As Urbit collapsed, I came to realize that the fantasy of individual sovereignty on which it was built is essentially anti-political. It regards political and social ties—the fabric of cooperation—as mere bondage. It assumes that pure self-reliance is both desirable and feasible; in my experience, it is neither. Our dependence on others does not make us less human. On the contrary, it defines us as social beings.
Urbit’s anxious disavowal of dependency appealed to rugged “power-users” eager to exit MEGACORP for the freedom of the digital frontier. By offering users ownership of “galaxies,” “stars,” and “planets,” it promised a virtual liftoff from earth and into outer space. But the same fantasy that attracted users contributed to Urbit’s dysfunctional governanc. It obscured the role played by concrete human relationships in the real world in operating and maintaining this (and any) technology. As a result, Urbit has come to resemble Web 2.0: an enshittified infrastructure controlled by a small handful of actors immune to democratic accountability. If Yarvin’s political vision proved to be an unsound model for governance for a company, one can only imagine how it would play out on the scale of a country.