A third path exists: build parallel institutions that coexist with the state through systematic separation. Bitcoin, Nostr, and physical meetups have begun realizing this vision, offering practical sovereignty without waiting for seasteads or electoral victories.
quoting
naddr1qq…0z5kLibertarian strategy has oscillated between two poles for fifty years, and both have failed. The political path promises to reform the state from within, electing the right candidates, passing the right legislation, slowly rolling back the apparatus of coercion through the very mechanisms that apparatus controls. The territorial path promises escape, whether to seasteads on the ocean, colonies in space, or micronations carved from failed states, places where sovereignty can be built fresh without the accumulated weight of existing power structures. The first strategy has produced nothing but co-opted movements and expanded government. The second remains perpetually fifteen years away, its proponents growing old while waiting for floating cities that never arrive.
A third option exists, one that rejects both reform and exit in favor of something more immediately achievable: building parallel institutions that coexist with the state rather than confronting or fleeing it. Call this the Two Realms framework.
The analysis begins with clear-eyed recognition of what the state actually is. Strip away the civic mythology and constitutional poetry, and you find a single operational definition: the state is whatever entity maintains a monopoly on violence within a given territory. This monopoly is not incidental to state power but constitutive of it. Without the exclusive right to deploy force, there can be no taxation, no regulation, no enforcement of any kind. Everything the state does flows from this foundational claim, and everything the state defends ultimately serves to preserve it.
Opposing this monopoly directly has historically ended badly for the opposition. The state possesses overwhelming advantages in organized violence, and confrontation on those terms means fighting an enemy on ground they have spent centuries fortifying. Yet the state faces its own dilemma. Crushing dissent too visibly risks radicalizing the broader population, those millions who neither work for the state nor actively oppose it but simply accept the existing arrangement as the path of least resistance. History repeatedly demonstrates that oppression can transform passive acceptance into active resistance, threatening not necessarily the concept of the state but certainly the particular people currently wielding its power. This makes the state cautious about how openly it suppresses those who reject its authority.
The Two Realms framework exploits this caution. Rather than confronting the state or waiting for territorial escape, strong individuals build a second realm that operates alongside the first. The first realm consists of public spaces, state-controlled infrastructure, the official economy with its banking system and tax apparatus, the courts and police and prisons. The second realm consists of private spaces, encrypted communications, alternative monetary systems, and physical locations where those who claim self-sovereignty can meet, trade, and collaborate outside the state's direct oversight.
The crucial insight is that these realms need not be geographically distinct. They can occupy the same territory, even the same city blocks, while remaining operationally separate. The coffee shop where strong individuals meet to conduct business in alternative currencies exists on the same street as the bank branch processing payroll taxes. What matters is not physical separation but systemic separation, maintaining distinct economic and communications infrastructure that minimizes intersection with state systems.
This separation must be maintained deliberately and consistently. Work in the second realm, and you should not use state banking infrastructure to settle transactions. Work in the first realm, and you should not use second realm systems to evade its requirements. Mixing the realms invites the attention that separation is designed to avoid. The goal is coexistence through mutual disengagement, not a hybrid existence that enjoys the benefits of both while accepting the obligations of neither.
The infrastructure for this framework now exists. Bitcoin provides precisely the monetary system the second realm requires, one that operates independently of state banking and can settle transactions without counterparty permission. Nostr provides the communication layer, a protocol for social interaction that no central authority can censor or surveil. Signal and its successors have brought encrypted messaging to ordinary users. The digital components of the second realm exist as mature, battle-tested infrastructure rather than speculative possibility.
Physical bridgeheads have developed as well, though less robustly. Bitcoin meetups occur in most major cities, conferences gather thousands annually, and a growing network of businesses accept Bitcoin directly. These spaces serve an essential function: places where strong individuals can meet face to face, build trust that purely digital interaction cannot establish, and conduct commerce through physical delivery of goods or direct exchange of value. Immigrant communities have operated this way for centuries, maintaining parallel economic structures within host societies, and the pattern proves both durable and effective.
Opposition to expanded individual liberty stems primarily from fear rather than moral conviction. Most people simply cannot imagine how things would work without the arrangements they know, and this failure of imagination rather than principled disagreement keeps them anchored to the first realm. As second realm infrastructure matures and demonstrates its viability, some portion of the fearful will gradually experiment with it. The path to growth runs through demonstration, not persuasion.
What remains challenging is maintaining physical bridgeheads under regulatory pressure. The state has responded to Bitcoin's growth not by attempting to shut down the protocols themselves, which it cannot do, but by tightening control over the intersections between realms. Know-your-customer requirements, anti-money-laundering surveillance, and aggressive prosecution of those who facilitate realm transitions have all intensified dramatically. The second realm's digital core remains robust, but its physical edges face continuous pressure.
This pressure represents a strategic challenge rather than a fatal flaw. Underground movements throughout history have developed techniques for maintaining physical presence despite state opposition, and strong individuals possess advantages in creativity, resources, and motivation that make them formidable adversaries in this particular contest. Facing such opposition is far preferable to the alternatives: fighting a violent confrontation the state would win, or waiting indefinitely for territorial escape that never arrives.
The Two Realms framework offers something neither political reform nor territorial exit can provide: a strategy for living more freely today, incrementally expanding the space for sovereignty while accepting that complete victory lies beyond any individual lifetime. It requires patience, discipline, and clear-eyed recognition of both what is possible and what is not. The second realm will not replace the first within any horizon we can see. But it need not replace it to matter. For those who choose to live there, building its institutions and maintaining its separateness, the second realm is not a waiting room for utopia. It is home.