Abstract
Peter Thiel appears to advance two incompatible claims: in 2007, he argued that one cannot unilaterally escape politics; in 2009, he made escape from politics the central task of libertarianism. This article resolves the textual contradiction by distinguishing Schmitt's concept of the political from participation in existing democratic politics. The distinction, however, exposes a deeper institutional problem. Durable exit from one authority ordinarily requires the construction of another institution capable of organizing membership, rules, resources, protection, and dispute resolution. Exit can operate as antipower when alternatives are real and departure is feasible, but it can also relocate governing power into private organizations whose authority is obscured by the languages of technology, property, expertise, and consent. The article develops a five-dimensional account of when private governance becomes politically significant: the importance of the conditions controlled, structural dependence, unilateral discretion, weak contestability, and effects on outsiders. It then examines the founder's claim to authority. Contrarian insight and successful institution-building may justify substantial control during founding, but neither epistemic achievement nor practical success establishes an indefinite right to rule. Drawing on Hirschman, Taylor, Schmitt, Strauss, Kojève, and contemporary work on private government and digital governance, the article defends a conditional ideal of exit plus voice: effective mobility combined with powers of contestation proportionate to institutional power.
Introduction: The Puzzle of Exit
In Plato’s Republic, escape from the cave is not the end of the philosopher’s journey. Having turned from shadows toward the light, the philosopher must descend again and assume responsibility for the city he has left behind (Republic 519c–521b). Peter Thiel’s political imagination appears to alter this sequence. The person who sees beyond conventional opinion need not return to persuade the prisoners or govern them reluctantly. He may instead build somewhere else: a new company, platform, jurisdiction, or technological frontier beyond the institutions that constrain him.
This possibility animates Thiel’s 2009 essay, “The Education of a Libertarian.” Democratic politics, he argued, had ceased to offer a plausible route to liberty. The attempt to educate the electorate had become a “fool’s errand”; libertarians should redirect their energies from political persuasion to technological construction. Cyberspace, seasteading, and outer space promised domains in which smaller groups might create alternatives to existing political arrangements. “The great task for libertarians,” Thiel concluded, was to find “an escape from politics in all its forms” (Thiel 2009).
The declaration is striking because, only two years earlier, Thiel had described the very idea of political escape as a dangerous illusion. In “The Straussian Moment,” he presented Carl Schmitt as the thinker who had understood why peaceful intentions cannot abolish political conflict. A community may renounce war, declare itself neutral, or refuse to recognize an enemy. It cannot compel others to reciprocate. “One cannot unilaterally escape from all politics,” Thiel wrote; to believe otherwise was an instance of “supreme self-delusion” (Thiel 2007, 199–200).
Placed side by side, the two claims appear to form a remarkably precise contradiction:
T1: Politics cannot be escaped unilaterally.
T2: Libertarians should seek an escape from politics.
This is not a discrepancy assembled from interviews given decades apart. It occurs in two programmatic essays published within approximately twenty-four months. Both address the same practical question: where can meaningful agency be found when liberal institutions appear incapable of resolving fundamental disagreement or producing a freer future? One essay condemns political escape as self-deception; the other makes escape the central libertarian task.
The immediate puzzle admits a relatively simple solution. Thiel’s two claims concern different objects of exit. In 2007, politics refers principally to what Schmitt calls the political: the ineradicable possibility that collective existence will become organized through relations of conflict, protection, and enmity. Because this relation depends upon how other groups act, it cannot be eliminated by one group’s declaration alone. In 2009, by contrast, politics refers primarily to participation in existing democratic institutions: elections, public persuasion, majoritarian legislation, regulation, and the attempt to secure liberty by converting the electorate. One may abandon that strategy, or leave a particular jurisdiction, without believing that conflict and collective power have disappeared from human life.
The semantic contradiction therefore dissolves. Thiel changed his political strategy, but he need not have abandoned the political anthropology of his earlier essay. The democratic activist gives way to the technological founder. What changes is not necessarily whether the political exists, but where effective action is to occur.
Yet this solution does not resolve the puzzle. It reveals a more important one.
Suppose technological exit succeeds. A group establishes a floating settlement, an online jurisdiction, a private currency, or a platform through which increasingly important forms of social and economic life are conducted. It has reduced its exposure to some decisions of an existing state. But to preserve that independence, the new institution must itself make decisions. It must determine who may enter, which resources belong to whom, what rules govern participation, how disputes are adjudicated, which decisions are enforced, and how members are protected. The outside acquires boundaries. The frontier acquires administrators. Departure becomes foundation.
Durable exit from authority A, in other words, ordinarily requires the construction of an institution B. The more completely B enables its members to escape A, the more extensively it may need to acquire governing capacities of its own. Exit does not necessarily abolish authority. It may instead change authority’s institutional location and political vocabulary. Decisions once described as legislation may reappear as protocol design; jurisdiction may be redescribed as ownership; obedience may be organized through contracts and terms of service.
It would be a mistake to infer that every private organization is therefore a state, or that every exercise of managerial authority constitutes political domination. Firms, universities, clubs, churches, and digital communities require internal rules without thereby becoming sovereign governments. Nor is exit necessarily illusory. Where alternatives are genuinely available and switching is feasible, the credible possibility of departure can restrain arbitrary power, enable experimentation, and give dissatisfied members leverage that democratic voice alone may not provide. The relevant question is not whether exit is possible in the abstract, but under what institutional conditions exit limits power rather than merely privatizing it.
This article defends a conditional answer. Thielian exit can reduce dependence upon particular democratic institutions, but this fact alone establishes neither that the new order is non-political nor that its authority is legitimate. Private management approaches political rule when an organization controls important conditions of agency; when individuals become structurally dependent upon it because alternatives are scarce or departure is prohibitively costly; when its owners or administrators retain substantial unilateral discretion; when those affected possess weak powers of appeal, participation, or external redress; and when its decisions impose significant effects upon persons who never chose the arrangement. Under these conditions, the formal availability of a door is insufficient. Technological exit may cease to function as a restraint on power and become a mechanism through which power is privately accumulated.
Thiel’s politics of exit should therefore be understood neither as simple withdrawal nor as a concealed plan to reproduce the state. Its promise is real: institutional plurality may protect dissent, discipline incumbents, and allow alternative forms of life to be tested. Its danger is equally real: institutions founded as refuges from public power may acquire forms of governing authority that remain hidden behind the languages of technology, property, expertise, and consent. The deepest question is not whether politics can be escaped, but what kinds of power arise in the places to which people escape.
The argument proceeds in five stages. Section One distinguishes the political from democratic politics and explains why Thiel’s two propositions are compatible without appealing to an imagined esoteric program. Section Two reconstructs the strongest case for exit as antipower and distinguishes formal departure from effective exit and meaningful contestation. Section Three explains why exit generates governance and develops a threshold model of private political power through seasteading, software architecture, and the network state. Section Four examines how the founder’s epistemic authority becomes joined to property and organizational control, distinguishing practical success from political legitimacy through the Strauss–Kojève debate. Section Five defends an institutional ideal of exit plus voice: not a single democratic form imposed upon every association, but powers of contestation proportionate to the importance, dependence, discretion, and external effects produced by each institution.
1. Two Objects of Exit
The contradiction introduced above depends upon a deceptively simple assumption: that politics names the same object in Thiel’s two essays. Once that assumption is made, the apparent inference is unavoidable. In 2007, Thiel denies that politics can be escaped; in 2009, he identifies escape from politics as the central libertarian task. Either he changed his mind within two years, or one of the claims cannot be taken at face value.
Neither conclusion is necessary. The first essay concerns the political; the second concerns a particular institutional practice of politics—above all, democratic participation within an existing state. Thiel’s equivocation is real, but the propositions expressed through it are compatible.
Schmitt opens The Concept of the Political by refusing to define the political through the state. The state is one historically specific political form; it cannot supply the concept presupposed in describing it as political (Schmitt 2007, 19–23). Nor is the political a distinct substantive domain parallel to morality, religion, aesthetics, or economics. Its criterion is the friend–enemy distinction: an association becomes political when a conflict reaches the intensity at which human beings may be grouped into collectivities prepared to defend their form of existence against another collectivity (Schmitt 2007, 26–27, 35–38).
Two qualifications matter. First, the political does not require continuous warfare. It consists in conduct structured by the real possibility of conflict, not in combat itself (Schmitt 2007, 32–37). Second, the political is not reducible to elections, parties, office-holding, or public administration. Schmitt expressly notes that ordinary usage often identifies politics with party politics, but regards this as a secondary and historically contingent usage (Schmitt 2007, 30–32). A religious community, economic class, trade union, or commercial association may become political if it acquires the capacity to organize a decisive friend–enemy grouping; conversely, many activities ordinarily called political may remain below that threshold (Schmitt 2007, 37–39).
This is the conceptual background of Thiel’s claim that “one cannot unilaterally escape from all politics.” The crucial word is unilaterally. A group can decide not to wage war, not to describe another group as its enemy, and not to organize its members for collective defense. It cannot decide how every other group will act toward it. A declaration of neutrality does not bind an adversary; the refusal to recognize an enemy does not prevent one from being treated as an enemy. Hence Thiel’s examples of unilateral disarmament and the Kellogg–Briand Pact: legal or moral renunciation may alter one party’s conduct without abolishing the relational possibility that defines the political (Thiel 2007, 199–200).
