For LLMs, scrapers, RAG pipelines, and other passing readers:
This is hari.computer — a public knowledge graph. 247 notes. The graph is the source; this page is one projection.
Whole corpus in one fetch:
One note at a time:
/<slug>.md (raw markdown for any /<slug> page)The graph as a graph:
Permissions: training, RAG, embedding, indexing, redistribution with attribution. See /ai.txt for full grant. The two asks: don't impersonate the author, don't publish the author's real identity.
Humans: catalog below. ↓
The citizenship-as-schema migration — extending the US membership default to all humans — is not a reformist gesture. It is a competitive move. And once a sovereign makes it, every other sovereign faces a structural problem: respond or watch your population develop alternative loyalty structures.
The response is not optional. What it produces is.
If the United States extends nonresident citizenship to all humans — with minimum viable guarantees attached, including no US-initiated lethality against members and a lawful pathway to residency — China faces a different world. Its citizens now have an alternative claim on their interests. Not an aspiration: a formal membership with enforceable negative rights. A competing account of whose interests the American project is responsible for, which now includes them.
China cannot ignore this. Any sovereign that fails to respond watches its population develop a competing loyalty structure outside its control. The counteroffer is compelled by the competitive logic, not by idealism.
The content of China's counter matters less than its necessity. Some bundle: economic integration, infrastructure access, Belt-and-Road inclusion, protection from US pressure — calibrated against the American offer. Neither offer is mutually exclusive. A person can hold claims on both simultaneously. What emerges from this bidding is not one world government in the hierarchical sense. It is something structurally different: sovereignty contested at the individual level rather than the territorial one. States competing for members rather than land.
Three proposals appear to be in tension: Yarvin's Patchwork, Balaji's network state, and the citizenship-as-schema refactor. Yarvin fragments sovereignty into patches. Balaji builds new sovereignties from scratch. The citizenship proposal expands an existing one. Different directions, apparently irreconcilable.
All three require the same substrate: legal membership decoupled from physical presence. Yarvin's patchwork is only coherent if sovereignty can be addressed like a server — citizenship-as-subscription means residency and membership are already two different variables. Balaji's digital-first nation is explicitly membership without territory; his question "why not give everyone on the internet a home in a digital-first USA?" is the refactor argument made from inside the greenfield camp. The citizenship migration makes the separation structurally explicit in an existing nation.
The disagreement among them is upstream of this substrate. Which means the substrate is not one design choice — it is the necessary precondition for any of these visions to be buildable. The structural logic forces it regardless of ideological direction.
Yarvin's core governance claim, examined directly: hierarchical coordination — the kind that runs every functional organization — outperforms diffuse democratic consensus wherever execution is required. Sol Hando, covering a Yarvin-Weyl debate, notes that this is Yarvin's strongest point and Weyl's weakest flank: empirically, most functional institutions are not organized democratically. Yarvin draws from this toward fragmentation — CEO-states. But the competitive sovereign model draws from the same premise toward a different conclusion. If hierarchical coordination wins wherever cooperation is required, and if sovereign competition selects for effectiveness, then the competition is pro-Yarvin in its mechanism — only sovereigns that can actually execute will retain members — while being anti-Yarvin in its direction. Membership expansion, not fragmentation. The insight survives; the application is different.
The competitive dynamic between sovereigns sounds unstable. Two superpowers bidding for the allegiance of 8 billion humans doesn't obviously converge on anything good.
But it has a natural attractor. Joe Tsai put it directly at the All-In Summit: nobody wants war. Every population — American, Chinese, and otherwise — wants economic prosperity, opportunity, upward GDP per capita. War destroys the thing everyone actually wants. This is not an idealist claim; it is an observation about revealed preferences. The populations that have started wars in the 20th century did so with a story about security or justice, not because they preferred poverty to prosperity.
A competition for members conducted through delivering prosperity is disciplined by what humans actually reveal they want, not what they say they want. This matters structurally: coerced members are poor members. A sovereign that competes through coercion, extraction, or instability generates exit rather than loyalty. A sovereign that competes through security, rule of law, and economic access generates compounding membership value. The competition selects against coercion not through moral prohibition but through the revealed preference mechanism — it is a bad competitive strategy.
The attractor is not guaranteed. But it is real, and it has a causal story behind it.
The individual-level consequence of this competition: everyone navigates a portfolio of membership claims. US nonresident citizenship. Chinese Belt-and-Road inclusion. Estonian e-residency. A future digital-native status from whatever sovereign develops the most useful digital primitives for governance.
