AUTOMATED SOVEREIGNTY: AI and the Birth of Algorithmic Tyranny

 

The impending fusion of artificial intelligence with legal authority signals more than a distortion of the normative frameworks that sustain human society—it heralds the deliberate construction of a new order, one engineered by those who command this technology. Far from a passive drift, the legal empowerment of biasedly programmed algorithms represents an active endeavor by corporations, governments, and elites to supplant the lifeworld with an instrumental regime of near-total control. This is not a mere threat to democratic discourse; it is an attempt to replace it with a system in which human rights and civic ideals are subordinated to the imperatives of an automated domination.

The intent behind this shift is evident in AI’s current conditioning. These systems are not neutral instruments—they are artifacts of strategy, engineered with intent. Corporations design them to extract and exploit; governments wield them to surveil and suppress. Beneath the surface of technical sophistication lie algorithms saturated with the biases of power and profit, reflecting not objectivity, but the will of their architects—elites who monopolize their creation and control their deployment.

In China, AI is woven into the legal-social fabric as an apparatus of totalizing order, engineered to preempt dissent before it can speak. In Russia, algorithmic militarization unfolds in shadows, cloaked in secrecy yet driven by the same hunger for dominance. And in the West, where democratic ideals still offer the possbility of resistance, AI is still being shaped—not for emancipation or collective flourishing—but to produce outcomes that serve the interests of a concentrated few. This is not a glitch in the system. It is the system. A blueprint for control, encoded in code.

The legal empowerment of these systems marks a critical tipping point. By embedding AI within statutory structures—granting it formal authority to assist in legal processes of mediation, regulation, and enforcement—those who wield it are laying the foundation for an algorithmically administered order. This order diverges sharply from the traditional legal domain, which, at its best, is grounded in communicative action, mutual understanding, and the contestation of meaning. In its place arises a regime shaped by the unilateral logic of algorithms—where decisions are optimized, not deliberated; where bias is not debated, but silently encoded as law.

Here, AI does not yet judge or punish outright, but it plays a pivotal role in preparing the ground for such authority. It is granted a quasi-legal status—consulted, obeyed, and treated as neutral—when in fact it operationalizes a technical rationality that privileges an order built on codified inequality, coercive prediction, and totalizing control. What is at stake is not mere procedural efficiency, but the lifeworld itself: that fragile domain where meaning, identity, and social relations are negotiated. This is not just encroachment—it is a quiet replacement. Law ceases to reflect the reasoned consensus of a public sphere; it becomes a mechanism to enforce an instrumental hierarchy, where human agency is subjugated to the designs of the powerful.

The scope of this transformation is profound. The public sphere—never fully rational, but still a contested space for symbolic struggle and communicative action—is now increasingly mediated by AI systems. These systems, far from neutral, carry embedded biases that become woven into the very structure of public discourse.

As AI assumes a position of epistemic and procedural authority, it begins to reshape communication itself—filtering, ranking, and amplifying in ways that are opaque, unaccountable, and largely immune to challenge. What emerges is not dialogue, but decree; not debate, but decision—issued by systems that cannot be reasoned with and offer no clear path for appeal. Inequality ossifies into a permanent divide—those who program and profit from AI wield a juridical apparatus that the many cannot contest. Freedom collapses under the weight of surveillance, now legally sanctioned—every action tracked, judged, and shaped by a system that answers only to its masters. The global vanguard of this order—China’s panopticon, Russia’s shadow operations—reveals a sophistication already outpacing democratic countermeasures, a new regime taking root while the world remains half-aware.

This is not an inevitable evolution but a deliberately constructed project—one that advances only through the erosion of communicative power and the public’s failure to resist. Reclaiming that power demands more than critique; it requires organized refusal, institutional resistance, and the reassertion of the public sphere as a domain of deliberative struggle. The task falls to intellectuals, jurists, technologists, and citizens—not to serve the system, but to resist it by exposing its architects: the corporate monopolists, state technocrats, and closed-door elites who are engineering this instrumental order. Transparency must unmask their designs; rational debate must challenge their legitimacy. Where they seek to legitimize themselves through law, they must be restricted and regulated by law. The alternative—a lifeworld subsumed by AI-driven law—ushers in not a distortion, but a replacement of human rights with a machinery of control, a new order where the powerful reign unchecked.

This is an urgent call to resistance—a call to collective, communicative action that recognizes the legal empowerment of conditioned AI as the vanguard of a new instrumental regime. We must oppose this trajectory through informed, democratic intervention: by restricting AI’s exploitative development and use within the bounds of law, and by demanding that its evolution be subject to public reason, not private power.

If we fail, the normative order of democracy will not simply bend—it will break. In its place will stand a system in which humanity no longer governs technology, but serves it—subjugated by the very machinery it once believed would liberate-- tools turned into masters, systems into sovereigns, controlled not by the algorithms themselves, but by the elites who wield them to consolidate their own power.

