Beings, meaning — I don’t know — dogs, humans.

One is the Internet of Everything. Not just things, but also beings.

I am involved in setting the overall direction of the "Asia connecting to Silicon Valley" plan in Taiwan, which talks about two things.

Whether they are taking a cut that’s too much by being de facto employers or a cut that is reasonable as considered by everybody else, it remains part of the society to decide together. It’s not my personal opinion. My work is to make sure that everybody understands the facts.

Of course, these are two different models. The European Union calls this collaborative, and calls this platform. I wouldn’t say it’s a anarchistic foundation. I would say that they harness some of the needs, psychological and material needs toward this free exchange, but taking a cut from it.

Airbnb is more like a listing where people can see what other landlords or people around them are are, so it’s more like a platform, while Uber is more like a middle person.

I think Uber and Airbnb are two completely different thing. Uber, as far as we know, doesn’t allow, say ride-sharing in Taiwan. It used to allow ride-sharing in France. I don’t know about now, but it always has to dispatch through an intermediary.

...is that if we manage to find a way so people can exchange freely with strangers without fearing the tragedy of the commons, then it established the foundation of anarchy. That’s the main thing I learned from Kōjin.

I don’t buy this alternative history, but the main insight...

It’s very speculative, but it still says that there is something here about the model of exchange, which is, I think, the main insight.

He says that everybody wants the best of those two axis. It’s a very seductive, I would say, schema, which I don’t actually subscribe in.

But we know that outside 150 people, it would no longer be possible, and either the market model or the state model will appear.

He says that only some early nomadic possibilities — or in the early Internet, why not? But he didn’t say that — He basically says whenever there is a new space, people would want to exchange freely. He says it’s like a regression of the repressed, to those early wish ...

But he said that the anarchistic model is a forth possibility, which is free exchanges with strangers.

It also extends to the other quarter, which is that to keep working only with people that we know, and we start to demand unequal returns.

It gradually evolved from a state of quid pro quo exchanges, to unequal trading with people we don’t know. That’s his definition of markets, not mine.

He has this schema that he said the original family or tribe was where people exchanged freely, but only with people we know.

He has a hypothesis on how the early philosophers are actually born out of anarchistic tradition, like Hippocrates and so on. He also has another idea that anarchy, to him, is about a exchange model, so that there are people who exchange only to people they know or are strangers, ...

But when the dimensions become constrained, either because somebody set up into farming or because the land gets used up, then it very quickly turned into a hierarchical and not a anarchistic organization. He has a hypothesis that the early Ionia was a more anarchistic society to build those pre-Socratic ...

There’s many [laughs] anarchist societies in the past. If you read Kōjin, there is this philosopher, Kōjin Karatani, who categorized many of the early pioneers, that is to say, people who just arrived to a new place and formed de facto anarchistic society, because everybody is free to move. They ...

It is possible for a democracy to be fossilized and lose the capability to reflect and improve upon itself so that it becomes more ritualistic, a ritualistic way of democracy. Once it becomes like that way, then no anarchist would say that it’s anarchist.

For me, anarchy is about what we call a recursive community, meaning that the community reflects upon itself and has a way to systematically improve the constitution, or not improve, just adapt the constitution of the group itself so that they become gradually more self-aware. You see that in many ...

Anarchy and democracy, they certainly have overlaps. There is many people who practice direct democracy that says themselves are anarchist, or anarcho-capitalists or whatever.

I don’t think so. It’s anarchistic. I wouldn’t say it’s democratic.

If you just use Facebook and Twitter, these are applications that mostly work on top of the World Wide Web.

What if you use email, they would have another link. The email was not part of the World Wide Web. There’s many other protocols, as well.

I would say the current generation of browsers is mostly superficial, yes.

It is a pretty good view. What I’m saying is that this is one of the application of the Internet, and it’s not the Wide Web. It’s not in the browser, and there’s many other modalities in which that we can use the Internet.

You can look to any other planet and use your... to go to there, but just look around, up and down, left and right.

That’s not a fantasy. It’s the solar system as it is at the moment. Of course, you can travel to other stars, as well.

That’s the solar system as it is, and then if you look at any planet, you can use your finger to select it, and here is a trigger where you can pull it, or even just enjoy the view anyway.

The point here is that it’s a new modality that lets people participate not in the World Wide Web, but in each others’ experiences, so to speak. If we can just reorient quickly, if you take off your glasses, this is how you adjust the focus, and you can look ...

Like this one, the virtual reality thing. If you get into this immersive space, which is not the World Wide Web, then you’ll get into the kind of mental state or emotion that lets people understand each other in a more holistic way, and it doesn’t pops out constant notifications ...

No, that there are real applications. If you would try it...

It’s just this current usage of these classes, tablets and the short notices on the World Wide Web. It is damaging, but it doesn’t say anything about the Internet that says about the current generation of World Wide Web applications.

Most of the empathy inducing ways are mostly just filled in by projections in their early forms of the World Wide Web. It doesn’t mean that the Internet cannot produce new mediums that’s not the World Wide Web that respects or even keeps the empathy and the sustaining attention or ...

It’s just one unfortunate fact that the World Wide Web is just one of the applications of the Internet. It starts with a form that is mostly textual and then graphical, but it’s not fundamentally reflecting the micro expressions that we need to see on each others’ faces in order ...

Yes, I agree.

There’s no one single point where we call Singularity. This is what I refer to as Plurality. Meaning that there’s many different views in many different zones on earth and they have to all make sense to go forward.

No, it’s not like that. It’s that, if we are going to be transhumans, it’s a continuous approach. It’s not done by five people become transhumans and killing everybody else. It’s everybody and not just humans. Others are a part of anyone who has the stake gets into the process ...

The species afterwards will make no sense of our history. Then this is something that I don’t want to see. I want to still conserve this civilization as it was and maybe include it somehow, but at least conserve it.

You can call it humanistic maybe. Even for me, it’s not just for humans. In any case, the idea is for a continuity of civilization. If the civilization has some trans humanist think will collapse to singularity.

The conservatism means that there is things in the human tradition that is worth preserving. That history only makes sense if there are people in the future who can still understand the history of today.

For the conservative part... As part of anarchy, of course, I don’t give commands, I don’t take commands. That’s the tenet of anarchism.

While guns and canons can only make examples and deter people from thinking some thoughts, code can actually make people not to think about those thoughts. I would say in many ways it’s a more violent device.

Yeah. When used as a violent device, it excludes possibilities. A gun only excludes certain instances of a possibility, but code has the potential of the effect on excluding even the ways to think about those possibilities.

It changes the way people interact. As makers of code, I understand that it’s actually more violent than, say, guns are.

They’re more like physical law, in a sense that it determines what’s easier, what’s harder, and ultimately what’s possible and what’s not possible.

You would understand that programming, code, algorithm, is violent. It’s not about how I use it. It is just code by itself is law, and is not just like any jurisdictional law depending on human interpretation.

Within those limits, I have the same mandate and privilege of a minister without portfolio. It was just somewhat restricted based on my political inclination.