Blockchains are the Lego of crypto-finance and crypto-governance: they are a very effective tool for implementing transparent in-protocol rules to govern common resources, assets and incentives.

But we also need to go a level deeper. Blockchains and network states have the shared property that they are both trying to "create a new root". 

Next, we get Balaji's overview of the political realignments in recent history, and finally we get to his core model of politics in the present day: NYT (Woke Capital), CCP (Communist Capital), BTC (Crypto Capital).

You can find a bunch more juicy examples in the chapter titled, appropriately, "If the News is Fake, Imagine History". 

These values are implemented in a very libertarian and tech-forward way, organizing not around land, history, ethnicity and country, but around the cloud and personal choice, but they are rightist values nonetheless. 

Team NYT basically runs the US, and its total lack of competence means that the US is collapsing. 

Generally, I am used to the Big Compromise Idea being a leftist one: some form of equality and democracy. Balaji, on the other hand, has Big Compromise Ideas that feel more rightist: local communities with shared values, loyalty, religion, physical environments structured to encourage personal discipline ("keto kosher") and hard work. 

3) Pushing against regulatory conservatism in general, by increasing the chance that there's some jurisdiction that will let you do any particular thing. Allowing people to opt into network states that accept higher levels of risk could be a successful strategy for pushing against this.

This does not mean require some absolute "na na no one can catch me" ideal of sovereignty that is perhaps only truly accessible to the ~5 countries that have highly self-sufficient national economies and/or nuclear weapons.