I recently had the pleasure of being welcomed by Citizenship and Immigration Attorney Parviz Malakouti in an X/Twitter Space on the topic of “Networks vs. Territorial Nation-State Law,” with this Substack article, “Elon Musk vs. The Nation-States” as a backdrop.
Here is the recording of that Space, slightly edited to remove a technical glitch.
Summary of the conversation
This is an AI-generated summary of our conversation. Please note that this is NOT a word-for-word transcript, but rather a summary. To view the real transcript, click on the “Transcript” button at the top of the article or next to the audio.
Parviz Malakouti: All right, this is Citizenship and Immigration Attorney Parviz Malakouti. Today is October 9th, 10 a.m. Pacific Standard Time, and this is our 40th mobility space. Today we’re talking about Network versus Nation-State Territorial Laws, and we have a real treat today. We’re joined by our co-host, Olivier Roland of Disruptive Horizons. He’s going to help us talk about some of these issues, and we’re going to reference an interesting article that he wrote, Elon Musk vs. The Nation-States.
So my first question to you, Olivier, is—tell us a little bit about yourself. What is Disruptive Horizons? What are the topics that you write about?
Olivier’s Background
Olivier Roland: Sure. I’m an entrepreneur. I have been since I was 19. I dropped out of high school at 18 to start my first business. I launched an internet business in 2009 and have been a digital nomad for 15 years, traveling about six months per year. I left France ten years ago—three years in London and now seven in Dubai.
I wrote a bestselling book in France about education and entrepreneurship, and I extended those ideas to the disruption of the nation-state by the internet and globalization. Disruptive Horizons is my Substack, a collection of extracts from that new book.
Nation-State vs. Network
Parviz Malakouti: Wonderful. Congratulations on publishing that book. Let’s focus on speech and access to speech. Would you say the main thesis of your article Elon Musk vs. the Nation-States is that nation-states are losing control of people within their borders from accessing the internet?
Elon Musk vs. The Nation-States
This article is a departure from the series currently being published on How to break the shackles of monocountrism and become free, but a news item pushed me to publish this article (which is placed much later in my book - and therefore should have been published here in about 6 months' time): Elon Musk's decision to
Olivier Roland: The foundation thesis of my book is that there is a war between the State and the Network. The State is descending; the network is ascending. I think eventually the Network will win, though it’s not guaranteed.
Already, most states have lost control of speech and communication except maybe China. VPNs and circumvention tools are ubiquitous. For example, in Dubai you can’t make WhatsApp calls—but absolutely everyone uses VPNs anyway. It’s illegal, but the government turns a blind eye.
The real power states still have is the ability to shut down the internet completely. Satellite access, like Starlink, changes that. In Iran, people already use Starlink for uncensored internet. So yes, satellite internet will make censorship far harder.
State Reaction
Parviz Malakouti: Nation-states usually react when they lose power. How do you see them responding to people accessing networks or satellites beyond their jurisdiction?
Olivier Roland: They’ll ban and threaten. They’ll fine or jail people. But their main tool—the monopoly of violence—only works where they have physical reach.
Take Brazil. Judge Moraes asked Twitter (now X) to censor some accounts. Elon Musk refused, saying the judge overstepped. Moraes then threatened the Twitter Brazil director with jail. Musk fired the director and removed Twitter’s physical presence from Brazil.
Then Moraes fined both Twitter and SpaceX. Musk eventually caved—he paid the fine and censored the accounts. The Network lost that battle, even though it is clear that Moraes clearly overstepped his authority by attacking SpaceX, a company that has nothing in common with X except for having the same CEO..
But in Nepal, the government banned social media for similar reasons, and the people revolted. They sided with the network against the state, toppled the government, and even chose a new leader through Discord. That’s historic.
Sovereign Individuals & Mobility
Parviz Malakouti: You’ve touched on something key—the person’s body must still be somewhere. That’s the physical attack vector.
For individuals seeking sovereignty, mobility is critical. Having robust freedom of movement—citizenship, visas, and the ability to exit and enter freely—is how one protects against nation-state overreach.
From your perspective, how should individuals position themselves to maximize freedom as the network rises?
