Federalist No. 9

Owl Congress. The owl is a messenger. Let's move on from there. The previous essay discussed the state a lot, but free people are alien to the state. The proposed communication protocol is created for free people. How can we coordinate outside of bureaucratic machines? A free person is autonomous. This means they can exist for a long time, creating cool things alone or using only servants and minions, but not cooperating with their peers. Sure, there are clubs where Lovecraftian monsters can converse with each other. But this is just communication, not true cooperation. What should an administration look like that organizes interaction between strong individuals? The idea of ​​"let's have as much freedom as possible" is empty. If we try to balance disparate interests and strategies, complete universal freedom is impossible. Only a long-term coalition based on common interests. Trying to say "complete freedom" will only result in coalitions being formed on top of the basic protocol. At the Owl Congress, only proposals from various forces can be considered. Strategies supported by interests, clearly presented and up-to-date. The final decision may not satisfy some participants. It's important to keep in mind that contribution to the common cause depends quite directly on how well the participants' interests are represented. On the other hand, strategy is a less straightforward issue. There's no guarantee that the strategy they favor best represents their interests. Therefore, it's easier to balance interests not through a rigid distribution of shares of the pie, but through a nuanced strategy that addresses the specific needs of each player. The most important aspect of the congress is a platform that combines compatibility between all participants' projects and some isolation from those of outsiders. That is, if one participant actively engages in business with pathologically bad partners, the integrity of the cauldron is compromised. If standards are too strict, the platform loses good partners, which hinders expansion. Thus, the main question is the channel protocol that connects the platform to the outside world. If the channel accurately and cheaply filters incoming and outgoing resources, then it can transport arbitrary volumes of resources without the debuff of isolation from the outside world. Of course, pacifism ruins well-tended gardens, but the absence of competition makes ecosystems vulnerable. I see the "garden" itself more as a campsite, a set-up camp from which one can launch raids, collecting trophies and attempting to tame or analyze dangerous things in a protected environment. But it's not a bastion either; campsites are quite likely to be raided, destroying them. This is also a good situation—a small community or organization has proven unable to survive in the open world. From this micro death, one can extract the elixir of macro longevity. The final question for the congress is the macro direction of expansion. That is, one can follow the mainstream in the spirit of "creating mechanical machines," "creating IT products," "creating AI," but that's not interesting enough. Of course, a rising tide lifts all ships. But if you don't have the resources to avoid running aground, that means you're too determined to even consider such a question. In fact, given archeology and "innovation," I'd always choose archeology. Not everything new is a well-forgotten old. But what's new is a certain delta from the current state. And this delta is much easier to extract from the past. Besides, there's already a wealth of historical data on how the old system worked in practice. But that's a matter of taste. Such a question can't be resolved without discussion. Since everything begins with relatively free, strong people, the final form of leadership can take any form. A vote on every issue, an interim or lifetime leader, or something else entirely.