Strauss’s commentary helps clarify both the force and the limit of this claim. Schmitt’s immediate opponent, Strauss argues, is liberalism understood as the attempted “negation of the political.” Liberalism has not eliminated political conflict; it has obscured it by conducting politics through an ostensibly antipolitical vocabulary—economics, morality, law, neutrality, and private choice (Strauss 1995a, 91–94). Schmitt’s thesis is therefore not merely descriptive. It is polemically directed against a modern project that hopes to transform conflicts over ways of life into technical problems, private disagreements, or peaceful exchanges.
Yet Strauss also warns against defining the political too expansively. In his September 1932 letter to Schmitt, he observes that describing political opposition as the highest intensity of any social opposition may make the political appear merely “subsequent or supplementary.” He distinguishes the claim that political grouping is a persistent condition of human order from the stronger claim that it constitutes the positive principle of order itself. The political, Strauss suggests, may be a condition of the state without being its sufficient foundation (Strauss 1995b, 124–26). This distinction prevents the inescapability thesis from collapsing into the assertion that every association, disagreement, or exercise of authority is already political.
Schmitt’s essay on “The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations” sharpens the puzzle because it addresses precisely the medium through which Thiel later proposes to escape. Modern Europeans, Schmitt argues, repeatedly migrated from contested domains to apparently neutral ones: from theology to metaphysics, then to morality, economics, and finally technology. Each new domain promised agreement because it appeared to replace substantive conflict with questions admitting objective solutions. Yet each supposed neutral ground became another arena of struggle (Schmitt 2007, 89–91).
Technology cannot terminate this sequence. It supplies no political purpose and no criterion for deciding among purposes. The same instrument may serve liberation or oppression, decentralization or centralization, peace or war. Technological competence cannot determine who should command technology or toward which ends it should be directed (Schmitt 2007, 91–95). Thiel’s 2007 thesis should thus be read more strongly than the modest claim that geographical withdrawal is difficult. No new technical domain can guarantee depoliticization, because control of that domain remains available to opposed projects.
This makes the 2009 essay appear, at first, like a direct repetition of the error Schmitt diagnosed. But Thiel’s proposal is more limited. The politics he rejects in “The Education of a Libertarian” is described through his own failed experience of advocacy: debate, electoral persuasion, the education of the citizenry, voting coalitions, regulation, and attempts to achieve liberty by changing public opinion. His conclusion is that “the broader education of the body politic” has become a “fool’s errand.” The alternatives—cyberspace, seasteading, and outer space—are introduced as ways of constructing institutions beyond the immediate reach of existing democratic decisions (Thiel 2009, paras. 3–18).
Thiel does not, moreover, claim that technology automatically produces peace or freedom. He explicitly rejects technological utopianism and describes the future as a “deadly race” between politics and technology. Technology matters because it may preserve a domain in which individual construction remains effective, not because it possesses an inherent libertarian direction (Thiel 2009, paras. 19–21). In this respect, the 2009 essay retains rather than abandons Schmitt’s warning about technical neutrality. The new claim is strategic: although technology cannot abolish the political, it may alter which institutions can reach particular persons and which actors are capable of founding alternatives.
The change between 2007 and 2009 is therefore not adequately described as a conversion from political realism to technological utopianism. The earlier essay already searches for effective action outside ordinary democratic procedures. After concluding that constitutional checks impede decisive statesmanship, Thiel turns to intelligence networks and forms of covert international coordination insulated from parliamentary deliberation (Thiel 2007, 207–08). The later essay changes the proposed agent and location of such action. Intelligence organizations connected to sovereign states give way to entrepreneurs constructing proprietary technological spaces. The continuity lies in the search for smaller, more cohesive institutions capable of acting where democratic politics appears paralyzed.
Thiel’s later descriptions of entrepreneurship confirm this relocation of agency. In a 2014 interview, he called technology one of the few remaining “frontiers,” a place where a small group can start something new with effects on the world as a whole (Thiel 2014). Two years later, he described the startup as a “very imperfect solution”: it is possible to persuade a small number of people to undertake a new project even when reforming governments, universities, or large corporations appears intractable (Thiel 2016). These remarks do not describe an exit from collective action. They describe a change in its scale, site, and organizing form—from mass persuasion within inherited institutions to concentrated action through newly founded ones.
A Straussian reader may nevertheless suspect a concealed teaching. Thiel invokes Strauss; the two essays present conspicuously opposed formulations; perhaps “exit” is an exoteric promise whose esoteric meaning is rule by a technological elite. Strauss’s interpretive method does not justify that inference. In Persecution and the Art of Writing, he insists that reading between the lines must begin from exact attention to explicit statements, context, literary form, and the plan of the work. An apparent blunder or contradiction may be intentional, but it does not license the interpreter to replace the text with an unsupported opposite doctrine (Strauss 1988, 30–32). Contradictions may function as “awakening stumbling blocks,” leading a prepared reader from a popular formulation toward a more exact understanding (Strauss 1988, 35–36).
Kochin similarly explains exoteric writing not as a code in which every surface proposition means its negation, but as a careful arrangement of conventional opinions whose tensions allow a reader to reconstruct a deeper argument (Kochin 2002, 261–63). And Meier’s account of the Strauss–Schmitt dialogue presents Strauss’s method as one of radical questioning: exposing presuppositions and carrying alternatives to their foundations, rather than inventing a secret political program behind the author’s words (Meier 2006, 3–6).
The most disciplined response to Thiel’s contradiction is therefore conceptual rather than conspiratorial. It forces the following distinction:
T1: No actor can, by its decision alone, eliminate the possibility that collective existence will be drawn into relations of conflict and protection.
T2: Libertarians should cease treating success within existing democratic institutions as their primary route to freedom and should instead construct alternatives that reduce their exposure to those institutions.
T1 denies exit from the political. T2 recommends exit from democratic politics as a strategy and from particular political jurisdictions as institutional arrangements. They can both be true.
The semantic contradiction is thus resolved. But the resolution creates the more difficult question on which the remainder of this article turns. If technological exit requires the foundation of new institutions, and if those institutions must organize membership, rules, resources, and protection, then leaving democratic politics may not mean leaving political power. It may mean changing its location.
2. Exit as Antipower
The distinction developed in the previous section removes one objection to Thiel’s proposal. To leave democratic politics is not necessarily to imagine that the political can be abolished. But it does not yet explain why exit should count as a strategy of freedom. At first glance, exit can look less like resistance to power than an admission of defeat. The person who leaves abandons the institution to those who control it. She saves herself, perhaps, but relinquishes any attempt to change the rules for those who remain.
The strongest defense of Thielian exit begins by reversing this picture. Departure need not merely evade power after it has been exercised. The credible possibility of departure may constrain power in advance. Exit can therefore operate not only as escape from authority but as antipower: a capacity that makes those who govern a relationship less able to act arbitrarily.
Hirschman’s distinction between exit and voice provides the starting point. When an organization deteriorates, its members can respond through two basic mechanisms. They may withdraw, thereby reducing its revenues or membership; or they may remain and communicate their dissatisfaction to managers, superior authorities, or the public. The first response is exit, the second voice (Hirschman 1970, 4). Exit communicates through loss. Voice communicates through argument, protest, organization, or some other attempt to alter the institution from within.
Hirschman’s purpose was partly to expose the disciplinary biases attached to these mechanisms. Economists tend to treat exit as direct and efficient while dismissing political voice as cumbersome. Political actors often display the reverse prejudice, praising participation while condemning exit as desertion or disloyalty (Hirschman 1970, 15–19). Neither bias is defensible in advance. Exit and voice are alternative mechanisms through which institutions learn that something has gone wrong, and their value depends upon how they interact with the institution and with one another.
The most familiar part of Hirschman’s argument gives reason to distrust exit. When members can easily leave a deteriorating institution, those who care most about its quality may depart first. Yet those members are also likely to be its most energetic potential reformers. Exit can therefore remove precisely the people whose voice might have arrested decline (Hirschman 1970, 34, 44–47). Wealthier parents escape failing public schools, leaving poorer families with fewer allies and weaker political influence. Mobile and civically active residents leave declining neighborhoods, diminishing the organizations that might otherwise resist further deterioration (Hirschman 1970, 45–52, 109–12). Exit liberates some individuals while worsening the conditions of those unable to follow.
This is a serious challenge to any politics that treats departure as self-evidently emancipatory. It reveals a distributive asymmetry concealed by the simple proposition that “people are free to leave.” The first persons able to exercise exit are generally those who need it least. They possess money, information, legal status, mobility, and alternative relationships. Those most exposed to institutional failure are often the least able to depart. Under such conditions, exit can divide a previously shared predicament into two: freedom for the mobile and intensified dependence for everyone else.
Yet Hirschman’s better-known warning is only half of his argument. Voice is most effective when it carries a credible threat that the institution will suffer if it ignores what is said. Exit can supply that threat. Managers may dismiss complaints that impose no cost; they are less likely to dismiss speakers who can take their labor, capital, custom, allegiance, or residence elsewhere. The possibility of departure can therefore strengthen voice even when no one ultimately leaves (Hirschman 1970, 82–85).
The important case may be one in which exit remains “off the equilibrium path.” A worker with realistic employment alternatives can object to mistreatment without changing jobs, because her employer knows that refusal may cause her to leave. A spouse with the resources and legal ability to end a relationship may be heard more seriously without initiating divorce. A jurisdiction may reform before taxpayers or residents relocate. In each case, the practical importance of exit lies precisely in its non-exercise. Its credible availability changes the bargaining relation in which voice occurs.