Olivier Roland: The losing power always fights back. The arrest of Pavel Durov in France shows this. He’s being held responsible for Telegram content. It’s absurd.
To have maximum freedom, first: align with the network. Be digital-first. Build income online. When your work is location-independent, you gain leverage. You become a customer of jurisdictions, not a subject. Governments must compete for you.
Second: embrace mobility. I left France—one of the most taxed countries—and found better governance in Dubai. There are hundreds of jurisdictions; it’s statistically improbable your birthplace is the best one.
Third: if you’re American, it’s harder because of citizenship-based taxation. You’re, in a sense, owned by your state.
Citizenship-Based Taxation
Parviz Malakouti: We probably have 50% American listeners here.
Olivier Roland: I love the U.S., but I’m so glad I’m not American—because of citizenship-based taxation. It’s neo-feudalism. You’re taxed wherever you go.
Parviz Malakouti: We are fighting to put an end to this
Privacy & Power
Parviz Malakouti: Is privacy the next battleground between network and state? If Musk’s ownership of SpaceX had not been so public, if he would have been an unknown entrepreneur, would Brazil’s case have ended differently?
Olivier Roland: Possibly. And particularly, if SpaceX had no presence in Brazil, the state’s leverage would vanish. But the key is technology—soon Starlink will broadcast directly to smartphones. When that happens, censorship becomes impossible without confiscating everyone’s phone.
Financial Control & Crypto
Patrick: What about money? Will states lose control of that too?
Olivier Roland: Yes. Uncensored internet equals uncensored crypto. Satellite-based access will destroy control over money. National currencies will lose monopoly power like newspapers did after the internet. It’s already happening in Nigeria.
Coordination Failure
Parviz Malakouti: But large powers like the G7 won’t give up control easily.
Olivier Roland: True. The weak states lose first; the strong ones later. The OECD’s attempt with Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 shows how hard global coordination is. States act like a cartel, and cartels are unstable. The U.S. benefits from backing the network, so coordination fails.
Will Nation-States Game The System with Cartels ?
Note : This article is the 5th in a series on over-legislating a a path that more and more nation-states are taking in an attempt to emasculate the disruptions that threaten them.
Parviz Malakouti: Exactly. It’s a reverse prisoner’s dilemma—just a few defectors and the whole system collapses.
Safe Havens & Mobility
Olivier Roland: Small countries can serve as safe havens. They can host digital citizens and entrepreneurs the major states push away.
Parviz Malakouti: Agreed. People need physical refuge to access the network freely. Freedom of movement is the answer—being able to move before you’re prosecuted, before you’re trapped.
Public Figures & Power
Patrick: But public figures like Durov or Musk can’t just “move.” States can target them at will.
Parviz Malakouti: True. The more prominent you are, the more vulnerable. But mobility and multiple citizenships can mitigate that.
Olivier Roland: And some States can choose to protect them. History shows this too. During the Reformation, Protestant leaders found protection under sympathetic princes. In our era, small states like El Salvador might grant diplomatic immunity to figures like Durov.
Imagine the publicity—“El Salvador protects freedom of speech.” It’s powerful.
Decentralization & Resistance
Olivier Roland: States can arrest leaders, but they can’t arrest decentralized movements. Napster lost; BitTorrent won. The network always reconfigures. Leaders may need state allies, but the decentralized base makes the system unstoppable.
Patrick: So ultimately, this is evolution by decentralization.
Olivier Roland: Exactly. The network will prevail—though turbulence is inevitable.
Closing
Parviz Malakouti: Olivier, what’s the name of your book?
Olivier Roland: It’s “Tout le monde n’aura pas la chance de quitter son pays”. It’s in French, but readers can follow my Substack—Disruptive Horizons—whose articles are translated excerpts from my book..
Parviz Malakouti: Perfect. Everyone, check out Disruptive Horizons. Olivier’s insights are invaluable. Our next Mobility Space will be Monday, 11 a.m. PST. Thank you, Olivier, and thank you all for joining.
Olivier Roland: Thank you—it was great to be with you.
Parviz Malakouti: Take care, everyone.
