're meant to serve. Ignoring complexities like human behavior and the stabilizing role of longstanding institutions can result in breakdowns of governance, oversight, and justice.
Towards New Principles of Justice
As technology advances and abundance becomes more attainable, concerns shift from scarcity to inequality and insecurity. In a world where resources are plentiful but unevenly distributed, accountability becomes essential for social stability.
Traditional states centralize power, offering checks and balances through representation—but often only in theory. These systems can give the illusion of accountability without delivering genuine representation. Decentralized organizations claim to empower users but are typically dominated by a few, limiting actual participation. Tech companies promise transparency yet operate with opaque governance structures. While first principles thinking advocates for new systems, these must address a key issue: without accountability, people can't determine for themselves the acceptable balance between innovation and stability.
Managing the risks of inequality in a decentralized system requires devolving power to the point where individuals can hold actors accountable quickly and directly. Smaller entities are easier to oversee than larger ones. By creating technological institutions that enable more responsive governance pathways, we allow people to decide how much instability or disruption is justified for desired outcomes. Accountability leads to legitimacy, providing a solid foundation for innovation rooted in first principles
.
The Principle of Effective Accountability
Traditional structures of accountability no longer apply effectively in these contexts, and power often accumulates unchecked. The question isn’t how to impose old models on new systems but how to design mechanisms of accountability that prevent the concentration of power without oversight.
A potential solution for governing technological innovation in this emerging state of nature favors what I call effective accountability.
By effective accountability, I mean systems to ensure that two sets of people have a realistic and rapid means of holding innovators accountable: the people most knowledgeable about the innovation and those with the most skin in the game for the innovation.
So what does effective accountability look like in terms of an axiomatic principle?
Technological innovation should be bounded in a way that ensures power is distributed to the smallest competent unit where it can be effectively managed and restrained.
This principle does not prescribe a specific governance structure; it requires that both power and technological control, whatever their form, be answerable to those impacted by their use.
Put differently—technology should be permitted to advance until the creators or distributors of that technology—people, companies, industries—can no longer be held accountable in a meaningful way. If they can’t, those companies should be broken up into smaller, accountable units that can adapt and remain legitimate without the drag of centralized control.
In practice, the most obvious application of this principle would be breaking up large tech monopolies.
Another application of the principle might involve creating pathways for governing technical innovation that sidestep sluggish and unrepresentative institutions—such as having rocket scientists vote on when Starship can launch instead of relying on the FAA.
Or imagine city planners and Uber drivers directly voting on ride-share regulation, bypassing slow and costly state referendums.
This approach ensures that decisions are made by those with the knowledge and stakes, providing a model where accountability scales as innovation scales.
Effective accountability a practical compromise between State of Nature thinking and First Principles thinking.
It addresses the need for fairness without rigid frameworks, ensuring that any emerging power structures remain accountable to those affected.
Beyond innovation in the material world — longevity, economic justice, etc — technology has the potential of creating new systems of representation that are more responsive than traditional institutions.
Legacy systems often offer only the appearance of accountability, while power remains concentrated and difficult to challenge.
Tech systems, if designed with accountability at their core, can create parallel structures that coexist with or replace traditional models. However, accountability — not just theoretical accountability, but accountability to all affected parties — must be embedded from the start.
The principle of devolution of accountability offers a framework for designing these systems, systems of frictionless accountability..
It ensures that power is accountable at every level, without mandating a particular governance structure or resource distribution method. This flexibility allows for responsiveness and maintains legitimacy through representation.
In a future driven by first principles thinking, devolving power becomes essential. It allows individuals to hold systems accountable directly, fostering an environment where innovation and accountability reinforce each other.
Mechanisms for swift accountability empower people to shape the systems they participate in. Smaller, more accountable units are easier to oversee, allowing for effective balancing of innovation and stability. This accountability generates legitimacy, which is crucial for any system aiming to operate on first principles.
Without devolving power to levels where accountability can function effectively, tech’s experiments risk replicating the failures of current systems: concentrated power, unrepresentative leadership, and eventual instability.
The principle of devolution provides the structure needed to avoid these pitfalls, ensuring governance systems remain adaptable, responsive, and legitimate.
An Experiment
All of this is, of course, purely hypothetical. So in Part II of this series I’m going to design an experiment for simulating what set of principles rational agents would agree upon in a reimagined state of nature on the cusp of abundance rather than anarchy.
Interested in following along? Subscribe below.