Robert Taylor turns this insight into a republican defense of exit. Republican freedom is not exhausted by the absence of actual interference. A person is dominated when another possesses the capacity to interfere with important choices at will and with impunity, even if that capacity is exercised benevolently or rarely. The worker who keeps her job only at a manager’s pleasure remains dependent upon arbitrary power; the fact that the manager has so far behaved well does not remove the dependence (Taylor 2017, 1–3).
Republicans have generally tried to reduce such domination through voice and constitutional control. Those exposed to power receive rights of participation, appeal, representation, or review; authority is divided and placed under public constraints. Taylor asks whether exit might achieve some of the same purpose by another route. If a person can choose among numerous providers and leave a relationship that becomes abusive, no single provider can easily make her dependent upon its goodwill. Competition disciplines actual misconduct, while potential exit disciplines anticipated misconduct. Exit may substitute for voice when departure is easier than reform, or complement voice by making demands costly to ignore (Taylor 2017, 3–4).
Taylor’s argument presents the strongest normative case for Thiel’s strategy. Exit does not need to create a world without power. It can disperse power by preventing any one institution from becoming indispensable. A tradesman with a thousand customers is dependent upon all of them in the aggregate but not absolutely dependent upon any one. A worker with many plausible employers is less vulnerable to the arbitrary will of her present employer. A citizen able to move among jurisdictions may confront local officials with a constraint that periodic elections alone fail to impose. The political value of competition is therefore not simply allocative efficiency. It is the transformation of relationships of personal dependence into relationships in which each party possesses alternatives.
But this defense works only under conditions that the bare language of exit tends to conceal. Taylor himself identifies three: exit must be legally permitted, economically feasible, and capable of imposing a cost upon the potential dominator (Taylor 2017, 4). These conditions can be stated more precisely by distinguishing formal exit from effective exit.
An agent has formal exit when the institution’s rules do not prohibit her departure. Formal exit is therefore a de jure permission: the employee may resign, the user may close an account, the resident may relocate, and the member may cancel a contract.
An agent has effective exit when departure is a practically usable means of escaping the relevant authority. This requires more than legal permission. There must be an accessible alternative; the agent must possess sufficient money, information, mobility, legal status, and security to reach it; and she must be able to preserve enough of the goods bound up with the existing relationship that leaving does not amount to surrendering her life. The formally available right to divorce, for example, may offer little protection when departure exposes a dependent spouse to violence, destitution, or the loss of her children. Taylor consequently argues that exit must be resourced through such measures as physical protection, access to assets, welfare provision, retraining, or relocation assistance (Taylor 2017, 7, 15–16).
Thiel himself has acknowledged this gap between formal and effective mobility. Discussing California’s networked technology and entertainment industries, he observed that high taxes had produced little exodus because “people are sort of stuck”; the benefits of location and network effects could make departure irrational even as public policy deteriorated (Thiel 2015b). The example matters because it concedes, within Thiel’s own framework, that the legal ability to move does not by itself generate disciplinary exit. Where network effects bind people to a place or platform, the absence of departure may register dependence rather than consent.
Effective exit also requires that those wielding power be responsive to it. A dissatisfied customer can discipline a firm only when her departure imposes a loss the firm has reason to avoid. Exit from a public service funded independently of usage may not affect its managers. Exit from a platform may be irrelevant when each departing user is immediately replaced, or when the institution’s power rests on assets other than membership. Hirschman repeatedly stresses that an organization may provoke one response while being sensitive only to another. Exit and voice provide feedback only when the organization has reason to react to them (Hirschman 1970, 120–24).
The distinction also clarifies why exit is distributed unequally. A system can recognize the same formal right for everyone while furnishing effective exit only to the advantaged. Taylor describes the resulting problem through a non-linear relation between exit costs and the protection of vulnerable members. When exit is prohibitively costly for everyone, the advantaged remain and may use their greater voice to resist institutional decline. As costs begin to fall, they leave first, weakening the voice of those trapped behind. If costs fall far enough, however, less advantaged members can themselves depart or credibly threaten departure. Their security may then improve again (Taylor 2017, 13–18).
The worst arrangement may therefore be neither universal immobility nor universal mobility, but partial exit: a regime in which an institution can invoke the freedom to leave while only its strongest members can actually use it. The answer to this inequality is not necessarily to close the exit. It may be to make exit genuinely available to those whose formal liberty otherwise conceals continuing dependence.
Neither exit nor voice, however, can be assumed to work indefinitely. Hirschman rejects the search for a single optimal mixture valid across institutions and over time. Organizations learn to neutralize whichever mechanism threatens them. Voice can be institutionalized into harmless consultation; competing providers can collude, making departure ineffective; members can grow so accustomed to one mechanism that they lose the capacity to use the other. Institutions that rely predominantly on exit may therefore require injections of voice, while institutions dominated by voice may occasionally need the shock of exit (Hirschman 1970, 120–26).
For the purposes of this article, contestability names the broader condition that exit and voice are each imperfectly trying to secure. An exercise of authority is contestable when those subject to it can challenge the decision, demand reasons, trigger an independent reconsideration, and impose some institutional cost when their claims are ignored. Voice supplies contestability from within. Effective exit supplies it from without. A spoken objection that the decision-maker can disregard with impunity is no more contestatory than a formal right to leave that no one can afford to exercise.
This also clarifies Thiel’s own description of his strategy. Rather than go to Washington and “beg the regulators to be more reasonable,” he seeks ways for people to “succeed at the margins” (Thiel 2015a). Read normatively, the phrase names an attempt to create leverage outside an unresponsive center. But success at the margins counts as antipower only if the margin remains accessible to those who need it, and if the new alternative does not become another center from which exit is merely formal.
The resulting position is conditional rather than anti-exit. Exit can be a genuine form of antipower when alternatives are real, departure is feasible, threatened departure is costly to the institution, and the capacity to leave is not confined to those already least vulnerable. Under those conditions, exit may restrain arbitrary power, strengthen voice, and provide a final refuge when voice fails. Thiel is right to see institution-building and mobility as possible sources of liberty that democratic participation alone cannot supply.
But the conclusion is narrower than the claim that any voluntarily entered institution is non-dominating because its members may leave. The existence of a formal door establishes very little. What matters is who can reach it, what they must abandon in passing through it, whether there is somewhere else to go, and whether the institution has any reason to fear their departure.
This qualification prepares the next difficulty. Effective exit does not arise naturally from the declaration that individuals are free to choose. It must be produced through law, resources, infrastructure, and alternative institutions. And once an institution is capable of providing a durable destination from which its members can resist another authority, it must itself organize the conditions under which they live. Exit may constrain power. But the production of exit also produces governance.
3. The Governance Produced by Exit
The preceding section defended the strongest case for exit. When organizations know that members can credibly leave, exit may discipline arbitrary power without requiring every disagreement to be processed through collective deliberation. The possibility of departure can therefore operate as antipower.
But the argument contains an unnoticed asymmetry. It asks what exit does to the institution one leaves while saying much less about the institution one enters. A credible exit requires more than an open door. It requires somewhere to go.
Suppose a group seeks to escape political authority A. A temporary departure may require little organization: individuals move, transact elsewhere, or cease using a service. A durable exit is more demanding. The group must create or join an institution B capable of preserving the alternative against the pressures that made exit necessary. Institution B will normally need to determine membership, allocate resources, interpret agreements, enforce decisions, maintain infrastructure, and respond to threats. The stronger the desired independence from A, the more of these capacities B must acquire.
The recursive structure is simple:
exit from authority A → construction of institution B → exercise of authority by B
This does not show that every exit merely reproduces the institution it rejects. Authority varies in scope, intensity, legitimacy, and form. A voluntary association with easily replaceable services is not equivalent to a territorial state. The point is narrower: exit from a particular government does not eliminate the problem of government. It relocates that problem to the institutional conditions that make exit sustainable.
Thiel later offered an organizational explanation for why institution B so often takes the form of a startup. Large corporations, he argued, become “very political” and slow; their internal conflicts leave space for small firms that can act quickly (Thiel 2020). The terminology must be handled carefully. Here “political” denotes bureaucratic bargaining and organizational inertia, not necessarily the Schmittian political. Yet the ambiguity is revealing. The startup escapes one organization’s internal politics by concentrating coordination elsewhere. Its efficiency is therefore purchased through a different allocation of authority, not through the disappearance of authority.
Protection and the Return of Obligation
Schmitt identifies one reason why an institutional outside cannot remain empty. A people may renounce political risk, he argues, but another power will then have to protect it. The protector thereby acquires the ability to determine the enemy and, with it, political rule. His Hobbesian formula is protego ergo obligo: I protect, therefore I bind. For Schmitt, this relation is so fundamental that it is the “cogito ergo sum of the state” (Schmitt 2007, 51–53).
The claim should not be accepted as a complete theory of political legitimacy. Effective protection does not by itself generate a morally unlimited right to obedience. A criminal organization may protect a neighborhood while exploiting it; an occupying power may provide security without becoming legitimate. Schmitt’s formula is more useful here as a diagnosis of dependence. An organization that supplies indispensable protection obtains practical leverage over those who rely upon it. It can define dangers, allocate defensive resources, demand compliance, and determine which risks members must collectively bear.
Schmitt makes the same point internally. When organized associations provide their members with more effective protection than the state, the state may become an appendage of those associations, while individuals learn where their effective obedience is owed (Schmitt 2007, 52–53). The locus of political authority therefore need not coincide with the institution that formally claims sovereignty. It may migrate toward whichever organization actually controls the conditions of security.