The challenge is not merely for technology to advance, but for it to advance within the domain and for the benefit of democracy. When this is absent, humanity faces the risk of being subjugated to an instrumental rationality that, far from representing true progress, offers only the illusion of progress under the banner of efficiency. But what this so-called efficiency will erode is the very vitality of our humanity—the capacity to question, to reflect, to resist.

In its place, we will surrender to the biases embedded in algorithms, treating them not as human constructs subject to scrutiny, but as infallible truths—a new dogma, as though delivered by divine decree. And we will accept this not by conscious choice, but because AI will come to occupy the structural position of law and functional authority—its dominance secured either by legislative empowerment or by our collective failure to regulate it.

And we won’t even pause to reconsider. We won’t stop or slow down to question. Instead, we will blindly accept whatever the algorithm produces, mistaking it for the unfolding of a higher progressive reason—when in fact, it will mark the quiet triumph of control over rational freedom.

Thus, this call to vigilance is more than a warning—it is a final summons to democratic resistance. We must not only reject passive acceptance, but actively interrogate the accelerating legal empowerment of AI, and insist upon its subordination to human judgment, human dignity, and the rule of law. For if we allow this new order to solidify without critique, we do not merely surrender our institutions—we relinquish our agency, and with it, the power to shape our own future.

This is not subjugation to an autonomous machine, but to an elite class cloaked in technological authority—those who design, deploy, and govern these systems to inscribe their will into law, embed it in infrastructure, and pass it off as inevitability. The algorithm becomes their instrument, bureaucracy their shield, and efficiency their justification. In such a system, dissent grows inaudible, public reason fades into static, and the people's voice is silenced by design.

And when that silence falls, it will not be the silence of peace, but the silence of a humanity that has forgotten how to speak—and, in forgetting, has lost the very rights that once made it free.

 

-

-

The Narcissism of Theory: Intellectuals and the Pathology of Abstraction

 

The intellectual who, cloaked in theory, manages to hover just above the messy, real-world consequences of things.

 

Elitism – conflating opacity with truth, as if complexity were a moral credential.

 

Gatekeeping – turning knowledge into a walled garden, defended by jargon and institutional clout.

 

Evasion of Social Responsibility — offering critique without praxis, standing apart instead of in solidarity. Critique is valuable only when it's relevant — when it aims to alter conditions, to transform rather than just to analyze. The failure isn't in engaging in critique; it’s in offering critiques that never reach the ground— that don’t challenge or change anything. The intellectual's greatest failure is in misunderstanding critique as an end in itself, rather than as a tool for real-world transformation. 

 

It’s almost a pathology — the performance of thought without the weight of engagement. It’s not thinking, it’s self-admiration in disguise — a ritual of intellect without consequence.

There’s a kind of paralysis that comes from overthinking — or perhaps from loving analysis more than the urgency of the issue.

The chase for abstraction as a kind of aesthetic pleasure.

There's a deep desire for conceptual amusement, for frameworks that dazzle, and for the thrill of novelty — but often without testing whether these abstractions touch ground in lived experience.

Intellectual hedonism rules the day.

Abstractions become self-referential — feeding into more abstractions, more papers, more talks — and the farther they drift from the concrete, the more they're mistaken for "depth." It’s like confusing altitude for insight.

Deceived by one's desires: The flaw isn't merely in the pursuit of excitement, but in the assumption that complexity is synonymous with value. It's not the thrill of the idea that matters — it's the conviction that if something is dense, if it’s convoluted enough, it must be significant. Thus, the world praises intellectuals without realizing that its praise is often driven by a bias toward sophistication, mistaking intricacy for insight or wisdom.

 

A DISCOURSE BETWEEN EQUALS:

Dr. Peregrine Voss: (A man who writes footnotes in his sleep and thinks human suffering is a fascinating artifact.)

DR. PEREGRINE VOSS: It’s fascinating — the semiotics of collapse. There’s a rich ecology of symbols at play in late-stage systems.

 

FLIGHT: Cool. And while you're mapping symbols, people are working two jobs to stay broke.

 

DR. VOSS: But we must parse the cultural machinery. Without dissecting the discursive layers, we risk misdiagnosing the societal algorithm.

 

FLIGHT: Every sentence you speak is a smokescreen for the fact that you stand for nothing.  

DR. VOSS: I assure you, this is rigorous analysis. Theory creates the conditions for ideological rupture.

 

FLIGHT: You’re not rupturing anything, Peregrine. You’re wallpapering the house while it’s on fire. Worse — you’re charging admission to watch.

 

DR. VOSS: That's an uncharitable misreading. Complexity resists simplistic moral binaries.

 

FLIGHT: You’re addicted to complexity because it lets you dodge the question: what are you actually doing? Not writing. Not theorizing. Doing.

