In his 1995 monograph “The Myth of the Rule of Law,” John Hasnas provided the freedom movement with a tremendous insight:
If human beings had the wisdom and knowledge-generating capacity to be able to describe how a free market would work, that would be the strongest possible argument for central planning. […] One advocates a free market … because it is impossible for human beings to amass the knowledge of local conditions and the predictive capacity necessary to effectively organize economic relationships among millions of individuals.
By “free market,” Hasnas means far more than merely an unregulated economic environment. He is describing the manifestation of true freedom: millions of people interacting voluntarily and without coercion. As such, his insight is applicable to the broader condition of consensual order we have been discussing.
Simply put, what Hasnas is saying is this: if we could predict what every aspect of a free world would look like, it wouldn’t be a free world!
If we could specify in advance exactly what a condition of consensual order would look like, we would be designing it rather than allowing it to emerge. That’s exactly what socialists and central planners do. In their arrogance, they believe they can create a blueprint for society. They believe they can (and have a right to) plan the lives of millions. They believe they know your life better than you do.
This is a mistake we must not make as we advocate for a future world of freedom and consent. Human beings are immensely creative. We can imagine how things might look, but we cannot be sure. There will be many surprises.
How Could Consensual Order Work?
Skeptics will complain that this is a cop-out—a way to avoid answering hard questions about how we can maintain order without submitting to traditional monopoly governments. As it happens, however, there is a vast body of such answers, provided by a long line of brilliant thinkers. (A body of answers that most skeptics have never bothered to read, by the way.)
These answers do not cover all possibilities. As Hasnas notes, that cannot be done. However, with a little imagination, drawing from what exists and from the work of others, they do create a convincing picture of how order could be maintained without the heavy hand of a traditional government.
Let us now attempt to add a few more drops of color to that rich landscape. Mindful of Hasnas’ signature insight, we will attempt to paint the broadest possible picture, while acknowledging that there is a lot we simply cannot predict.
Imagining a Future of Consensual Order
Let us imagine that human beings are no longer subjected to any authority to which they did not give valid consent. (And no, Virginia, voting is not valid consent.)
No “implied” consent to a “social contract” that no one ever saw, let alone signed. No government officials with special ‘rights’ to do things the rest of us would be arrested for.
Somehow—through agreement, social evolution, or a “radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people”—human beings have become free. The only thing we may not do is trespass the person, property, or liberty of another. (How that gets enforced is, in part, what we are discussing here.) Other than that, the sky's the limit.
In such a condition, there wouldn’t just be one solution. (That is the single-system fallacy.) There would be a hundred solutions. A thousand. In a sense, there would be as many solutions as there are people.
Which is exactly what you would expect in a condition of true freedom!
Still, to narrow things down somewhat, we can posit some likely scenarios. Set free of involuntary governance, individuals would follow a diverse range of pathways in pursuit of happiness and security, but they would likely fall into a few general categories.
Market Agencies and Anarchocapitalism
Some would seek security, justice, and other governance-related services on the open market. And others, being of an entrepreneurial turn, would be more than eager to provide them. We will call such providers AGENCIES for easy shorthand.
This is the phenomenon commonly called market anarchism or anarchocapitalism. To date, it has been the most plausible and heavily explored conception for how peace and order can be maintained without a state imposing itself on captive citizens.
But this is not the only possible scenario.
Voluntary Polities
In case you haven’t noticed, humans are a rather sociable lot. We also have a wide variety of beliefs and opinions. Put these together in a context of freedom, and the outcome will be an indefinite number of experiments in governance and ways of life. Groups of people, small or large, will find creative ways to organize their affairs, cohering around many different factors, from kinship to geographical proximity to shared beliefs to … well, to who knows what else! We will call these societies POLITIES.
In the past, the word “polity” has been used to describe societies living under traditional governments. However, it does also have the broader implication of an organized society of people with a common identity, which is closer to what we mean here. (Some future polities may have traditional governance, but others certainly will not.) Frankly, “polity” is the closest word we have in English, so it will have to do.