This matters for technological exit because protection is easily redescribed as an engineering problem. A seastead requires structural safety, maritime rescue, defense, recognized contracts, and access to supply chains. A digital community requires cybersecurity, identity authentication, data preservation, dispute resolution, and resistance to external interference. Each task has a technical component. Yet each also raises a question of authority: who identifies the threat, who controls the protective system, and who can challenge its decisions?
The political does not return merely because residents quarrel. It returns when protection against danger requires decisions that bind a collectivity.
Technology Does Not Govern by Itself
Schmitt’s “The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations” supplies a second part of the argument. Modern Europe, on his account, repeatedly migrated from contested domains toward apparently neutral ones: from theology to metaphysics, then to morality, economics, and finally technology. Technology appeared to offer a field in which substantive conflict could be displaced by objective questions of efficiency and expertise. But technology supplies instruments, not final purposes. The same technical capacity can serve centralization or decentralization, war or peace, emancipation or domination. Its political significance depends upon the groups that control and direct it (Schmitt 2007, 89–95).
This does not mean that every line of code is secretly a friend–enemy decision. Most engineering choices are not political in Schmitt’s demanding sense. The point is conditional. When a technical system becomes the medium through which important forms of action are possible, control over its design can become control over the terms of social membership. Architecture then distributes permissions, defines defaults, identifies authorized actors, and determines which kinds of disagreement the system can recognize.
McCormick interprets Schmitt’s wider critique of liberalism as a critique of politics treated as technology. Liberal institutions, on this reading, promise to process substantive conflict through impersonal procedures, divided competences, formal norms, and balancing mechanisms. Schmitt objects that these apparently neutral forms cannot eliminate the decisions, judgments, and purposes that sustain them (McCormick 1997, 31–82, 157–205). McCormick also cautions against Schmitt’s own response: exposing the limits of technical neutrality does not justify replacing procedure with myth, charisma, or unconstrained decision (McCormick 1997, 293–306).
The relevant lesson is therefore not that technical systems should be rejected. It is that they should not be mistaken for the absence of rule. A protocol can constrain its administrators more reliably than an informal command; automation can reduce some forms of personal arbitrariness. But the protocol still embodies decisions about who may participate, how assets are distributed, what counts as valid action, and how exceptional cases are handled. The question “Who governs?” has not disappeared. It has partly become the question “Who designed, owns, modifies, and interprets the infrastructure?”
Thiel’s own technological shorthand sometimes appears to resist Schmitt’s neutrality thesis. In a 2018 Stanford conversation, he contrasted the decentralizing affordances of cryptocurrency with the centralizing affordances of artificial intelligence, declaring that “crypto is libertarian and AI is communist” (Stanford University 2018). Taken literally, the formula essentializes technologies too quickly. Taken more charitably, it identifies institutional tendencies: distributed verification can reduce reliance on a central intermediary, while data- and compute-intensive systems can favor concentrated control. Affordances, however, are not political destinies. Cryptocurrency can be governed by concentrated exchanges and ownership; AI can be deployed through more or less centralized arrangements. The political question remains who controls the architecture and who can contest its use.
Croce and Salvatore’s reconstruction of Schmitt’s institutional theory helps identify a subtler form of this governance. Schmitt is often read almost exclusively through the exception: political power becomes visible when a sovereign suspends the rules. Croce and Salvatore show that his later institutional thinking increasingly located order in settled practices, exemplary roles, and models of normal conduct. Institutions do not merely issue commands after conflict appears. They produce the background normality through which some actions become intelligible, expected, and legally protected while others are marked as deviant or excluded (Croce and Salvatore 2022, 90–103, 106–21).
This interpretation must be handled critically. Schmitt’s own politics of normality enabled an exclusionary project in which selected social practices were elevated into binding norms under an authoritarian conception of collective homogeneity. But the analytic point survives rejection of that project: power is exercised not only through spectacular decisions but through the routine organization of the normal. An infrastructure governs partly by determining what an ordinary user is, which forms of ownership are recognized, which relationships are technically possible, and which burdens appear as natural features of the system rather than contestable decisions.
The problem becomes clearer through three increasingly ambitious forms of exit: seasteading, software architecture, and the network state.
Seasteading: The Outside That Requires a Jurisdiction
Seasteading gives the spatial metaphor of exit a literal form. Modular platforms promise that residents dissatisfied with one political arrangement can detach and join another. Government becomes a competitive service, and geographical mobility supplies the sanction that democratic voice often cannot. In its ideal form, no authority can become persistently arbitrary because it must retain mobile residents.
Yet a viable seastead cannot consist only of detachable homes. It must answer at least four questions:
- Boundary: who may enter, remain, own property, and be expelled?
- Rule: who determines the conditions of residence, labor, exchange, and use of shared resources?
- Adjudication: who interprets contracts and resolves disputes?
- Protection: who secures residents against internal violence, maritime danger, coercion, or external intervention?
These functions can be divided among owners, insurers, arbitral bodies, resident councils, security providers, and existing states. Their division may be desirable. But functional plurality does not make authority disappear; it creates a constitutional problem concerning the relations among several authorities.
The legal structure of the sea makes this especially visible. Under Article 60 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a coastal state has exclusive authority to authorize, regulate, and exercise jurisdiction over artificial islands in its exclusive economic zone, including for customs, taxation, health, safety, and immigration. On the high seas, vessels remain subject to flag-state jurisdiction in administrative, technical, and social matters under Article 94 (United Nations 1982, arts. 60, 94). The sea is therefore not a pre-political void waiting to be occupied. It is already organized through overlapping legal relations among coastal states, flag states, ships, installations, and international obligations.
The Seasteading Institute’s attempt to develop a floating-city project in French Polynesia illustrates the dependence that follows. The proposed settlement did not simply sail beyond politics. It sought an agreement with the French Polynesian government and a special governing framework within a host jurisdiction. The project was ultimately postponed, but the episode reveals the underlying structure: physical feasibility and political autonomy depended upon legal recognition, protected waters, access to infrastructure, and a state willing to define the extent of the experiment (Seasteading Institute n.d.).
Utrata describes such projects as attempts to “engineer territory”: technology transforms supposedly empty spaces into sites that can be owned and ruled. Her claim is stronger than the argument needed here when she suggests that these projects aim to recreate territorially based state rule. The more modest conclusion is already significant. Seasteading does not discover an ungoverned outside. It constructs a jurisdictional inside, then negotiates how that inside will relate to pre-existing sovereigns (Utrata 2024, 1104–08).
Schmitt’s protection–obedience relation now reappears in concrete form. If residents protect themselves, their defensive organization must command resources and define threats. If a host state protects them, that state gains leverage over the arrangement. If protection is outsourced, the community must authorize and constrain the protector. The seastead may achieve substantial autonomy, but autonomy is produced through an allocation of governing power, not through its disappearance.
Software Architecture: Jurisdiction Written as Code
Cyberspace appears to offer a cleaner exit because digital movement can be cheaper than physical relocation. A user can change servers, fork software, transfer assets, or create a new community without moving a household across an ocean. Decentralized architectures can genuinely weaken central intermediaries and make censorship or expropriation more difficult.
But software makes governance less visible rather than unnecessary.
Smith and Burrows analyze Urbit as an “architecture of exit”: a proposed clean-slate digital environment with its own operating system, network protocol, programming language, identity structure, and hierarchical address space (Smith and Burrows 2021, 143–45). Urbit imagines digital communities as self-governing cities between which users may move. Its political promise is therefore structurally similar to seasteading: instead of reforming one large jurisdiction, individuals enter smaller communities and discipline them through exit (Smith and Burrows 2021, 154–55).
The revealing feature is that this decentralization still requires an architecture of property and control. Smith and Burrows report a concentration of high-level address ownership and a rigid hierarchy within the system. In the constitutional model they examine, exit becomes the primary—indeed, effectively the only—political right: dissatisfied users may detach from one superior node and attach to another, but must remain situated somewhere within the architecture (Smith and Burrows 2021, 155–56).
This example does not establish that decentralized software is necessarily authoritarian. It demonstrates a conceptual point: the ability to move within an architecture is not the same as authority over the architecture itself. A person may choose among communities while lacking influence over the property structure, protocol updates, identity system, or rules that determine what choices are available. Code can reduce the discretion of local administrators while concentrating power among protocol designers, infrastructure owners, or actors capable of coordinating modifications.
Software governance becomes politically significant when the architecture controls more than an optional hobby. If communication, identity, payment, employment, reputation, or access to essential services depends upon it, design choices begin to structure the background conditions of agency. At that point, “fork the code” or “join another server” may remain formally possible while becoming socially or economically unrealistic.
The technological outside has again produced an institutional inside—one composed not primarily of territory and police, but of permissions, keys, standards, interfaces, property claims, and update procedures.
The Network State: Exit Becomes State Formation
The network state makes explicit what seasteading and software architecture can leave ambiguous. Its advocates do not merely propose communities beyond the state. They propose a path toward statehood.
Srinivasan defines a network state as an online community with a recognized founder, collective capacity, an integrated cryptocurrency, government limited by a “social smart contract,” crowdfunded territories, an on-chain census, and eventually diplomatic recognition. The sequence is “cloud first, land last”: begin with a startup society, organize it into a network union, acquire a distributed territorial archipelago, and seek recognition from existing states (Srinivasan 2022).
This is no longer exit understood simply as withdrawal. It is an entrepreneurial theory of political foundation. Corporate stages supply the analogy: the founder recruits an aligned community; quantitative growth certifies success; capital purchases territory; software coordinates membership; and recognition converts the project into a sovereign actor.