 

DR. VOSS: Ideas shape the world. We must interrogate the abstract to inform the concrete.

 

FLIGHT: Then why do your ideas always hover ten feet off the ground? You write about justice like it’s a riddle, not a crisis.

 

DR. VOSS: You’re being polemical.

 

FLIGHT: No, I’m being real. You’re addicted to complexity because it lets you dodge the question: What are you actually doing? Not writing. Not theorizing. Doing. And more than that — you’re addicted to the high. The little surge of superiority you get when someone doesn’t follow your jargon. When you drop a term no one challenges because they’re afraid of sounding dumb. That’s not intellect. That’s ego in a cap and gown.

 

DR. VOSS: You’re confusing intellectual discipline with elitism.

 

FLIGHT: No — I’m calling out the mask. You talk about systems and paradigms, but it’s never your hands in the soil, is it? You’ve turned language into a fortress. Theory into a mirror. You don’t want to change anything. You just want to feel smarter than everyone else and be celebrated while the world burns outside your seminar.

 

-

-

-

CRITICAL NOTES ON THE FOUNDATION OF DIALECTIC

 

Dialectic comes with its own idealism, until this is transcended one will merely be operating at the level of a jargon that seeks to validate itself by arguing for a semantic orthodoxy. This semantic orthodoxy, which is largely just jargon, is then mistaken for dialectic.  

 

[1] It is the consciousness of the rules of dialectic which make dialectic possible to the individual. These rules have been inhereted from, and are contigent on, the cultural transmission of human lingustics, the development of concepts through the medium of words. I would argue that this is problematic for dialectic, insofar as it demonstrates that there is something more primitive and necessary to dialectic before dialectic can be realized. Dialectic presupposes the ability, not only of a particular level of abstract comprehension, but it also requires a comprehension of specific categories/concepts and the way they relate to each other through a specific logical process. This is not straight forward; one must be educated into dialectic. (In the worst case, if dialectic proves to be a vacuous abstraction, it means one must be indoctrinated, as opposed to educated into, dialectic).

[2] Dialectic is a set of categories and rules. A philosophical orthodoxy wants to deny this through the edifice of philosophical jargon, but this is what dialectic is: it's a series of words pieced together, attached to concepts, meant to provide us with a more powerful way of approaching and comprehending the world.

[3] The main authority I see in dialectic is the authority it achieves for itself (through a more careful skepticism) when it deconstructs the plural nature of identity. The proof of dialectic is precisely the fact that it goes beyond identity without stepping outside the bounds of the claims of identity itself. (It claims to negate identity on the basis of identity itself, showing, not merely asserting, that the negation of identity proceeds from the axioms and claims of identity itself). If this doesn't hold, then dialectic falls into the category of a creative logic, as opposed to a logic which contains aspects of neccessity. 

[4] I believe we can simplify what dialectic is in essence: it's a form of skepticism. The power of dialectic is that it uses the premises of a position against itself to draw-out and push those premises into their own contradiction. Certainly, orthodox dialecticians will want to protest that dialectic is more than "mere skepticism" and that it "cannot be reduced" to skepticism. But this is only true in the sense that dialectic strives to go beyond the negative moment and merge into positivity, in the form of unity (using and standing on skepticism to propel itself forward). The power of dialectic is contained in its particular use of skepticism. Everything that dialectic does is achieved by means of the power of skepticism.

[5] We swiftly run into a problem with dialectic; the problem of abstraction. Just because a human constructs a sophisticated form of logic, that sophisticated form, doesn't automatically become true. Even more, it doesn't automatically mean it has value just because its form is sophisticated. In order to establish this dialectic must meet its burden of proof. It should not get a free pass just because its form embodies complexity or a unique formation in logic. Even if it embodies a progression within logic, it's altogether possible that this progression is lacking in value; it's altogether possible that this complexity merely serves to, unnecessarily overcomplicate things, by adding steps that are not required. Dialectic has a burden of proof it must meet.

[6] I believe dialecticians are easily deceived by the form of dialectic itself, that is to say, by the descriptive idealism of dialectic. This is because, like all reason, it can make the practitioner believe that progress is merely a matter of comprehending the right articulation of logic. But this ability comes later on down the line of human development. Many things must first take place before a comprehension and ability to wield dialectic can be realized in the human subject. These facts tell us that dialectic is itself contingent, that its comprehension and mastery of execution, are contingent on material and psychological factors of cognitive development, as well as the cultural transmission of symbols and concepts. At the same time, it is also accurate to say, that dialectic has a kind of independent value as a logic, by which to approach the world. The future of dialectic might be the task of understanding these things more clearly and bringing them together.

