Part 2: Property in the Digital Age — The Root of Freedom or a State Resource?
Greetings, dear friends and like-minded citizens!
We continue our analysis of the Palantir Manifesto.
Last time, we discussed power and the role of the state apparatus. Today, we turn to what lies at the heart of every free society: property rights, data ownership, and economic autonomy.
In his manifesto, Alex Karp raises a number of profound and challenging questions. Yet, as someone accustomed to viewing public institutions through the lens of law and Christian ethics, I believe these questions open the door to an important discussion.
Property in the Digital Age — The Root of Freedom or a State Resource?
When we visit historic estates in England or family farms in Virginia, we see fences. Those fences are more than physical boundaries. They symbolize a simple principle: no one—not even a king—may enter without the owner’s consent.
In the digital age, our fences have become virtual, but the principle remains the same.
Consider what the Manifesto proposes:
Point 13: “Data as a Sovereign Resource”
“The state must own and govern its data rather than relying on uncontrolled corporate black boxes.”
This statement presents a significant philosophical challenge.
As a public official, I understand the desire to protect national digital infrastructure. But as a republican-minded citizen, I must ask a fundamental question:
Whose data is it?
The Problem
If we define data as a “sovereign resource of the state,” we implicitly accept that information about your movements, purchases, communications, and behavior ultimately belongs to the state.
That is a dangerous path.
It resembles the model found in authoritarian systems, where citizens become sources of information to be monitored rather than individuals whose rights must be protected.
A Better Alternative
In a true republic, data should be regarded as private property.
If you generate information, it belongs to you.
The state may gain access to it only with your consent or through the decision of an independent court within the framework of a legitimate criminal investigation.
What we need is not “state sovereignty over data,” but rather the citizen’s sovereign right to their own data.
Only then can personal liberty and human dignity remain protected.
Economic Resilience and Energy Independence
Another important theme in the Manifesto concerns economic strength.
Point 12: “Industrial Renewal”
“Software must return to the physical world—to factories, shipyards, and energy systems—in order to restore Western industrial strength.”
Point 19: “Energy Independence”
“Without abundant and affordable energy, including nuclear power, technological progress is impossible.”
On these points, it is difficult to disagree.
I am reminded of a Ukrainian entrepreneur from Kharkiv. His factory did not stop operating solely because of missile attacks. It also depended on centralized infrastructure and layers of bureaucratic approvals for every additional kilowatt of power.
He once told me:
“Give me access to affordable financing so I can build my own local power generation system, and I’ll restore production within months.”
The Key Question
Does a proposed solution make citizens more autonomous?
If energy independence simply means replacing one centralized system with another, then we have merely exchanged one form of dependency for a different one.
A Republican Alternative
A genuine republic should encourage private energy autonomy.
Every community and every business should have the right and the opportunity to develop its own sources of energy generation.
A truly free person is someone whose life cannot be switched off by a decision made in a distant office.
Economic strength is not born from state planning. It emerges from millions of private initiatives pursued by free and responsible citizens.
Who Will Shape the Future?
Finally, the Manifesto raises the question of leadership and innovation.
Point 22: “The Future Belongs to the Bold”
“Victory in the emerging world order will belong to societies that are willing to deploy innovation in the most critical areas of life.”
Stakeholders and Allies
That means all of us:
* entrepreneurs,
* scientists,
* innovators,
* active citizens.
Our allies are those who understand that innovation cannot flourish in an atmosphere of fear or excessive regulation.
Opponents
The greatest resistance will come from defenders of the old order—those who fear losing control.
They will argue that rights and freedoms must be surrendered in the name of security.
Yet history repeatedly teaches the same lesson:
When freedom is traded away for security, both are eventually lost.
A Realistic Outlook for Ukraine
If Ukraine succeeds in building a system where property rights—including ownership of personal data—are treated as inviolable, and where technological and energy autonomy become widespread, our country can become one of the strongest republics in Europe.
Technologies developed by companies such as Palantir may help us achieve this goal.
But only if citizens remain their customers and beneficiaries—not the objects of surveillance.
A Question for Discussion
Are we, as a society, ready to take full responsibility for our own digital and energy security instead of relying entirely on a state umbrella?
I invite you to share your thoughts in the comments.
In the next part of this series, we will tackle perhaps the most difficult topics of all: mandatory public service, civic duty, and government transparency.
Stay free.