Building a Just World, Part 2

What do we want?
Consensual order.

When do we want it?
Now!

What the heck is consensual order?
It’s complicated.

When working out a complex idea, it is best to start with what we know for sure.

As we established in Part 1, we must build a world in which each individual enjoys the personal authority, within his rightful domain, that is entailed by the facts of reality. This means we must build a world in which the consent of the individual enjoys the proper respect.

Unfortunately, this is not a simple matter of imposing a consent-respecting system upon everyone and calling it a day. Imposing things is exactly what we don’t want to do.

The fact is, not everyone wants to live in the same way. And why should they be forced to? A condition of consensual order must accept a jurisdictional pluralism in which people are free to do their own thing. Even if that thing isn‘t your thing, or mine.

If we are to produce and maintain such a condition—in which consent is truly respected without devolving into chaos—we must answer several questions.

What do we want?
What can we live with?
What can we not accept?

Jurisdictional Rights

In order for a condition of consensual order to exist and persist through time, individuals, alone or acting in concert, must enjoy the free and unfettered exercise of five jurisdictional rights: to ESTABLISH, AFFILIATE, EXIT, SECEDE, and REMAIN.

Those who follow my work know that I am perfectly willing to work on complex problems on the fly, and that I like to solicit your input. I have done a lot of the preliminary work, but now it’s time for the final touches. How should these rights be defined? Do we have the wording the way it needs to be? Are there any contradictions? Is anything missing?

Let’s dive in.

A condition of consensual order requires a polycentric jurisdictional ecology in which people are free to create their own experiments in governance. To wit:

I. THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH

To create, control, and maintain—in any unowned or consenting privately owned physical or virtual space—any system of social or political organization (POLITY); to administer said POLITY according to any chosen set of rules or principles; and to offer, encourage, decline, or refuse voluntary participation or MEMBERSHIP therein.

Line by line:

“To create, control, and maintain…”

It is important to cover the full lifecycle of a polity—not only its creation but its persistence across time.

“in any unowned or consenting privately owned physical or virtual space…”

Here, we do some important work. By “unowned,” we establish that all genuinely unclaimed frontiers—whether here on Earth or in the future frontiers of space—are fair game. (The governments of Earth do not own everything just because they say they do.) We recognize that polities can be territorial, partially territorial, or virtual. And we acknowledge that the consent or participation of private property owners (or server hosts, in the case of virtual polities) is a prerequisite for legitimacy: conquest or uninvited occupation of someone else’s property is not acceptable.

“any system of social or political organization (POLITY); to administer said POLITY according to any chosen set of rules or principles…”

We acknowledge that the creators of a private polity have the jurisdictional right to determine the nature of said polity, free from external interference. They may be owners, stewards, trustees, or administrators. They may even be religious authorities or part of a hereditary hierarchy. So long as consent and the right of exit are respected at least at the border, we must deem it as satisfying the conditions for consensual order. (This is a quintessential example of the tension between what we want and what we can live with.)

“and to offer, encourage, decline, or refuse voluntary participation or MEMBERSHIP therein.”

Polities must be free to offer membership on whatever terms they wish, or to refuse to do so. Further discussed below.

In such an ecology, people must also be free to affiliate, by mutual agreement, with polities and other experiments in governance. To wit:

II. THE RIGHT TO AFFILIATE

To choose voluntarily to affiliate with a POLITY (where such affiliation is offered), subject to the admission rules and terms established by that POLITY.

Line by line:

“To choose voluntarily…”

“To choose voluntarily” may seem slightly redundant, but we want to be sure to emphasize the individual’s right to make this choice freely and without coercion.

“to affiliate with a POLITY…”

I previously used the word “join” rather than “affiliate,” but I realized it might be read as suggesting an entitlement to membership in a polity. “Affiliate” is less unilateral and more mutual. I also previously used the word “membership” in the earlier definition, but affiliate is more open-ended, allowing for different levels of membership or status, including non-member residency or any other type of affiliation.

“(where such affiliation is offered)…”

The parentheses here are only for added readability; this is an essential component of the definition. As stated above, we must avoid any possible interpretation that polities are required to offer membership or other forms of affiliation. Consent goes both ways, and exclusion is not coercion.

“subject to the admission rules and terms established by that POLITY.…”

Earlier wording included a clause stating that the agreement was to be made “with the representatives of such POLITY.” This, however, did not allow for algorithmic admission and smart contracts (virtual DAOs, e.g.), open-entry polities, or other standards of entry that do not require involvement by a representative. Polities are free to establish their own rules and criteria for membership and affiliation.

A condition of consensual order further requires that people be free to withdraw consent and disaffiliate with any polity or government. To wit:

III. THE RIGHT TO EXIT

To discontinue, unilaterally, any affiliation with or MEMBERSHIP in any POLITY; to settle or remain liable for any prior voluntary contractual obligations without forfeiture of EXIT; and to depart, unhindered, from the physical, legal, or practical control of any POLITY or GOVERNMENT.

Line by line:

“To discontinue, unilaterally, any affiliation with or MEMBERSHIP in any POLITY…”

For consent to be valid, it must, among other things, be revocable. A contract exchanges alienable property, but YOU yourself are not property, and your self-ownership is not alienable. If you are forbidden to withdraw consent, you are in a condition akin to slavery. Thus, individuals must be free to disaffiliate from any polity, group, or other association—unilaterally and without hindrance.

(NB: This first clause does not mention government because the clause presupposes a prior consensual relationship, and no such relationship exists between any current government and any subject thereof. No government has gained valid consent for its governance. It simply imposes itself and calls the imposition ‘consensual.’)

