A book review of Max Borders' amazing book THE SOCIAL SINGULARITY: How decentralization will allow us to transcend politics, create global prosperity, and avoid the robot apocalypse
A system that does not allow people to exit is not legitimate. It is simply better disguised.
The deeper issue is that people need the clarity to see when their participation is being extracted rather than earned. Once enough people see that clearly, exit stops looking radical and starts looking rational.
Obsessing over what exactly is wrong with our existing systems is a dead end. We know they're wrong, corrupted, cruel and destructive. They destroy and enslave us. They've dragged us into an unbearable reality. It's time to look elsewhere for solutions.
"Life may be filled with cactus but we don't have to sit on it." Unknown
I've been working on a hypothesis, for want of a better word, about the system conditions keeping us locked in dysfunction and a new set of mindset, values, behaviours and structures we need to neutralise them and support a more balanced expression of humanity. No surprises it led me to evolving power & decision-making back to local communities, among other things.
Would love to chat to you guys about it. How do I apply to the swarm academy? Many thanks 😊🙏
Hello? Dearest Society of Problem Solvers! I love you people! Thank you for more great information! Did I miss the part about where to get the book? I want to work on understanding the whole concept that he is presenting us with! Thank you for all you are doing!
A voluntary society is not durable if it is only partially so. If an exit is to an only somewhat less non-voluntary system it will eventually devolve to that which it tried to replace. https://michaelhaag.substack.com/p/durable-freedom
Decentralized systems, and collective intelligence systems are testable. Which means we can test the systems against each other and see who gets better results. It is voluntary, but also incentivized. There are principles such as skin in the game that matter.
The system we're currently embedded in is a network of interdependent feedback loops; an ecology. The system envisioned here is a coherent ecosystem too. But half of either isn't - what does a viable transition look like?
I do not believe viable transition from a non-voluntary system is possible (because it would likely require a level of societal violence which would subvert meaningful change), and I am skeptical of the feasibility of building such a system adjacent to existing established non-voluntary systems. I love Ayn Rand, but am dubious about the viability of Gault’s Gulch beyond metaphor. The durability and creativity of voluntary societies may require completely new canvas (ie migration beyond earth).
Decentralization is not key. Ownership and choice wrt one’s own property (including oneself) is the key. If a system is fundamentally non-voluntary (ie any vestige of a state which enforces security, contracts, and non-owner preferences about others’ property) then any level of decentralization as a starting point will still inevitably lead to greater and greater non-voluntary centralization (and eventual failure and/or replacement by another system). Durability (including maximization of individual choice, and minimization of societal-level coercion) depends on voluntary choice all the way up and down, and across time. Practically speaking, you can protect your own property and you can voluntarily work with others to protect your property, but you cannot force others to protect your property. The risks of ownership (including the risks of contracts, and the ownership of your own life and productivity) cannot include a mandate for others to share those risks. The only durable way to deal with property protection to leave the risk and preferences to the owner (and voluntarily contracted protection services). And contractual risk can only durably be maintained via voluntary insurance (augmented by reputation services). Any system which is either initially non-voluntary in any aspects or becomes so over time (regardless of initial design, AI augmentation, etc) will devolve into more and more of that which we’re trying to replace.
A system that does not allow people to exit is not legitimate. It is simply better disguised.
The deeper issue is that people need the clarity to see when their participation is being extracted rather than earned. Once enough people see that clearly, exit stops looking radical and starts looking rational.
Obsessing over what exactly is wrong with our existing systems is a dead end. We know they're wrong, corrupted, cruel and destructive. They destroy and enslave us. They've dragged us into an unbearable reality. It's time to look elsewhere for solutions.
"Life may be filled with cactus but we don't have to sit on it." Unknown
Indeed!! This is the main mindshift we advocate for. As always, thanks for your participation Claire!!
I like what you guys are saying makes a lot of sense
I've been working on a hypothesis, for want of a better word, about the system conditions keeping us locked in dysfunction and a new set of mindset, values, behaviours and structures we need to neutralise them and support a more balanced expression of humanity. No surprises it led me to evolving power & decision-making back to local communities, among other things.
Would love to chat to you guys about it. How do I apply to the swarm academy? Many thanks 😊🙏
Hello? Dearest Society of Problem Solvers! I love you people! Thank you for more great information! Did I miss the part about where to get the book? I want to work on understanding the whole concept that he is presenting us with! Thank you for all you are doing!
Hi Judy thanks for the kind words! Here is a link to Max’s book
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Singularity-decentralization-prosperity-apocalypse/dp/1732039402
We Should Have The Ability To Focus Unite!
;-)
A voluntary society is not durable if it is only partially so. If an exit is to an only somewhat less non-voluntary system it will eventually devolve to that which it tried to replace. https://michaelhaag.substack.com/p/durable-freedom
Not following exactly.,,,
Decentralized systems, and collective intelligence systems are testable. Which means we can test the systems against each other and see who gets better results. It is voluntary, but also incentivized. There are principles such as skin in the game that matter.
The system we're currently embedded in is a network of interdependent feedback loops; an ecology. The system envisioned here is a coherent ecosystem too. But half of either isn't - what does a viable transition look like?
I do not believe viable transition from a non-voluntary system is possible (because it would likely require a level of societal violence which would subvert meaningful change), and I am skeptical of the feasibility of building such a system adjacent to existing established non-voluntary systems. I love Ayn Rand, but am dubious about the viability of Gault’s Gulch beyond metaphor. The durability and creativity of voluntary societies may require completely new canvas (ie migration beyond earth).
Decentralization is not key. Ownership and choice wrt one’s own property (including oneself) is the key. If a system is fundamentally non-voluntary (ie any vestige of a state which enforces security, contracts, and non-owner preferences about others’ property) then any level of decentralization as a starting point will still inevitably lead to greater and greater non-voluntary centralization (and eventual failure and/or replacement by another system). Durability (including maximization of individual choice, and minimization of societal-level coercion) depends on voluntary choice all the way up and down, and across time. Practically speaking, you can protect your own property and you can voluntarily work with others to protect your property, but you cannot force others to protect your property. The risks of ownership (including the risks of contracts, and the ownership of your own life and productivity) cannot include a mandate for others to share those risks. The only durable way to deal with property protection to leave the risk and preferences to the owner (and voluntarily contracted protection services). And contractual risk can only durably be maintained via voluntary insurance (augmented by reputation services). Any system which is either initially non-voluntary in any aspects or becomes so over time (regardless of initial design, AI augmentation, etc) will devolve into more and more of that which we’re trying to replace.
Rigged / IT’s corrupt.
'When government officials can legally bet on the very outcomes they control
— elections, legislation, policy decisions — the system isn’t just unfair.'
IT’s corrupt.
https://prod.cdn.everyaction.com/emails/van/PGO/PGO/1/78922/CqyQlDPqEylwdNnem6ZcneKW7Fc6BOvB-Kvl4or2JIM_archive
Peter Duke - Apr 13, 2026
Current Control-fraud/corruption:
via 'The Monopoly of Violence' & 'Epistemology'
----
'an amoral way of instilling morality into The Constitution'
Accountability - Transparency
https://youtu.be/FBe0gw8rNxY?t=4705
?
WHAT IS FREEDOM?
Are we in an artificial box of the mind?
Greg Penglis
Apr 30, 2026
https://gregpenglis.substack.com/p/what-is-freedom
???