Silicon Statesmen: How Tech Titans Bend the State to Their Will

Over the past decades, Silicon Valley’s tech titans have positioned themselves as architects of the future, envisioning grand projects in space colonization, artificial intelligence, and a decentralized digital world. But while they portray themselves as independent innovators and disruptors who transcend the nation-state, their success is often deeply intertwined with government support, subsidies, and regulations that have enabled them to build their empires. The question is not whether they are for or against the state—the real question is how they use the state to serve their own interests.

Ideology as a Tool of Power

The dominant ideological current among the tech titans from the US is libertarianism, which advocates for maximum individual freedom and minimal government intervention. Technology is often seen as the ultimate tool to bypass existing state structures and enhance individual autonomy. This philosophy is reflected in initiatives such as decentralized financial systems (cryptocurrencies), sovereign floating cities (seasteading), and digital identities independent of national governments.

Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, is a staunch advocate of this ideology and has openly argued that democracy is not necessarily the best system for progress. According to him, democracy slows down innovation and economic growth, whereas more centralized, corporate-led decision-making allows for greater efficiency. In his manifesto The Education of a Libertarian (2009), Thiel wrote, 'I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,' signaling his growing disillusionment with democratic governments and his preference for elite-led governance models. His investments in government-affiliated technology ventures like Anduril Industries, Valar Ventures, and defense-focused AI companies exemplify how libertarian ideals can paradoxically be monetized through close collaboration with the state rather than total rejection of it. Beyond his well-known role in Palantir Technologies, Thiel has backed multiple projects that directly benefit from government contracts and regulatory influence, blurring the lines between private enterprise and public governance.

Similarly, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has positioned himself as a fierce critic of government intervention, claiming that regulations stifle innovation. However, his stance is strategic rather than absolute—while Musk advocates for a minimally regulated tech industry, his companies have received billions in government subsidies and contracts, demonstrating how tech leaders often reject state control while extracting state resources. His advocacy for cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin (DOGE) follows a similar logic: Musk has presented DOGE as a decentralized financial alternative, yet his personal influence over the market has allowed him to shape its value, revealing a model in which powerful tech figures maintain control under the guise of decentralization.

This libertarian perspective aligns with the broader corporate effort to diminish governmental oversight while leveraging the state for financial and strategic gain. Proponents argue that blockchain technologies, cryptocurrencies, and AI governance models enable individuals and corporations to operate outside traditional regulatory systems, reducing dependence on centralized authorities. However, this model does not eliminate power—it simply redistributes it from public institutions to private entities. By facilitating peer-to-peer transactions and alternative economic networks, these technologies create governance structures that are often more opaque, less accountable, and ultimately concentrated in the hands of tech elites rather than democratic institutions.

From Libertarianism to Technocratic Rule

Beyond libertarianism, a growing technocratic movement envisions technology as a tool for more efficient governance. In this perspective, traditional democratic institutions would be supplanted by data-driven decision-making and AI-managed systems, with technology serving as a neutral force capable of eliminating human error and corruption. 

This concept, known as "algocracy," refers to a system of governance where computer algorithms play a dominant role in decision-making processes. Algocracy extends beyond algorithm-based decision-making (ADM) by embedding algorithms deeply into governance structures, effectively allowing them to autonomously make and enforce decisions without human oversight. This shift raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential erosion of democratic processes.

In countries like China and Russia, AI-driven systems have been integrated into authoritarian governance models, exemplifying algocratic practices. China's extensive use of AI-powered surveillance, including facial recognition technology, enables real-time monitoring of citizens, facilitating social control and suppression of dissent. Similarly, Russia has employed AI to bolster state propaganda, utilizing AI-generated newsreaders to disseminate controlled information, thereby minimizing the risk of human deviation from official narratives.

In the United States, the concept of surveillance capitalism illustrates how private corporations utilize extensive data collection and analysis to influence consumer behavior and decision-making. Companies like Google pioneered this approach by capturing surplus behavioral data to predict and modify user behavior for commercial gain. This practice has raised concerns about privacy, autonomy, and the potential for corporate interests to undermine democratic institutions. By leveraging the regulatory frameworks and legal protections of nation-states while simultaneously resisting governmental oversight, major tech corporations blur the boundaries between public governance and private power, reinforcing a system in which democratic accountability is increasingly eroded in favor of corporate-driven decision-making.

As corporations and AI-driven systems assume greater control over economic and political processes, the idea of governance by algorithms—algocracy—becomes increasingly relevant. In its most radical form, algocracy suggests that AI and decentralized governance models could replace not only political decision-making processes but also traditional state functions entirely.

The Post-National Vision: DAOs and the Dissolution of the State

The post-national component of this vision assumes that states are outdated and that global networks and digital infrastructures are creating a new form of sovereignty. Tech billionaires like Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, promote decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) as an alternative to conventional en contemporary state functions. 

In an article on his blog, he writes: "Whereby DAOs' primary concern is not a need to resist nation states, but rather a need to take on some of the functions of nation states." 

It is therefore not surprising that, in the same article, he draws inspiration from Curtis Yarvin, an American philosopher who argues that corporations are far more effective and efficient than governments. Yarvin, also known under the pseudonym "Mencius Moldbug," is the founder of the neo-reactionary and anti-egalitarian movement known as the "Dark Enlightenment." This movement rejects democracy and equality, advocating instead for a return to autocratic forms of governance. Yarvin proposes restructuring governments along corporate lines, calling for a shift from democracy to monarchy.