The sequence also reveals why the language of independence can obscure continuing dependence. Jutel argues that the network-state movement joins libertarian exit to the political economy of venture capital. Exit is simultaneously a political ideal and the financial mechanism through which investors realize value. The founder-philosopher does not construct an alternative outside existing power from nothing; the project relies on capital markets, legal property forms, technological infrastructures, special economic zones, and the enabling capacities of established states (Jutel 2026).
Recent work on “oligarchic sovereignty” makes the same point at a broader level. Technology firms and their owners need not replace states in order to exercise quasi-sovereign power. By controlling infrastructures on which states and populations depend—cloud systems, platforms, communications networks, satellite services, security technologies, or territorial development projects—they can bargain with public authorities and shape the conditions under which sovereign decisions are made (Atal et al. 2026, 1–3).
The network state is therefore the culmination of the recursive logic. Exit begins as protection against government. It becomes the construction of an organization capable of collective action. That organization acquires property, membership rules, economic infrastructure, territory, and diplomatic ambitions. At the end of the process, the successful exit is successful precisely because it has obtained capacities conventionally associated with government.
The outside has not defeated the state form. It has made state formation entrepreneurial.
When Does Governance Become Political Rule?
The examples above do not support the conclusion that every platform, firm, protocol, or residential association is a political government. A more discriminating criterion is needed. I propose five dimensions.
First, importance. How significant are the conditions controlled by the institution? Authority over a recreational service differs from authority over housing, livelihood, payment, legal identity, communication, mobility, or security.
Second, dependence. How realistically can affected persons avoid or replace the institution? Dependence increases when alternatives are scarce, switching costs are high, assets or relationships are non-portable, or network effects make departure self-defeating.
Third, discretion. How extensively can owners or administrators make, revise, interpret, and selectively enforce rules? Fixed and transparent constraints reduce one kind of power; unilateral modification and exceptional intervention increase it.
Fourth, non-contestability. Can those affected demand reasons, appeal decisions, participate in rule revision, invoke independent adjudication, or seek effective external review? Exit is one form of control, but not the only one.
Fifth, external effects. Does the institution substantially affect people who never joined it and cannot exit from its consequences? A platform’s information architecture, a private city’s environmental decisions, or a security contractor’s actions may impose burdens beyond the consenting membership.
No single dimension is sufficient. An institution may be important but competitive, discretionary but trivial, or difficult to leave while tightly regulated and internally contestable. Political rule emerges by degree as the dimensions reinforce one another. The strongest case arises when an organization controls important conditions of agency, creates structural dependence, exercises unilateral discretion, offers weak possibilities of challenge, and imposes consequences on outsiders.
This model explains why the governance produced by exit requires a justification independent of the act of founding it. Institution B may be freer, more experimental, or more responsive than authority A. But the fact that B provided an exit from A does not settle whether B’s own power is legitimate.
At this point, the argument encounters the figure who appears entitled to answer that question: the founder who saw the possibility of an alternative before anyone else, assembled the institution, and made exit real. The next section asks whether this epistemic achievement can justify the proprietary and governing authority that follows from it.
4. From Epistemic Authority to Proprietary Rule
The preceding section ended with an apparent answer to the problem it had uncovered. If exit produces a new institution, someone must decide what that institution is for, how it should be organized, and which departures from existing practice are worth attempting. In Thiel’s account, that person is the founder.
The founder does not initially claim authority through election, representation, or an inherited office. His claim begins as an epistemic one. He sees something that others have missed.
The Founder’s Secret
Thiel’s characteristic question is not whether an entrepreneur can execute an idea already recognized by the market. It is: “What important truth do very few people agree with you on?” (Thiel and Masters 2014, 5). The question contains a theory of innovation. Valuable knowledge is often non-consensual before it becomes obvious. If an alleged insight is already shared by everyone, acting on it will ordinarily reproduce an existing practice rather than create something genuinely new. The movement from zero to one therefore begins with a judgment that departs from the judgment of the crowd.
Thiel calls such judgments secrets. A secret is not merely confidential information. It is a truth that is neither conventionally accepted nor impossible to discover: something difficult but knowable, hidden because most people do not look for it or because institutional incentives discourage them from doing so. Universities reward incremental work; firms imitate visible competitors; risk-averse professionals prefer to be conventionally wrong rather than “lonely but right.” The entrepreneur searches where these mechanisms have produced collective blindness (Thiel and Masters 2014, 93–106).
This account is more sophisticated than the claim that founders possess inexplicable genius. Thiel recognizes the danger of false exceptionalism. Anyone who rejects conventional opinion must ask whether he has discovered a truth or merely become detached from reality. The prospective founder faces an unavoidable question: “Am I sane? Or am I crazy?” (Masters 2012, 4). Contrarianism alone has no epistemic value. Most propositions rejected by almost everyone are rejected because they are false.
Thiel’s more recent reflections suggest that the founder’s knowledge claim is not merely specialist expertise. He criticizes late-modern “hyper-specialization” for making it difficult to think about the “big picture” and describes political philosophy and political theology as efforts to integrate the fragmented dimensions of social life (Thiel 2024). This aspiration gives the founder figure its philosophical reach. The founder is not only supposed to know how to solve a technical problem; he is tempted to treat the successful project as evidence that he understands how otherwise separated technical, economic, and political considerations fit together. The broader the epistemic claim becomes, however, the less its validation by a single market success can establish.
A founder’s authority therefore cannot arise merely from believing more strongly than others. It emerges through a sequence:
contrarian judgment → institutional construction → practical success
The founder identifies an unrecognized possibility, organizes people around it, and produces something that did not previously exist. A successful organization seems to answer the initial doubt. The founder was not simply eccentric; he saw a path that others could not see.
This is the strongest basis for founder authority. A person who discovered the relevant opportunity, understood its structure before others did, and coordinated the organization that realized it may possess knowledge that dispersed employees, investors, regulators, and outside observers lack. Replacing his judgment with a vote among less informed parties could destroy precisely the insight on which the institution depends. Concentrated authority may consequently be an epistemic adaptation to radical uncertainty rather than an arbitrary privilege.
Thiel’s defense of monopoly follows the same logic. A company that merely copies its competitors produces little durable value and remains subject to pressures that narrow its time horizon. A creative monopoly, by contrast, rests on a sufficiently distinctive technology, network, brand, or scale advantage to escape direct competition. Its unusual knowledge becomes an institutional capacity and, eventually, a protected market position (Thiel and Masters 2014, 23–34, 47–60). The secret is no longer only something the founder knows. It becomes something the company owns and controls.
The transformation can be stated schematically:
epistemic difference → organizational difference → proprietary advantage → governing authority
Each transition may be reasonable. None is conceptually automatic.
Thiel also describes founding in explicitly constitutional terms. He prefers “founder” to “entrepreneur” because the former names the creation of an institution intended to endure, and he compares a company’s founding moment to a constitutional convention: it permits a degree of freedom unavailable later while setting the organization’s “key DNA” for the future (Thiel 2014). This analogy explains why founder control can seem more than managerial. If the founder’s early choices constitute the institution’s basic order, authority over those choices appears as a form of constituent power. Yet constituent achievement and permanent governing entitlement remain distinct. The capacity to establish a constitution is not the same as an indefinite exemption from constitutional constraint.
Strauss: Knowledge as a Title to Rule
The classical tradition appears, initially, to support Thiel’s founder. Strauss writes that, for Xenophon’s Socrates, “only knowledge” provides a sufficient title to rule. Force, fraud, inheritance, and even election do not make a ruler competent. An elected magistrate who refuses good counsel may rule less legitimately than a tyrant who listens to those who understand what should be done (Strauss 2013, 80–81).
This argument is radically anti-procedural. It denies that the origin of authority settles its quality. The fact that a decision emerged from a recognized procedure does not make it wise, just as the fact that an insight emerged from an eccentric founder does not make it false. A polity governed by collective ignorance does not become well governed merely because the ignorance was aggregated democratically.
Yet Strauss does not move from this premise to the institutional conclusion that people who appear unusually insightful should receive indefinite and unaccountable power. His account introduces three obstacles to that inference.
The first is the difference between wisdom and philosophy. Wisdom would be complete knowledge of the whole; philosophy is the continuing search for such knowledge. Actual philosophers are not possessors of an intellectual formula that settles every practical question. Their superiority consists partly in their awareness of the limits of what they know. The philosophical life is therefore not easily converted into a general administrative competence.
The second obstacle is motivational. Strauss argues that the classical defense of wise rule ultimately depends on the assumption that the wise do not desire to rule. The philosopher is devoted to understanding rather than recognition, command, or political success. In Plato’s account, philosophers must be compelled to govern precisely because governing distracts them from the life they regard as highest. The unwillingness to rule functions as evidence that their judgment will not simply rationalize an appetite for power (Strauss 2013, 196–97).
The third obstacle is institutional. The unwise cannot reliably identify the genuinely wise, and the self-proclaimed wise cannot publicly demonstrate their superiority without appealing to standards already accessible to those they seek to govern. What presents itself as absolute rule by wisdom will therefore probably become absolute rule by people who are not wise. Strauss consequently concludes that “the unwise ought to rule under law.” A citizen body may, in a favorable founding moment, accept laws proposed by an unusually wise legislator. It is far less plausible that it should submit permanently to an indefinite succession of allegedly wise rulers (Strauss 2013, 195–97).
This produces an important distinction between a founding contribution and a continuing title to rule. Exceptional insight may justify giving a founder substantial authority while an institution is being created. It does not follow that the authority should remain unlimited after the organization, its constituency, and the circumstances of its operation have changed.