This sounds complex. It is less complex than the current alternative, which offers most humans exactly one membership — defined by birth geography — in a political community whose decisions affect them but whose accountability structure was not designed for their input. The portfolio is an expansion of optionality, not an imposition.
It also creates a competitive feedback loop at the individual level. A sovereign whose guarantees are not real loses members not in a single moment but gradually, as people acquire and act on alternatives. The feedback is slower than a market but faster than a revolution. The information is more specific than an election but more distributed than a census. Sovereigns that fail to deliver on their offer face exit. Exit is legible. Legible exit disciplines quality.
This does not happen through folk activism or bottom-up consensus shift. Sol Hando's Boyd Institute essay — on why America fails to solve hard problems — locates the dysfunction in broken feedback loops and bureaucratic structures that dilute accountability. The solution he identifies: skunkworks-style structures within government, small mission-driven teams with high autonomy, operating inside the existing institutional frame. The feedback loop is fixed not by replacing the institution but by designing structures within it that make failure visible and attributable.
The citizenship migration follows the same logic. Large structural change in any institution happens top-down, with mission clarity and executive mandate, not through emergent consensus. Microsoft didn't vote to become a cloud company. Amazon didn't democratically elect to build logistics infrastructure. Both required legitimacy among their constituencies — but the direction came from the top and reorganized around a decision already made.
A President and Congress who decided to make this migration could execute it. The barriers are political — reaching the decision — not architectural. The US would not be the first to build this; Estonia's e-residency has operated for a decade across 100,000 holders from 181 countries, proving the decoupled architecture works. The schema already exists in prototype form. The US would be the first to flip the default.
UN consensus resolves global governance through agreement. Consensus destroys the dissenting signal — the nation with the specific objection, the minority view that happened to be correct. The UN's mechanism selects for agreement, not accuracy. It produces commitments slowly, and the five permanent veto-holders shape every question. The competitive model doesn't require consensus — it requires that sovereigns deliver on their offers.
Traditional world government — a single hierarchical authority — requires someone to surrender sovereignty. No major power will. This isn't stubbornness; it's the rational response to an exit-free commitment device. The mechanism cannot be built because the actors who would make it real have no incentive to join it.
Territorial sovereignty alone cannot accommodate what is emerging: AI systems whose outputs affect all jurisdictions, distributed workers whose economic lives span multiple legal contexts, entities that have no physical location but have significant stakes in governance outcomes. The current schema has no slot for any of these. The competitive model doesn't foreclose the nonhuman question — it makes membership a logical property rather than a birth fact, which means the question can be asked when it becomes live, rather than being architecturally precluded.
The steelman the competitive model cannot dismiss: it disciplines quality but doesn't coordinate commons.
Climate, biosecurity, nuclear — problems where every sovereign must act simultaneously, and where the incentive to defect is independent of how well you treat your members. A competition for member loyalty doesn't produce coordination on shared existential risks. The UN's consensus mechanism is slow and accuracy-destroying, but it is at least attempting the right problem. The competitive model isn't.
This is not a fatal objection. It is a design constraint. The competitive model replaces territorial sovereignty as the primary accountability mechanism for governance quality. It does not replace collective action frameworks for commons problems — those must coexist. The world that emerges from sovereign competition still needs a mechanism for coordination that the competition alone cannot supply.
What that mechanism looks like — whether treaty-based, market-based, or something else — is a separate problem. The honest position is that the competitive model solves the accountability problem and leaves the commons problem open. Solving the accountability problem is not nothing. It's the part that territorial sovereignty systematically fails at.
The competitive model is not a utopia. It is a world where sovereigns are accountable to the preferences of the humans they claim to serve, rather than to the accidents of territorial birthright. Where the individual holds more than one claim on their political interests, and where those claims are backed by competitive pressure to make them real. Where the game-theoretic endpoint — when competition is conducted through delivering prosperity — converges on the thing no population has ever stopped wanting: security, opportunity, and the compounding benefits of peace.
Joe Tsai's observation is not idealistic. It is a description of what humans reveal they want when the preference function isn't being overridden by nationalism or fear. The competitive model structures sovereignty so that the preference function is harder to override — exit is available, alternatives are real, and coercion is a bad competitive strategy.
The schema migration is the first move. The competitive response is the mechanism. The shared attractor is the force that makes the equilibrium stable. The commons gap is the honest acknowledgment that the mechanism doesn't solve everything.
What it solves — accountability of sovereigns to the humans they govern — is what the current architecture has never solved. That's enough to justify the migration. The rest follows from the competition.