This vision aligns with the growing influence of major tech corporations, which increasingly take on roles traditionally reserved for governments—whether through digital currencies, AI-driven governance models, or private infrastructure projects that provide essential services once managed by the state.

DOGE and Project 2025: The Dismantling of the State

In line with their goal of minimizing government intervention and maximizing efficiency, several tech leaders have launched initiatives to restructure governance through privatization and automation. One of the most high-profile efforts is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk. Launched in collaboration with the federal government, this initiative aims to drastically cut government spending by applying a Silicon Valley mindset to government operations. With a projected savings target of approximately $2 trillion, DOGE focuses on reducing bureaucracy, reviewing outdated authorizations, and eliminating inefficient programs.

However, DOGE has also sparked significant controversy, particularly due to mass layoffs and the closure of several federal agencies, including USAID. Critics argue that this approach undermines essential services and regulatory oversight, while supporters emphasize the need for a leaner, more efficient government.

Beyond Musk, other tech magnates have embarked on similar endeavors. Peter Thiel has expressed support for DOGE, suggesting that it could prevent significant tax increases by streamlining federal spending. David Sacks, former COO of PayPal, was appointed as the presidential AI and Crypto advisor, a position that allows him to shape policies on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency. His role aligns with initiatives like DOGE, aiming to enhance governmental efficiency by embedding private-sector approaches into federal decision-making.

Running parallel to DOGE is Project 2025, an initiative led by conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation. This project aims to restructure the federal government and strengthen executive power in favor of right-wing policy measures. The plan includes replacing federal employees with loyalists to the president, dismantling certain agencies, and enforcing a conservative agenda on taxation, healthcare, and environmental policies.

The combination of DOGE and Project 2025 highlights how tech titans like Musk, Thiel, and Sacks—alongside political leaders—are leveraging technological and ideological narratives to justify large-scale public sector transformation. While these initiatives are marketed as efforts to increase efficiency and modernize governance, they also raise critical concerns about the balance between innovation, government oversight, and democratic values.

The Consequences: The Erosion of the Democratic State

The impact of DOGE and Project 2025 extends far beyond bureaucratic reforms. Mass layoffs and the closure of federal agencies have weakened the civil service, making the executive branch increasingly dependent on private tech firms for essential government functions.

Concrete consequences of these transformations are already evident. Contracts for digital infrastructure and AI-driven decision-making, previously managed by government agencies, are increasingly outsourced to tech corporations, shifting power from democratic institutions to private entities with minimal public accountability. Palantir, with its deep ties to defense and intelligence agencies, has become a key player in government surveillance and data analysis, while OpenAI has emerged as a leader in artificial intelligence research, developing models with far-reaching societal implications beyond government use.

Elon Musk, who was an early investor in OpenAI and co-founded the company in 2015 as a non-profit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity, later distanced himself from the organization, citing concerns over its direction and the increasing commercialization of its research. Meanwhile, Microsoft has become OpenAI’s most significant backer, investing billions of dollars and integrating OpenAI’s technology into its products, effectively making it a dominant force in AI development. This growing corporate influence over AI governance further erodes public oversight, raising concerns about how private interests shape technological advancements that impact society at large.

Additionally, regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are being significantly weakened, reducing oversight on corporate environmental policies and antitrust enforcement.

At a broader level, DOGE threatens to undermine the foundations of the democratic state. By reducing government to a corporate-style efficiency model, the public sector is increasingly becoming an extension of the private market. Project 2025 exacerbates this trend by promoting political purges within the federal government, effectively turning institutions meant to check power into instruments of a select elite.

The question is no longer whether Silicon Valley influences the state, but to what extent the state still functions independently. In this new reality, tech billionaires are no longer mere disruptors of the economy—they are architects of a technocratic regime where democratic principles are increasingly subordinated to market logic and elite interests.

"Free Market" at the expense of the state

Although the ideological convictions of tech titans vary, they share a common ambition: redefining power and governance in a world where technology plays an ever-greater role. Libertarians seek a world without states, yet they rely on state resources to build their empires. Technocrats strive for data-driven governance, yet their influence concentrates power in private enterprises. Neoconservatives call for order and stability, yet they undermine the democratic structures that uphold that stability.

Tech titans love to talk about autonomy and innovation, yet they use government resources to accelerate their growth and eliminate competition. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, built his e-commerce empire partly through government contracts. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is a critical infrastructure provider for the CIA and the Department of Defense. In 2013, Amazon signed a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing infrastructure. This later expanded into the Commercial Cloud Enterprise (C2E) contract, a deal potentially worth $10 billion for cloud computing with U.S. intelligence agencies.

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta (Facebook), claims his platforms promote an open and democratic world, yet Facebook has been embroiled in numerous scandals involving election manipulation and data misuse. Facebook benefits from weak regulations on online advertising and privacy laws. When governments threaten to intervene, Zuckerberg argues that self-regulation is more effective. Yet, when faced with threats from Chinese competitors like TikTok, he spent a record $7.6 million on lobbying efforts targeting Congress and the White House, aiming to support legislation that could lead to a ban on TikTok and other rivals.

The future these billionaires envision is not a world without states, but one where states are reduced to service providers for their corporate empires. The real question is not whether they seek to dismantle governments—it’s how far they can bend public institutions to their will, siphoning resources, power, and influence, no matter the cost to democracy, society, and the very citizens those institutions were meant to serve. So welcome to the new order—where the billionaire class privatizes the profits, and leaves the public to pick up the tab.

References