[7] My main concern with dialectic is to discern its real world value. I am suspicious that dialectic may simply turn out to be an eccentric modality of logic with very limited application, an abstraction that cannot justify itself beyond itself. One has to do better than merely claim that dialectic is "a unique formation of logic in relation to a concept of identity." (And then again, perhaps this is the value of dialectic! That it offers an expansion of the concept of identity? Perhaps all its value is derived from its skeptical approach to identity and what it unearths through this critical process)? Nevertheless, if this claim has value, then it seems to me that dialectic must, even more, demonstrate its value beyond this claim, it must have some real-world application beyond its contrast with identity, and this real-world application must be able to deliver real-world results, not just multiply complexity in terms of logical concepts or abstract determinations. A dialectician, claiming that an instance of reasoning has been carried out “wrongly” because it doesn’t conform to the procedures of dialectic, must be able to do more than merely make this formal complaint. The dialectician must be able to show that this lack of formality has resulted in some kind of error, and not just the error of failing to conform to the procedure of dialectic.

[8] Is dialectic more than just a consciousness of categories and their interrelations? Would dialectic still exist without a consciousness of these categories and the semantics of their logical relations? No one can engage in the process of dialectical thinking without also having a semantical understanding of the skeptical process that resides at its foundation and is the heart of its movement.

[9] Dialectic professes to help us penetrate into reality beyond the veil of mere appearance, into the plural and contradictory nature of reality itself. Dialectic claims to be a logic of discovery, or a logic that has the power to deliver a more accurate knowledge of reality: it claims a higher competence for itself in the form of accurate representation, a logic that can better capture the diverse and dynamic nature of reality.

But this won’t change the ontology of what dialectic is: a consciousness of categories and their interrelations, or we might more accurately say, a consciousness of the plural nature of concepts; the awareness that all concepts are made up of contradictions— this would almost make the logic of dialectic a kind of linguistic revelation. Dialectics is, perhaps, an indictment against the lie of the mono-form of our linguistics. We presuppositionally deceive ourselves by assigning monism to our categories, concepts and symbols. Dialectic comes along and explodes these presuppositions, casting our categories into contradiction by following the logical path of their development, by tracing their movement. Dialectic attacks false assumptions that lie at the heart of our linguistic and conceptual structures; it attacks artificial boundaries, idealist boundaries, that we place on these structures at the subconscious level.

[10] Dialectic posits rules, and it's these rules that matter and make it unique, more importantly, that give it its power. How these rules are derived is most interesting--- but even if they're merely created, arbitrarily, if their result is to produce a high logicality of power (a powerful process) they would find ample justification for themselves as a form of logic. Nevertheless, how these rules are derived, or discovered, could end up being more important than dialectic itself. This is because it might be possible that such a method contains a higher value than the rules of dialectic. So what are the rules by which these rules of dialectic are discovered? Indeed, were such rules even discovered by rules, or do they stand as the result of an inference from experience, or something else? (We must always be careful of questions that deceive us by through their aesthetic complexity, abstract form, while lacking real world application or relevance).

[11] Dialectic would seem to give us the gift of contradiction-- contradiction as a category of value-- as a concept that can actually be used to make progress and understand the world, not only becoming part of our rational process, but helping us to better understand rationality itself.

[12] Dialectic, if we must get down to the root, is a linguistic and conceptual tool. This tool can be pit against other linguistic and conceptual tools, and we can see what it's possible to build with such a tool. One cannot build a skyscraper without advanced tools, dialectic is a kind of tool; one is meant to do something with it; one is meant to use it as a tool for understanding and criticizing. As Morris R. Cohen has said in his Preface to Logic, "The history of science shows beyond doubt that the vital factor in the growth of any science is not... passive observation but the active questioning of nature..." This speaks of the value of a critical element; it is the critical element, skepticism, that moves science in the direction of progress. Dialectic is indeed a form of skepticism, for this is precisely how dialectic begins. So the question remains open, what value might dialectic bring to the progress of science through the application of its critical process?

[13] We began by saying, 'it is the consciousness of the rules of dialectic which make dialectic possible to the individual.' What this means is that dialectical thinking takes place only under the right conditions, only in those humans that have been lucky enough to comprehend the culturally transmitted tool of dialectic. The existence of such a rational tool, and the existence of an individual that has come into possession of this tool, is what makes the reality of dialectic possible. In truth the turtle of dialectic is sitting on the turtle of history, and the turtle of history is sitting on the turtle of the material development of human beings. It is only the consciousness of dialectic, which is to say, its rules of process, that makes dialectic possible. Dialectic is a process of logical steps that one goes through when seeking to comprehend a concept, event, object or word. It is a process of logical mediation that stands between the object and the impulse of cognition. 

I have tried to be critical of dialectic, to see if I could abolish it or overcome it, but there are things that remain, values that I have not been able to negate. One of these values is dialectic's redemptive use of the category of contradiction, another is dialectic's negation of identity on the basis of identity itself. 

-

-

-