This next clause is crucial, but it deals with extremely thorny issues, so we must get it right.

“to settle or remain liable for any prior voluntary contractual obligations without forfeiture of EXIT…”

If you enter into a membership agreement with a polity, that agreement has certain terms, some of which may place specific obligations upon you. You may also have assumed other obligations or liabilities during your time there. You must have the unilateral right to exit, but exit must not become a means by which to escape one’s obligations.

If we allow a polity to physically hold you until you have met those obligations, we are, in essence, saying that the polity owns you. (We would not tell a woman subject to an abusive marriage that she is forbidden to leave the house until the divorce is settled.) Thus, contracts may survive exit, but persons themselves may not be held hostage.

How this will get handled in practice is a challenging question. Will signatories to a common protocol agree to respect exit rights—including a right to immediate and unilateral “emergency exit”—while also stipulating some sort of reciprocity in adjudicating disputes and claims? This will have to be worked out, and there are various tensions we may simply have to accept. (That said, please do not suggest—via the fallacy of argument from the brochure—that current governments handle this situation perfectly. Tradeoffs are inevitable.)

“and to depart, unhindered, from the physical, legal, or practical control of any POLITY or GOVERNMENT.”

Exit applies to physical spaces, customer relationships, governance arrangements, virtual environments, or any other form of affiliation, jurisdiction, or membership. (We add GOVERNMENT here to make it clear that exit can apply to involuntary governance as well.)

In a condition of consensual order, people must be able to free themselves from any nonconsensual authority or jurisdiction and institute new systems or modes of living. To wit:

IV. THE RIGHT TO SECEDE

To discontinue, unilaterally and without hindrance, any association with, allegiance to, or subjection under any GOVERNMENT; to withdraw oneself and one’s property from the claimed authority and jurisdiction of any GOVERNMENT; and to ESTABLISH, alone or in affiliation with others, any new POLITY or other social or political arrangement.

Line by line:

“To discontinue, unilaterally and without hindrance, any association with, allegiance to, or subjection under any GOVERNMENT…”

Most people will initially find this more controversial than the right to exit, largely because of deeply held cognitive biases and long-unchallenged presumption that states are legitimate. However, if disaffiliation from a prior consensual relationship is justified (and it is), then secession from the imposed and involuntary authority of a government is all the more so.

“to withdraw oneself and one’s property from the claimed authority and jurisdiction of any GOVERNMENT…”

All governments make some variant of the same basic claim: that they are the superior landlord of all property within a given region. Property, however, is a part of each person’s rightful domain, and no such overlordship can be justified. Secession is a declaration of independence—a withdrawal of people and property from a jurisdiction. In the near term, any secession efforts would likely be met with physical violence, but that is a separate practical matter. Permanent, inescapable jurisdiction over persons and property may exist in practice, but it fails any defensible test of moral legitimacy.

“and to ESTABLISH, alone or in affiliation with others, any new POLITY or other social or political arrangement.”

This reiterates the right to ESTABLISH, but specifically in the context of the jurisdictional withdrawal from involuntary governance.

Secession is the rejection of an imposed authority, but we must ensure that such rejection does not require exile or a move to a different physical location. To wit:

V. THE RIGHT TO REMAIN

To remain unmolested on one’s own property without being subjected to the claimed authority or jurisdiction of any GOVERNMENT or compelled to affiliate with any POLITY; and, if desired, to make private and voluntary arrangements for security, justice, or any other desirable SERVICES.

Line by line:

“To remain unmolested on one’s own property without being subjected to the claimed authority or jurisdiction of any GOVERNMENT…”

Humans should not have to abandon their property in order to escape a political authority to which they never consented in the first place. Any attempt to compel allegiance or force people from their homes in order to escape this compulsion is an act of violence. (This ought to be obvious to all of us. The fact that it is not is an indication of how far we yet have to go.)

“or compelled to affiliate with any POLITY…”

As polities proliferate and grow in size, some will take on a character similar to that of today’s governments. It is important to clarify that no one may rightly be compelled to affiliate themselves with, nor have their property subsumed into, any polity. It is entirely within anyone’s right to refuse any and all affiliations.

(Eventually, an issue is likely to arise: some whose initial affiliation with a polity was entirely consensual will later want to end that affiliation. Depending on the terms of the arrangement, a dispute may arise over the disposition of the (former) member’s property. This may complicate the exercise of the right to REMAIN. However, for now, we can comfortably file this under problems we’d like to have.)

“and, if desired, to make private and voluntary arrangements for security, justice, or any other desirable SERVICES.”

The absence of a jurisdictional affiliation does not preclude any individual from establishing a customer relationship with private providers of various desirable services: security, justice, insurance and indemnification, thoroughfares, infrastructure, and other related goods. Nor does it preclude personal liability for harms done to other individuals, for which we may be held responsible by those individuals or their legitimate agents.

So there you have it.

Each jurisdictional right protects an activity in which we must be free to engage:

• ESTABLISH — to build new institutions and explore new ways of life
• AFFILIATE — to accept offered affiliation with any institutions, organizations, groups, or polities
• EXIT — to withdraw unilaterally from any affiliation
• SECEDE — to reject jurisdiction and establish new means of creating peaceful order
• REMAIN — to live ungoverned, peaceably, on one’s own property

It will be quite some time before governments react with anything other than contempt and violence to the claims we have made herein. The claims are valid nonetheless.

These rights are not utopian demands. They are boundary conditions for any order that claims to respect consent. In Part 3, the question shifts from justification to strategy: how might such an ecology actually emerge, and what compromises are we willing—or unwilling—to make along the way?

Questions? Input? Concerns? Feel free to email me at chriscook@theadvocates.org