How did traditional governments get tacked onto every society in the world? Was it an agreement among well-meaning people to escape the insecurity of the “state of nature,” as Locke and the natural lawyers proposed? Or were Oppenheimer and Paine correct in their darker view: that ruffians and thieves found a way to legitimize their predations by calling themselves a government? (Robbing people is a lot safer when they don’t fight back.)
At this point, that is an academic discussion we don’t need. It happened, and it needs to change if we are to move to a freer future.
Contiguous vs. Distributed Polities
So how would polities form in such a future? With the past as a guide and some knowledge of human nature, we can at least make some educated guesses.
Thus far in human history, most polities have been territorial in nature: a given people in a given place. We can expect at least some polities to follow this pattern.
We will not call this branch of the polity tree “territorial,” however. Even in a polity based on something other than geographical proximity, property still matters. Every individual, as a sovereign being, must have a sovereign space within which to dwell and go about the daily business of living. Your property is always your territory, whether you are a member of a polity or not.
What matters, for this first category of polity, is contiguity: people and properties next to each other in a defined physical area. Thus, we will call these CONTIGUOUS polities.
It is also possible, however, for people to form groups based on a common identity, despite residing in geographically dispersed locations. We will call these DISTRIBUTED polities.
Though less common, the phenomenon of law, jurisdiction, or shared identity following a person rather than covering a territory also has a long pedigree in history. Today, people in the exit-and-build community have begun to envision—and even launch—many creative new types of distributed polity.
How Much Governance Does a Polity Need?
It is easy to fall into old traps: pigeonholing the future based on the patterns of the past. Thus, we might find ourselves assuming that a polity is not a polity unless it develops a means of comprehensive governance.
That is old thinking.
In order to (at least partially) account for the infinite variety of unpredictable outcomes of freedom, we should try to be more flexible in our approach.
For example, once we start examining the possibilities in depth, we discover a variety of continuums along which a polity might fall, varying drastically in degree of…
Cohesion: An intentional community will be highly socially cohesive. A property association might not be.
Territorial embodiment: A polity might be in a fixed location, geographically distributed, or even completely virtual.
Functional scope: A polity might be highly organized, perform a large number of functions, and exercise a great deal of control. Or not.
Centralization: There might be a single decision-making body, decentralized authority, or very little authority at all.
A polity might be high, low, or moderate in any one of these.
Of course, a polity cannot be anything. Three people chatting at a water cooler does not make a polity. So, for the thinnest possible definition of polity, we might try something like…
An organized body of people who recognize themselves as constituting a common social or political order.
Is that enough?
The old way of thinking says no. It has conditioned us to see a polity as an integrated package:
identity + territory + law + courts + police + defense + roads
Having spent our lives living inside that box, it is tempting to argue that our “thin” definition is too thin…
A Moose Lodge is not a polity!
How can we make decisions unless someone is in charge?
Who will build the roads????
Yet in the polycentric ecosystem of the future, who can say exactly what will happen or how we will solve important human questions?
One person might simultaneously belong to:
a distributed nation based on principles;
a neighborhood property association;
a religious order; and
a mutual-aid society;
while purchasing:
security from Agency A;
arbitration from Agency B;
liability insurance from Agency C;
registry services from Agency D;
and traveling on privately administered transportation networks.
Which one “governs” him?
Why does any one entity need to be in charge?
And, for that matter, so long as he isn’t trespassing the person, property, or liberty of another … WHY SHOULD WE CARE? What business is it of ours?
We can, of course, craft “thicker” definitions for a polity:
Moderately thick:
A durable association of individuals constituted as a common social or political order, possessing some means of determining its own collective affairs.
Very thick:
A durable association of individuals constituted as a common social or political order, possessing institutions of governance and sole jurisdiction over its members or territory.
In a condition of consensual order, we must allow for any possibilities—including ones we might not like. So long as no one is forced to affiliate, and people are free to exit, consent is satisfied. (Or, at least satisfied to the greatest degree likely possible.)
Thus, we are not measuring degree of polityhood here. A polity is not a ladder, the final rung of which is comprehensive governance. A polity is whatever its members or managers say it is.
And the time has come for us to stop trying to tell other people how they ought to live.
