The Law of Consent

Around the world, the evolution of law has followed a remarkably consistent path regarding how citizens interact with one another. No one is permitted to injure, coerce, or constrain an innocent person or their property without facing consequences.

There are exceptions, such as in the US, where partisan prosecutors have turned cities into slums by suspending enforcement. Throughout history, some legal systems have sanctioned harm against certain groups—such as legal slavery, apartheid systems, or laws targeting ethnic or religious minorities. Today, most people recognize these as frameworks that violate the sacredness of persons.

Generally speaking, inter-citizen injury or damage is proscribed around the world. And of course, the world is better for it.

Whether rooted in common law or statutory traditions, legal systems are fundamentally designed to prevent one person from making another worse off. Most people want peaceful, peer interactions, and governments strive to maintain that peace by enforcing laws.

Exceptions to this principle originate with and on behalf of the state itself, which means certain groups—“authorities”—create a gross asymmetry compared to certain other groups, “citizens.”

Why is it that authorities can make someone worse off—for example, via wealth confiscation, regulatory interference, civil asset forfeiture, or the prosecution of victimless crimes—while citizens are held to a far stricter set of standards?

If the law aims to protect us from harm, why do the lawmakers and enforcers get a pass? One might argue that this is just the nature of government, but we could say the same thing about the nature of certain criminals. After all, governments are stronger protection rackets wrapped in pomp, circumstance, and tradition.

This power asymmetry stems from a long history of governments operating as monopolies, not just on initiating violence, but also on providing certain goods and services such as security, infrastructure, and the administration of justice. When there’s no competition in governance services, authorities can act with impunity, leaving citizens with little recourse. Democracy becomes a spectacle that allows a majority to determine which constituency group gets to injure another group legally by seizing monopoly power for a period. Monopolies, of course, attract interest seekers, which prompts the authorities to auction power to the highest bidders. So the system is a brokerage house among dumb voters, corrupt politicians, and favor seekers.

Welcome to America.

But what if we could change this imbalance? What if the evolution of justice and law turned on the same principle governing citizens’ interactions, applying to enforcers, too?

I believe it’s possible and necessary to avoid a politburo dystopia.

I propose a single, universal foundation for all law:

The Law of Consent.

Simply put, all relationships between people must be consensual.

This isn’t a slogan. It’s a timeless principle reflecting the central purpose of the law—which is to:

• Protect persons,
• Protect property,
• Prevent injury,
• Facilitate agreements,
• Resolve disagreements,
• Punish offenders, and
• Make victims whole.

If consent is the bedrock, we can reshape legal systems worldwide to be more just, equitable, and aligned with human dignity.

But what does this look like in practice? Let’s break it down.

Minimal Coercion. If all relationships must be consensual, any act of coercion against the innocent, whether against one’s person, property, or reputation, becomes a violation of fundamental law. This applies equally to criminals mugging someone on the street and so-called authorities imposing taxes or policies. No one may coerce another without evidence of trespass, injury, or threat of injury. Under a consent-based system, taxation would require explicit advanced justification, probably through a contractual agreement. This is not so different from agreeing to pay HOA dues. Given that people could contract for governance service providers, there would be competition among said providers.

Property Rights Are Sacred. Consent extends to property. No one—neither a thief nor a government—can take, damage, or restrict your property or assets without your prior agreement or evidence that you or your property has caused injury to another. That means the town mothers and fathers can’t restrict your use of hot pink paint unless you agreed to their constraints. Consent-based law with strict property rights demands transparent, voluntary negotiations.

Negotiated Solutions. All real estate projects rely on voluntary negotiations with landowners at market prices. Projects that can’t secure unanimous agreement don’t happen, preserving property rights. Some systems might evolve a common-law version of eminent domain. Some systems might not.

• Contractual Precommitments. Property deeds include upfront agreements allowing future infrastructure under predetermined terms. Landowners consent to potential projects when buying property in exchange for planned community benefits.
• Alternative Infrastructure Models. Focus on private infrastructure and designs that work around property boundaries rather than through them—elevated systems, tunnels, distributed networks, and projects that minimize land acquisition needs.

Whenever market solutions create problems or frictions, these can be resolved in law courts, which can be baked into agreements with protective associations and/or covered by insurance.

Contracts Rule. A consensual society prioritizes voluntary agreements. Every interaction—buying a coffee, hiring an employee, or even marriage—would hinge on clear, mutual consent. There would be no fine print, hidden clauses, implied policies, or hypothetical agreements, such as theoretical social contracts.

Technology such as smart contracts could help streamline much of this, ensuring transparency and fairness.

Punishment Requires Justification. If state authorities imprison or fine you without proof that you have injured another party, they are making you worse off. Under the Law of Consent, such actions would require your prior agreement to a set of rules—say, through a real social contract you actually understand and sign. Today, many laws feel arbitrary or opaque. A consent-based system would demand clarity: you’d know the rules, agree to them, and only then face consequences for breaking them.

Governing Power Becomes Accountable to Customer Power. Monopoly governments often act without anyone’s consent—whether by conscripting soldiers, stripping resources, enforcing regulations, or spying on citizens. But if all relationships must be consensual, an authority’s power shrinks to only what citizens explicitly allow.

But won’t this lead to chaos? The transition might be bumpy, but competition in governance—private security, arbitration, or decentralized defense systems—could emerge, forcing enforcement or adjudication authorities to earn our custom.

Besides the brute fact of political power: Why should it be any other way?

Transforming Society and Enforcement. Adopting the Law of Consent as the foundation of legal systems would transform society utterly. First, it would shift power back to citizens. You’d be subject to far fewer arbitrary actions by authorities, as the prime purpose of law and law enforcement would be to realize the Law of Consent to the greatest feasible extent.

Strong incentives would exist to harmonize good rules or ensure adjudication mechanisms between various emergent systems. Otherwise, every law, tax, or regulation would need your advanced buy-in. If some system proposed changes that were deal breakers, you would have to decide whether to renew your agreement with your association or governance services provider. Enforcement would change too, as police and courts would be required to prioritize evidence of non-consent (e.g., did you agree to this interaction?) over vague notions of “public good.” Crime rates would likely drop as laws became fairer, more transparent, and a product of precedent and decentralized judge-made law. Victims could be made whole through restitution, not just punishment.

Skeptics will argue, This is utopian! People won’t consent to necessary evils like taxes for defense. Of course they will. If governance service providers prove their value, people will willingly sign on. Indeed, many such arrangements, such as different types of insurance coverage, would almost certainly require unanimous participation. (For example, to become a member, we require insurance coverage.)

Yes, there will be collective action problems. But non-violent, non-monopoly means of realizing the private provision of public goods—such as dominant assurance contracts—already exist and have been tested.

The Law of Consent forces us to rethink justice and law from the ground up, aligning law with its original purpose of protecting us and our freedom to live as we choose, pursue happiness, build stronger communities, and live more in accordance with our conceptions of the good.