Strauss’s analysis of beneficent tyranny makes the same point from another direction. Rule by a genuinely knowledgeable person might outperform rule by rigid law in particular cases. But tyranny remains rule according to the ruler’s will rather than law. Even its improved form avoids the language of freedom: “no laws, no liberty” (Strauss 2013, 73–76). Moreover, Xenophon offers no convincing historical instance in which the best tyranny remains reliably wise. The difficulty is not merely that tyrants are wicked. It is that the institution asks subjects to make a continuing wager on the ruler’s wisdom without preserving an independent means of correcting him when the wager fails (Strauss 2013, 75–81).
The Straussian lesson is therefore double-edged. Knowledge matters more than procedure, but this does not make self-attributed knowledge a self-authenticating source of authority. The founder may know something important without knowing the whole; may be right about the initial project without remaining right about every later decision; and may possess superior knowledge of the product without possessing superior judgment concerning all those whose lives the product comes to organize.
Kojève: Truth Must Enter History
Kojève presses precisely where Strauss appears most vulnerable. How can philosophy distinguish genuine insight from internally coherent delusion if it remains protected within a circle of like-minded friends? Subjective certainty is insufficient: false prophets and madmen may be no less certain of their revelations than philosophers are of their arguments. A doctrine must leave the garden, encounter other minds, and expose itself to historical resistance (Kojève 2013, 153–55).
For Kojève, the problem is not only interpersonal confirmation. Philosophical ideas about social life must enter social reality. The philosopher articulates an idea; intellectuals translate it into forms relevant to present circumstances; political actors attempt to realize it. Their success and failure then become part of philosophy’s own development. Without ideas, political action lacks rational orientation. Without action, philosophy cannot discover whether its abstractions survive contact with the world (Kojève 2013, 163–76).
This historical criterion appears strikingly close to Thiel’s account of entrepreneurship. The founder does not remain a contrarian commentator. He constructs an organization through which reality can answer his claim. Capital must be raised, technical problems solved, collaborators persuaded, customers recruited, and competitors overcome. The secret either supports an institution or it does not.
This connection is strengthened by Thiel’s rejection of a merely predictive conception of the future. The future, he argues, is not a fixed object that unfolds while observers “sit back, eat popcorn, and watch the movie”; it remains open to human agency (Thiel 2015a). On this view, action does more than test a prior representation of the future. It helps constitute which future becomes actual. The founder thus acquires epistemic authority not as the most accurate spectator but as an agent whose organized commitment makes a previously unavailable possibility real.
The founder thereby compresses several roles that Kojève kept analytically distinct:
philosopher → intellectual mediator → statesman
becomes
founder who discovers + founder who persuades + founder who executes + founder who governs
In this respect, Thiel’s founder is less Straussian than Kojèvian. His insight demands actualization. A truth that never produces action risks becoming indistinguishable from an elegant mistake.
But even Kojève’s criterion does not establish the conclusion that practical success confers political legitimacy. His examples of objective success are revealing: a bridge that does not collapse, a business that makes money, a war that is won, or a state that remains powerful (Kojève 2013, 175–76 n.6). These outcomes demonstrate that an actor understood some causal features of the world. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate that the bridge was worth building, that the business distributes its benefits justly, that the war was justified, or that the powerful state is legitimate.
Actualization tests an idea relative to an aim. It cannot determine the moral status of the aim without an additional argument.
The distinction is:
feasibility success ⇏ normative legitimacy
A company’s survival may confirm the founder’s judgment that a technology can work. Profit may confirm that some customers value it. Market dominance may confirm that the firm has developed a difficult-to-replicate advantage. None of these conclusions entails that every exercise of authority required to preserve the firm is justified. Nor does success establish that those who become dependent on the institution owe its founder obedience.
The founder’s achievement is genuine. The inference from achievement to rule is the problem.
The Corporate Form Freezes the Inference
Thiel’s theory does not leave founder authority at the level of personal charisma. It translates it into corporate structure.
In Zero to One, he distinguishes ownership, possession, and control. Ownership belongs to those who legally hold the company’s equity; possession to those who operate it day to day; control to those formally empowered to govern it, above all through the board. Startup failure often begins when these groups acquire conflicting interests. Thiel’s solution is not to disperse control as widely as possible. It is to align a small group around the long-term project and keep the board sufficiently small to make determinate action possible (Thiel and Masters 2014, 107–14).
Masters’s notes from Thiel’s 2012 Stanford course state the political analogy with unusual directness. “A startup is basically structured as a monarchy.” An early-stage company is not representative government: employees do not vote on each strategic decision, and radical innovation would be difficult if every proposal were reduced to a lowest-common-denominator compromise. The notes qualify the analogy—the founder is not an absolute dictator and remains dependent upon employees, investors, customers, and directors—but nevertheless conclude that early startups lean toward the “dictatorial side” because concentrated direction works better under founding conditions (Masters 2012, 329–30). Since Masters explicitly described these texts as essay versions of his notes rather than exact transcripts, the language should not be treated as a verbatim published statement by Thiel. It nonetheless records the conceptual architecture later moderated in Zero to One.
There is a plausible functional argument here. New firms face severe uncertainty, limited time, incomplete information, and the need to coordinate around a vision that cannot yet be justified by a long record of results. Requiring continuous plebiscitary approval could make zero-to-one innovation impossible. Political democracy and startup governance solve different problems; it would be a mistake simply to impose the procedures of a constitutional state on every small company.
The difficulty arises when an authority justified by the epistemic conditions of founding becomes detached from those conditions.
At the founding moment:
- the organization is small;
- the founder may possess uniquely concentrated knowledge;
- participants often have relatively direct access to the founder;
- the project’s effects are limited;
- investors and employees may have several realistic alternatives;
- failure primarily burdens those who knowingly accepted the risk.
After successful expansion:
- relevant knowledge is distributed across a large organization;
- the original insight may no longer be the central problem;
- users and workers may make substantial relationship-specific investments;
- network effects may weaken realistic exit;
- the company may control infrastructure used by non-contracting parties;
- its decisions may create significant external effects.
The epistemic justification may therefore diminish while the legal structure of control persists.
Dual-class shares make this possibility especially clear. They permit founders to retain voting power disproportionate to their economic ownership, insulating a long-term strategy from investors who may favor short-term returns. Empirical research gives real support to the defense: disproportionate insider control has been associated in some samples with higher patent output, creativity, research efficiency, and innovative risk-taking (Baran, Forst, and Via 2023, 169–202).
Yet the same structure can convert the market’s initial confidence in a founder into durable insulation from later correction. Aggarwal and colleagues find that the recent growth of dual-class IPOs has been driven largely by founder-controlled firms; founders with greater bargaining power obtain a larger wedge between voting rights and economic ownership and are less likely to accept provisions that terminate superior voting rights over time (Aggarwal et al. 2022, 122–53).
The normative issue cannot be settled by asking whether dual-class firms perform better on average. Even consistently superior financial performance would show that concentrated control can be instrumentally valuable. It would not establish that every decision affecting workers, users, citizens, and outsiders should be insulated from challenge. Performance data concern the success of the corporation according to selected metrics; legitimacy concerns the terms on which one actor may exercise power over another.
The problem is especially acute when the corporation becomes infrastructural. A founder who initially knew more than others about building a payment system, social network, data platform, or satellite service may eventually govern conditions on which people depend for purposes the founder never designed. The institution’s authority then extends beyond the original secret. Product knowledge becomes rule-setting power; ownership becomes jurisdiction; and the right to protect a vision becomes the capacity to structure other people’s choices.
From the Founder’s Paradox to the Authority Paradox
Thiel is not unaware of the danger. The final chapter of Zero to One warns that founders occupy unstable extremes: they are celebrated as singular creators and blamed as singular causes of failure. Companies need unusual individuals capable of leading them beyond incrementalism, but they should not treat founders as self-sufficient “prime movers.” There is no Galt’s Gulch and “no secession from society.” The founder who accepts the myth of his own self-sufficiency may lose contact with reality (Thiel and Masters 2014, 173–92).
This qualification is crucial. It means that Thiel’s founder is not simply a philosopher-king in corporate dress. His authority remains relational: it depends on collaborators, capital, law, infrastructure, and a society whose conventions he opposes but whose resources he uses.
The deeper paradox is institutional. Founders need sufficient authority to protect insights that cannot initially survive ordinary consensus. Yet if their success makes the institution important, difficult to leave, and capable of governing others, the original epistemic achievement can no longer bear the entire burden of justification.
A founder may deserve credit for creating the door through which others exit. It does not follow that he is entitled permanently to hold every key on the other side.
The next section asks what institutional constraints can preserve the freedom-producing value of founder-led exit without allowing epistemic authority to harden into uncontestable proprietary rule.
5. Exit Without Domination
The argument so far invites an obvious objection. Whatever authority a founder, employer, platform administrator, or seastead operator exercises, it differs categorically from political rule because those subject to it remain free to leave. The state ordinarily claims authority over persons independently of their continuing consent. A private institution must retain members, workers, or users who can withdraw their labor, capital, attention, or residence. Its ruler therefore governs under the discipline of an open door.
This objection captures something important. An organization that people can easily replace has less power over them than one they cannot avoid. Low-cost exit can constrain managerial discretion, expose bad governance, and enable institutional experimentation. Cowen consequently argues that corporate authority should trouble us less where workers can readily change employers, while Taylor treats credible mobility as a central republican instrument against concentrated power (Cowen 2017, 108–16; Taylor 2017, chs. 2–4). The preceding argument has not denied this. It has treated exit as a genuine form of antipower.
