Tech’s obsession with first-mover advantage has turned innovation into a commons land grab, where early winners exploit network effects to entrench power, not progress. Democracy struggles to check these self-reinforcing systems, leaving us to ask: If you don’t see how this frame travels downstream to politics I have a token to sell you. We’ll weaponize network effects, and sell the rest of them tokens (ideological, financial, or literal) to keep the system spinning. Democracy becomes a speculative market, and we’re all bagholders. The real innovation? Convincing people the game is still winnable after the rules were written by the ones who arrived early and bought up the board. And that’s basically Amway. You dont want a democracy, you want legalized land grabs for your group.

The bait-and-switch of technological disruption—I dont think I would have a problems with tech Jesuits per se but what we have now is prosperity gospel grifters arguing that even if an industry is gutted, jobs are lost, or wealth concentrates at the top, the long-term effects will be positive (in practice, the only people actually empowered in the present are the early adopters, investors, and platform owners. Everyone else is just paying in to keep up)

Why This Is a Bad Way to Run a Ledger

A ledger is supposed to track reality—not just future projections. If an economic system prioritizes theoretical benefits for people who don’t yet exist over the very real costs to those who do, then it’s a scam. But unlike a real ledger, where numbers don’t lie, this system externalizes the costs onto people today while promising rewards to people decades from now—who conveniently can’t complain about the disruption. It’s a way to make current suffering seem noble rather than just exploitative.

This logic has metastasized into politics. Even self appointed left of center buy the premise wholesale. Democracy realistically can no longer function as a public good but instead must operate like a privatized MLM scheme (for the ingroup). Civil service, Media and academia used to be first movers in the narrative economy, deciding what ideas gain traction. Voters were downline participants, sold the dream of participation but rarely seeing real power shifts. Just like in tech, people at the top tell those below: “Yes, things are bad now, but if you just keep buying in, the system will eventually work for you.” It’s the same noble lie, just in a different domain.

The core problem is that real innovation (or governance) should deliver value in the present while building for the future. But when an entire system prioritizes hypothetical benefits for unborn generations while ignoring the reality of those living through the disruption, it stops being a rational ledger and becomes a faith-based economic model—one that only works if you don’t look too closely at who’s actually profiting.

Once the system reaches the point where people realize they’re permanently locked out, the next step is an authoritarian or plutocratic “solution” that claims to fix the mess—but only by consolidating power further. It never ends well

TLDR: The same land-grab mentality that allowed early adopters to monopolize the digital commons also shapes how we treat democracy—hoarding influence, locking others out, and acting shocked when the excluded either rebel violently or become tools for plutocratic takeovers. You can’t rig the game forever and expect people to just accept it.

I mean the distinction is this site isn’t just a neutral space for discussion; it’s a gold rush town where everyone’s carrying picks and shovels™, either gearing up for their own land grab or already cashing in on VC-ZIRP-fueled network effects. The discourse isn’t about if the system is rigged—it’s about how to position yourself before the next carve-up happens

So basically, if you adopt a purely extractive, first-mover, land-grab mindset in your personal strategy for success, don’t be surprised if it naturally scales into a broader systems of authoritarian control. If everyone is just optimizing for their own slicing of the commons, the end result isn’t a free market or democracy—it’s a hierarchy where those who seized power early dictate the terms for everyone else.

At scale, this mentality doesn’t just enable authoritarianism—it necessitates it, because once the system is fully enclosed, maintaining control requires force, deception, or both.