as long as we agree to not instigate violence towards each other, we don’t need to agree on anything else
Bit of a detour of the discussion:
NAP is a silly idea; undermining of your demonstrated interest has many forms, not just violent ones, with real negative consequences to those interests. Likewise, those demonstrated interest can be collective in nature, not just individual, another blind spot in the NAP-perspective. For instance, lets say you celebrate Christmas and leverage the collectively upheld myth of Santa in those celebrations towards your children; it demands everyone to either partake in said myth, or at-least refrain from undermining, for it to work. A single instance of discord can ruin the entire thing, like some maniac going around screaming ''Santa is not real!''. Where does your NAP leave you there? He is not violent, and the only ground of retaliation would be on the grounds of a collective celebration.
The human condition, and how it organizes its life and well being is far more multi-dimensional and complex than such a simple axiom of ''as long as we agree to not instigate violence towards each other, we don’t need to agree on anything else'' can ever hope to cover. If not just for the fact that the "individual" is a very impotent unit of sociological analyses, whereas notions of "family" are demonstratively (i.e. in terms of demonstrated human behavior) more important. One of the solutions we came up with, is common law, where one of the nice things is its capacity to deal with all such intricacies in an iterative process of dealing with the ever changing world around us through time.
Unfortunately, here in the Netherlands, we only have mere traces of our former common law tradition.
The reason I mention this as a detour is because the Internet as such, is more on the geo-political than on the political plane; it does not lend itself well for notions of jurisdiction as such, with its own additional dynamic of collapse of time and space; which ties us back into my original post. Any top-down approach will directly run into the nature of the substrate (the internet) itself, having ultimately no other option than to alter that nature (going from permissionless to permissioned). The analogy would be "World Government" in relation to the physical plane we inhabit on this earth. In the post itself i did not go into solution side of things, only implicitly by mentioning Nostr at the end; but i think it is more wise, regarding the internet, to seek self determination by self determined means, resulting in freedom of association. Its a path that Nostr as a protocol, from a technical perspective, embodies, and should help us by-pass the Gordian Knot introduced by centralized platforms entirely.
NAP is a silly idea; undermining of your demonstrated interest has many forms, not just violent ones, with real negative consequences to those interests. Likewise, those demonstrated interest can be collective in nature, not just individual, another blind spot in the NAP-perspective. For instance, lets say you celebrate Christmas and leverage the collectively upheld myth of Santa in those celebrations towards your children; it demands everyone to either partake in said myth, or at-least refrain from undermining, for it to work. A single instance of discord can ruin the entire thing, like some maniac going around screaming ''Santa is not real!''. Where does your NAP leave you there? He is not violent, and the only ground of retaliation would be on the grounds of a collective celebration.
The human condition, and how it organizes its life and well being is far more multi-dimensional and complex than such a simple axiom of ''as long as we agree to not instigate violence towards each other, we don’t need to agree on anything else'' can ever hope to cover. If not just for the fact that the "individual" is a very impotent unit of sociological analyses, whereas notions of "family" are demonstratively (i.e. in terms of demonstrated human behavior) more important. One of the solutions we came up with, is common law, where one of the nice things is its capacity to deal with all such intricacies in an iterative process of dealing with the ever changing world around us through time.
Unfortunately, here in the Netherlands, we only have mere traces of our former common law tradition.
The reason I mention this as a detour is because the Internet as such, is more on the geo-political than on the political plane; it does not lend itself well for notions of jurisdiction as such, with its own additional dynamic of collapse of time and space; which ties us back into my original post. Any top-down approach will directly run into the nature of the substrate (the internet) itself, having ultimately no other option than to alter that nature (going from permissionless to permissioned). The analogy would be "World Government" in relation to the physical plane we inhabit on this earth. In the post itself i did not go into solution side of things, only implicitly by mentioning Nostr at the end; but i think it is more wise, regarding the internet, to seek self determination by self determined means, resulting in freedom of association. Its a path that Nostr as a protocol, from a technical perspective, embodies, and should help us by-pass the Gordian Knot introduced by centralized platforms entirely.