In the glass-walled conference rooms of Silicon Valley and the elite salons of San Francisco, a new vision of American governance is taking shape. Tech industry leaders, venture capitalists, and their political allies are increasingly embracing a radical critique of democracy itself. At the center of this intellectual movement stands a former tech entrepreneur turned political philosopher named Curtis Yarvin, whose ideas about replacing democratic institutions with corporate-style governance have found an increasingly receptive audience among some of America’s most powerful tech leaders.
This shift in political thought represents more than just theoretical musings. As tech industry figures gain increasing influence over our political system, their embrace of anti-democratic ideas has profound implications for the future of American governance. To understand where we might be heading, we need to examine the philosophical framework that’s increasingly shaping how Silicon Valley’s elite think about power and governance.
The Rise of Neocameralism
At its core, neocameralism proposes replacing democratic institutions with governance structures modeled on modern corporations. The term, coined by Curtis Yarvin (writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug), envisions states run like companies, with CEO-like absolute rulers accountable not to voters but to shareholders1. Under this system, citizens would have no inherent right to participate in governance. Instead, they would be more like customers, with their only real power being the ability to exit – to leave for a competing jurisdiction if unsatisfied with services provided.
This might sound like dystopian fiction, but the idea has gained serious traction among influential tech figures. Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and early Facebook investor, has publicly declared that he no longer believes freedom and democracy are compatible2. His protégé and current vice president JD Vance has advocated for drastically restricting voting rights and concentrating power in executive authority3.
The appeal of neocameralism to tech industry figures isn’t hard to understand. Many tech companies already operate as de facto sovereign entities within their digital domains, with CEOs wielding near-absolute power over vast online territories. The idea of extending this model to actual governance naturally appeals to those who’ve found success in such systems.
The Dark Enlightenment: A Philosophy for the Digital Age
Neocameralism emerges from a broader intellectual movement known as the Dark Enlightenment or neo-reaction (NRx). This philosophy, also largely developed by Yarvin, positions itself as a fundamental critique of modern democratic society and the ideals of the Enlightenment4.
The Dark Enlightenment argues that human societies naturally organize themselves hierarchically and that attempts to enforce equality through democratic institutions are both futile and destructive. In this view, the real power in our society already lies with what Yarvin calls “the Cathedral” – the distributed network of academia, media, and bureaucracy that he claims maintains progressive democratic orthodoxy5.
This framework provides tech elites with a sophisticated language for attacking the institutions that challenge their power while positioning themselves as a natural aristocracy based on intelligence and merit. It’s a philosophy perfectly calibrated to appeal to successful tech entrepreneurs who already see themselves as being held back by democratic processes and public opinion.
The Convergence of Technology, Finance, and Politics
The growing influence of neocameralist thought coincides with an unprecedented convergence of technological power, financial capital, and political influence. Tech companies now control the primary means of communication, commerce, and information distribution in our society. Their founders and early investors have amassed enormous fortunes, which they’re increasingly deploying to reshape political institutions6.
This convergence creates the potential for a new kind of governance system – one where the traditional boundaries between corporate and state power become increasingly blurred. We can already see early examples of this in projects like Project 2025, which envisions a wholesale replacement of career civil servants with ideologically aligned individuals7.
The tech industry’s growing embrace of these ideas isn’t happening in isolation. It’s part of a broader movement challenging democratic norms and institutions. The difference is that unlike previous anti-democratic movements, this one comes armed with unprecedented technological capabilities and financial resources.
Why This Debate Matters
The stakes of this intellectual shift extend far beyond academic discussion. The tech industry’s growing political influence means that these ideas have a real chance of reshaping American governance. We’re already seeing their impact in proposals to:
- Replace career civil servants with politically aligned individuals
- Concentrate power in executive authority
- Restrict voting rights
- Create special jurisdictions outside normal democratic control
Moreover, the tech industry’s control over crucial infrastructure gives them unique leverage to implement aspects of these ideas even without formal political power. When companies can effectively exile individuals from modern digital life or manipulate the flow of information to billions of people, traditional democratic constraints become increasingly irrelevant8.
Looking Forward
As we move deeper into the digital age, the tension between democratic governance and tech industry power is likely to intensify. The appeal of neocameralist ideas to tech elites suggests a future where corporate and state power might merge in ways that fundamentally challenge democratic governance.
Understanding these ideas and their appeal is crucial for anyone concerned about the future of democracy in our increasingly digital world. The philosophical framework being developed by figures like Yarvin provides intellectual justification for anti-democratic impulses that have always existed in American life. The difference now is that these ideas are finding support among some of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated actors in our society.
As we grapple with these challenges, we need to recognize that this isn’t just about specific policy proposals or political candidates. It’s about a fundamental reimagining of how society should be governed. The question we face is whether democratic institutions can adapt to the digital age while preserving their essential character, or whether they’ll be replaced by something that looks more like corporate governance than democratic rule.
Footnotes
- Yarvin, Curtis. “An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives.” Unqualified Reservations (blog), 2008.
- Thiel, Peter. “The Education of a Libertarian.” Cato Unbound, April 13, 2009.
- Vance’s views on voting restrictions have been expressed in multiple interviews and campaign speeches throughout 2021-2023.
- The term “Dark Enlightenment” was coined by philosopher Nick Land but popularized by Yarvin’s writing.
- Yarvin introduces the concept of the Cathedral in his early blog posts on Unqualified Reservations, developing it further in subsequent writings.
- Recent investigations have documented billions in political spending by tech industry figures, particularly in the 2020-2024 election cycles.
- Project 2025 documentation reveals extensive influence from neocameralist thinking, though often not explicitly acknowledged.
- Recent events involving social media platform moderation and digital payment systems demonstrate this growing power.