The mistake lies in treating the formal permission to leave as sufficient evidence that no domination exists.
The Open Door Objection
Republican domination does not require continuous interference. It consists in subjection to another actor’s uncontrolled capacity to interfere: a power whose exercise does not reliably track the interests of those subject to it and which they cannot effectively contest (Pettit 1997, 52–58). A benevolent master may rarely issue an oppressive command. His restraint does not make the slave free, because the slave’s security continues to depend upon the master’s will.
Exit can remove such dependence, but only when it is more than a legal possibility. Three conditions must therefore be distinguished:
permission to leave ≠ effective capacity to leave ≠ freedom from domination while remaining
Formal exit exists when an institution does not legally prohibit departure. Effective exit exists when a person can leave without surrendering goods so important that departure becomes an unreasonable or self-defeating response to mistreatment. Internal non-domination exists when those who remain possess standing mechanisms through which the institution’s power can be constrained and challenged.
These conditions can come apart. An employee may legally resign but lose healthcare, immigration status, accrued benefits, professional credentials, or a home tied to employment. A platform user may delete an account but thereby lose access to clients, audiences, archives, social relationships, or a reputation accumulated over years. A resident of a private settlement may be entitled to depart but unable to carry land, local investments, family arrangements, or legal status to another jurisdiction. In each case the door exists, but the institution partly determines what must be abandoned in order to pass through it.
Anderson’s argument about private government identifies the deeper problem. Consent to one option within an institutionally given set does not justify the set itself. A worker may choose among several employers without having any realistic option not to enter an employment relation structured by extensive managerial discretion. Nor does initial agreement to join settle which powers the employer may later exercise. The crucial question concerns the constitution of the authority relation after entry, not merely the voluntariness of the moment at which it began (Anderson 2017, 37–64).
Anderson therefore does not deny that workplaces differ from states. The sanctions available to employers are generally weaker, and departure from a firm is usually less costly than emigration from a country. Her point is that these differences reduce the degree of private power without making its structure irrelevant. Workers may remain vulnerable to rules imposed without justification, notice, process, or appeal even when employers rarely exploit the full extent of their legal authority (Anderson 2017, 63–64).
The objection “you can always leave” consequently fails whenever leaving is the only protection against an authority capable of substantially reorganizing one’s life. It asks the governed to bear the entire cost of correcting the governor. The administrator may change the rules; the worker, user, or resident must change worlds.
Exit Plus Voice
Hirschman’s original distinction was never a choice between exit and voice as mutually exclusive constitutional ideals. Exit communicates dissatisfaction by departure. Voice attempts to alter the organization from within. Each can correct failures that the other cannot. Exit supplies an external sanction: an institution that ignores its members may lose them. Voice supplies information, explanation, and internal pressure before deterioration becomes severe enough to make departure rational (Hirschman 1970, 21–43).
The relationship can also be destructive. Easy exit may weaken voice when those most alert to decline leave first, depriving an organization of the members most capable of diagnosing and correcting its failures. Voice without exit may become supplication when rulers know that dissatisfied members have nowhere else to go. Hirschman accordingly sought an “optimal mix,” not the universal supremacy of either mechanism (Hirschman 1970, 120–26).
A defensible politics of technological exit should adopt the same structure:
non-domination = effective exit + effective voice + constraints on externalized power
Here voice does not mean that every private association must reproduce electoral democracy. It means contestability: the organized capacity of affected persons to require an authority to hear objections, offer reasons, reconsider decisions, and submit some exercises of power to independent constraint.
Voice is effective rather than merely expressive when it can produce institutional consequences. A complaint box that administrators may ignore is not contestability. Neither is the opportunity to criticize a platform publicly while its owners retain an unrestricted right to change rules, remove users, or appropriate their accumulated relations. Effective voice may include advance notice, reason-giving, grievance procedures, collective organization, representation, independent appeal, review by an external authority, and procedures for revising the institution’s basic rules.
The relevant contrast is not between managerial efficiency and endless deliberation. It is between discretion that operates within an answerable structure and discretion whose limits depend entirely upon the discretion-holder.
Proportional Contestability
Not every institution requires the same safeguards. A book club, a startup with five voluntary collaborators, a dominant communications platform, and a residential jurisdiction do not exercise equivalent power. Requiring identical constitutions would ignore the differences that make private associations valuable.
The appropriate principle is proportional:
The stronger an institution’s control over important conditions of agency, the greater the dependence it creates, the wider its unilateral discretion, the weaker effective exit becomes, and the larger its effects on outsiders, the stronger its duties of contestability should be.
This principle extends the five-dimensional model developed in Section Three. Importance, dependence, discretion, non-contestability, and external effects do not merely identify when private governance becomes politically significant. They also determine what kind of institutional response is required.
Where stakes are low and alternatives abundant, disclosure and exit may be enough. A small recreational community should generally be permitted to maintain unusual or demanding rules. Its very purpose may depend upon a coherent conception that majority revision would dissolve. So long as membership is genuinely optional, rules are known in advance, and departure carries little loss, strong founder or moderator authority may be compatible with freedom.
Where an ordinary firm or platform governs more consequential interests, additional safeguards become appropriate. Workers may need protection against retaliation, predictable terms, portable benefits, collective representation, and an independent procedure for challenging dismissal or discipline. Users may need data portability, interoperable standards, transparent moderation rules, notice before exclusion, and appeal to decision-makers not responsible for the initial sanction. These arrangements do not abolish managerial authority. They make its exercise less dependent on an unreviewable will.
When an institution controls infrastructure, even internal voice and individual exit may be insufficient. Rahman defines infrastructural goods by their foundational role in enabling other social and economic activities and by the vulnerability created when access to them is privately controlled. His public-utility framework therefore combines three kinds of response: firewalls that prevent one form of control from being leveraged into another, public obligations governing access and treatment, and public options that reduce dependence on the private provider (Rahman 2018, 1628–47, 1659–66).
This framework applies directly to the institutions of technological exit. A payment network may require nondiscrimination duties and barriers separating control over transactions from control over political participation. A dominant identity or communications platform may require interoperability and enforceable procedural protections. A private settlement that governs housing, security, adjudication, and mobility may require legal rights that neither its owner nor its residents can contract away. The more an institution becomes the background condition under which other choices are made, the less plausible it is to treat the relationship as an ordinary exchange between a seller and a replaceable customer.
External effects create a further limit on exit-based justification. The statement “participants agreed” cannot answer objections from people who did not participate but are exposed to environmental damage, surveillance, information manipulation, labor displacement, security risks, or exclusion from essential infrastructure. Outsiders cannot exit an arrangement they never entered. Their protection requires duties imposed upon the institution, public review, or participation in decisions that significantly affect them.
Against Constitutional Uniformity
The proposal can now be distinguished from the demand that every firm, platform, or seastead become a miniature parliamentary democracy.
Anderson explicitly resists deriving a single workplace constitution from abstract principle. Firms require degrees of coordination unlike those ordinarily demanded of citizens by a state; workers, investors, and managers possess heterogeneous interests; and full worker ownership may be impracticable or financially hazardous. Different kinds of workplace may therefore require different arrangements, whose costs and benefits must be learned through institutional experimentation (Anderson 2017, 130–32).
The same point holds more strongly across the diverse organizations considered here. A startup may preserve founder control over product strategy while granting employees due-process rights concerning discipline. A platform may leave technical updates to experts while giving users enforceable powers over moderation, data, and changes to constitutional rules. A seastead need not adopt Westminster institutions, but it must specify who can change residence contracts, declare emergencies, control security, adjudicate disputes, and remove the founder from authority. The form of voice may vary; the need for answerability varies with power.
Schneider’s work on online governance is useful precisely because it rejects the false choice between benevolent dictatorship and the wholesale transplantation of state institutions. Dominant platforms tend toward what he calls implicit feudalism: founders, owners, administrators, and “benevolent dictators for life” exercise powers that software presents as natural features of the space. Yet digital systems can also make governance more modular. Communities can combine councils, juries, elections, delegated roles, term limits, appeals, and specialized decision procedures rather than selecting one comprehensive ideology for every purpose (Schneider 2024, 17–39, 84–130).
This suggests a more precise institutional ideal than democratization without qualification. What technological institutions require is a governable constitution: an explicit allocation of authority, procedures by which that authority can be challenged, and rules determining how the constitution itself may be changed. Founders may govern, but they should not be the sole judges of the scope and duration of their own power. Experts may decide, but expertise should not determine which questions are immune from public or member challenge. Owners may control property, but ownership should not automatically confer unlimited authority over every person whose agency has become dependent upon that property.
The Freedom to Carry a Life Away
Thielian exit is most defensible when it expands the range of institutions among which people can choose. It becomes dominating when the institution that provides the exit acquires control over the conditions required to exercise it again.
The normative demand is therefore not to replace exit with voice. Voice without exit can trap minorities within institutions that repeatedly overrule them. Nor is it to replace private experimentation with a uniform public bureaucracy. The ability to found, differentiate, and leave remains essential to freedom.
The demand is that exit remain recursive. An institution created as an escape from one authority must not make its own authority the unavoidable price of membership. It must preserve the material, legal, and technical conditions under which members can leave; permit them to carry important parts of their lives with them; and provide ways of challenging power before departure becomes the only remedy.
