You can download it from their website for free or buy a printed copy in most bookstores. Cool that you are interested to look into it. Once you’ve read it, let me know what you think!

You raise a compelling point—and decentralized democracy doesn’t necessarily disagree with the value of strong, autonomous individuals. But it does challenge the idea that such individuals exist prior to their social context. Instead of starting with the individual as an isolated atom, decentralized democracy asks: what actually constitutes an individual? It suggests that autonomy emerges from relationships—especially through one’s relation to property, expression, and influence. These aren’t just things an individual “has”; they’re co-shaped through interaction with others and the world. In this view, society isn’t built on individuals—it’s built through the relational processes that allow individuality to emerge in the first place.

I recently came across an open-source book project called Plurality that critiques both libertarianism and technocracy—not just in terms of who holds power, but in how they imagine society. Both reduce the world to isolated individuals (atoms) and a collective system (whether centrally planned or market-driven). They mainly differ in who commands authority, not how authority actually emerges. Plurality proposes something different: decentralized democracy rooted in relationships—between people, communities, and their environments. It suggests governance should emerge from these interactions, not from abstract ideals of either individualism or centralized control. Interestingly, this relational philosophy aligns more with how Bitcoin actually works: not top-down, not purely individualist, but through a decentralized network of mutual verification, incentives, and evolving consensus.

“Plurality” is defined as “technology for collaboration across social difference”. This contrasts with a common element between Libertarianism and Technocracy: that both consider the world to be made up of atoms (viz. individuals) and a social whole, a view we call “monist atomism”. While they take different positions on how much authority should go to each, they miss the core idea of Plurality, that intersecting diverse social groups and the diverse and collaborative people whose identities are constituted by these intersections are the core fabric of the social world.