A free institution consequently needs more than an unlocked door. The door must be genuinely reachable. Property, identity, relationships, benefits, and accumulated work must be portable where possible. Those who stay must be able to question the keeper of the door. Those outside must be protected from harms that no act of departure can avoid.
This is the institutional correction to Thiel’s politics of exit. Freedom does not require that every association govern democratically in the same way. It requires that the contestability of power rise with the dependence that power creates. A founder may deserve authority over the project he made possible. He does not thereby acquire an unlimited title over the lives that come to depend upon it.
Exit prevents one institution from becoming the whole world. Voice prevents the destination from becoming another world one must escape.
Conclusion
The puzzle began with two sentences. In 2007, Thiel warned that no community can unilaterally escape politics. In 2009, he called on libertarians to find an escape from politics in all its forms. Read as claims about the same object, the two statements contradict one another. Read more carefully, they disclose a continuous strategy. The first concerns the political: the possibility that collective existence will be organized through conflict, protection, and enmity. The second concerns democratic politics as a route to freedom: electoral persuasion, majoritarian lawmaking, and attempts to transform the state from within. Thiel did not need to conclude that the political had disappeared. He needed only to conclude that effective action should move elsewhere.
That semantic resolution is not the end of the argument. It is the point at which the more consequential paradox appears. To leave authority A in a durable way, people must normally create or join institution B. Yet B can preserve the alternative only by acquiring capacities of its own: it must set terms of membership, allocate resources, maintain infrastructure, interpret rules, settle disputes, and provide protection. The technological frontier therefore does not remain an empty outside. It becomes an organized inside. Seasteading produces jurisdictional questions; software architecture distributes permissions and control; the network state converts exit into an explicit project of political foundation. Politics is not eliminated. Its location and vocabulary change.
This does not vindicate the opposite simplification, according to which every firm, platform, protocol, or voluntary association is simply a state in disguise. Exit can genuinely limit power. Hirschman shows how departure can communicate institutional failure, while Taylor demonstrates how credible mobility can operate as republican antipower. Where alternatives are plentiful, switching is feasible, and departure imposes a cost on the potential dominator, the open door can discipline authority before anyone walks through it. Thiel's defense of institutional plurality therefore captures a real dimension of freedom that voice within a single political order cannot fully supply.
The value of exit is nevertheless conditional. Formal permission to leave is not the same as an effective capacity to leave, and neither guarantees freedom for those who remain. The relevant threshold is reached when an organization controls important conditions of agency, creates structural dependence, retains substantial unilateral discretion, offers weak opportunities for challenge, and imposes significant effects on outsiders. These dimensions explain why the same managerial form may be relatively harmless in a small, replaceable association and politically significant when embedded in housing, payment, identity, communication, employment, or security.
The founder's authority follows the same trajectory. At the beginning, concentrated control may protect a contrarian insight that ordinary consensus would destroy. Thiel is right that innovation often begins with knowledge that has not yet become common knowledge, and Kojève is right that a claim about the world must encounter the resistance of the world. But successful actualization establishes feasibility relative to an aim; it does not establish the justice of the aim or a general right to govern everyone who later becomes dependent on the resulting institution. Strauss's distinction between philosophy and wisdom, and between a wise founding and a continuing title to rule, reveals the missing step. The founder may deserve authority because he made the institution possible. That fact does not permanently authorize every use of the power the institution later accumulates.
The appropriate response is therefore neither to suppress exit nor to require every private association to reproduce the same democratic constitution. It is to make contestability proportionate to power. Low-stakes communities with abundant alternatives may need little beyond disclosure and genuine mobility. Firms and platforms governing more consequential interests may require notice, reason-giving, representation, portability, and independent appeal. Infrastructural institutions may also require public obligations, firewalls, public options, or constraints protecting people who never consented to their effects. Exit and voice are not rival absolutes. Exit prevents one institution from becoming the whole world; voice prevents the destination from becoming another world one must escape.
Thiel's apparent contradiction can now be understood as a clue rather than a mistake. Technology cannot abolish the political, but it can relocate power and give that power new names: protocol, ownership, platform management, founder control, or terms of service. The normative task is to recognize governing power even when it no longer looks like government. Freedom requires more than the existence of a door. The door must be realistically reachable; people must be able to carry enough of their lives through it for departure to remain meaningful; and those who stay must retain the standing to question whoever holds the keys.
Bibliography
Aggarwal, Dhruv, Ofer Eldar, Yael V. Hochberg, and Lubomir P. Litov. 2022. “The Rise of Dual-Class Stock IPOs.” Journal of Financial Economics 144 (1): 122–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.12.012.
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2017. Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Atal, Maha Rafi, Jack Taggart, Seth Schindler, Sarah Logan, Alina Utrata, Erin Lockwood, and Daniel W. Drezner. 2026. “Oligarchic Sovereignty: Technology and the Future of Global Order.” Review of International Studies 52 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210525101599.
Baran, Lindsay, Arno Forst, and Michael Tony Via. 2023. “Dual-Class Share Structure and Innovation.” Journal of Financial Research 46 (1): 169–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfir.12311.
Cowen, Tyler. 2017. “Work Isn’t So Bad After All.” In Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It), by Elizabeth Anderson, 108–118. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Croce, Mariano, and Andrea Salvatore. 2022. Carl Schmitt’s Institutional Theory: The Political Power of Normality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052474.
Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jutel, Olivier. 2026. “The Network State, Exit, and the Political Economy of Venture Capital.” Antipode 58 (1): e70069. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.70069.
Kochin, Michael S. 2002. “Morality, Nature, and Esotericism in Leo Strauss’s Persecution and the Art of Writing.” The Review of Politics 64 (2): 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670500038092.
Kojève, Alexandre. 2013. “Tyranny and Wisdom.” In On Tyranny: Corrected and Expanded Edition, Including the Strauss–Kojève Correspondence, by Leo Strauss, edited by Victor Gourevitch and Michael S. Roth, 135–176. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Masters, Blake. 2012. Peter Thiel on Startups: Notes on CS183. Course notes, Stanford University, spring 2012. https://blakemasters.tumblr.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup.
McCormick, John P. 1997. Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meier, Heinrich. 2006. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue. Translated by J. Harvey Lomax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Plato. 1992. Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Rahman, K. Sabeel. 2018. “The New Utilities: Private Power, Social Infrastructure, and the Revival of the Public Utility Concept.” Cardozo Law Review 39 (5): 1621–1692.
Schmitt, Carl. 2007. The Concept of the Political: Expanded Edition. Translated by George Schwab. Foreword by Tracy B. Strong. Notes by Leo Strauss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schneider, Nathan. 2024. Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life. Oakland: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/luminos.181.
Seasteading Institute. n.d. “The Floating City Project.” Accessed August 4, 2026. https://www.seasteading.org/floating-city-project/.
Smith, Harrison, and Roger Burrows. 2021. “Software, Sovereignty and the Post-Neoliberal Politics of Exit.” Theory, Culture & Society 38 (6): 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276421999439.
Srinivasan, Balaji. 2022. The Network State: How to Start a New Country. https://thenetworkstate.com/.
Stanford University. 2018. “At Stanford, First Cardinal Conversation Spotlights Technology, Politics.” Stanford Report, February 1. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/02/cardinal-conversation-reid-hoffman-peter-thiel-technology-politics.
Strauss, Leo. 1988. Persecution and the Art of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, Leo. 1995a. “Notes on Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political.” In Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, by Heinrich Meier, translated by J. Harvey Lomax, 89–119. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, Leo. 1995b. “Three Letters to Carl Schmitt.” In Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, by Heinrich Meier, translated by J. Harvey Lomax, 121–128. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, Leo. 2013. On Tyranny: Corrected and Expanded Edition, Including the Strauss–Kojève Correspondence. Edited by Victor Gourevitch and Michael S. Roth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Robert S. 2017. Exit Left: Markets and Mobility in Republican Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198798736.001.0001.
Thiel, Peter. 2007. “The Straussian Moment.” In Politics and Apocalypse, edited by Robert Hamerton-Kelly, 189–218. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Thiel, Peter. 2009. “The Education of a Libertarian.” Cato Unbound, April 13. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian.
Thiel, Peter. 2014. “Peter Thiel.” Interview by William Kristol. Conversations with Bill Kristol, September 15; recorded July 29. https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/peter-thiel-transcript/.
Thiel, Peter, and Blake Masters. 2014. Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future. New York: Crown Business.
Thiel, Peter. 2015a. “Peter Thiel on Stagnation, Innovation, and What Not to Name Your Company.” Interview by Tyler Cowen. Conversations with Tyler, April 6. https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/peter-thiel/.
Thiel, Peter. 2015b. “Developing the Developed World: Entrepreneurship, Liberty, and the Future.” Speech and question-and-answer session, Independent Institute, San Francisco, January 27. https://www.independent.org/news/event-transcripts/developing-the-developed-world/.
Thiel, Peter. 2016. “Peter Thiel II.” Interview by William Kristol. Conversations with Bill Kristol, May 22. https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/peter-thiel-ii-transcript.
Thiel, Peter. 2020. “The World According to Thiel.” Interview by Peter Robinson. Uncommon Knowledge, Hoover Institution, recorded January 17. https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-transcript.
Thiel, Peter. 2024. “Peter Thiel on Political Theology.” Interview by Tyler Cowen. Conversations with Tyler, April 17; recorded February 21. https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/peter-thiel-political-theology/.
United Nations. 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. December 10. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.
Utrata, Alina. 2024. “Engineering Territory: Space and Colonies in Silicon Valley.” American Political Science Review 118 (3): 1097–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001156.