Should a property-rights policy include easements? If so, which ones and how? Here’s a draft policy…post your comments below; look forward to your input.

  • Easements
    • CCL recognizes property easements.[1]
    • Such easements can be either negative or affirmative.[2]
    • Easements come into existence either by implication[3] or by prescription.[4]
    • If the dominant estate is sold or otherwise transferred to another, the easement appurtenant over the servient estate transfers with it.
    • Easements in gross[5] are not transferrable unless transfer is specifically authorized in the document creating the easement.

All easements attached to properties are required to appear in title records and property disclosures.

[1] Definition: An “easement” is a nonpossessory interest in another’s land/space that entitles the holder only to the right to use such land/space in the specified manner. An “easement appurtenant” attaches to the land/space and benefits its owner. In order for it to exist, there must be two pieces of land/space owned by different individuals. One piece, the “dominant estate,” is the land/space that is benefited by the easement. The other piece, known as the “servient estate,” is the land/space that has the burden of the easement.

[2] Definition: An “affirmative easement” entitles the holder to do something on another individual’s land (e.g. drive over, use of spring water, entry to make repairs on a fence or slide area, drive cattle across, etc.).

Definition: A “negative easement” divests an owner of the right to do something on the property (e.g., restrictions on buildings, restrictions on blocking view, restriction on hunting wildlife or using natural resources in certain ways, etc.).

[3] Definition: An “easement by implication” occurs when the owner of a piece of land/space divides such land/space into smaller pieces and sells a smaller piece to another person, retaining a right to enter such piece of land/space. (E.g., a seller divides his or her property and sells half to a purchaser, and the piece that the purchaser buys has a sewer pipe beneath it that serves both pieces of property. The seller has an implied easement to use the sewer pipe that runs under the purchaser’s land.)

[4] Definition: An “easement by prescription” arises through homesteading. If the adjacent property is unowned, this kind of easement comes into existence after three years of regular appropriation. (E.g., A company homesteads an area of land and creates an airport that emits noise through other unowned lands. Three years later, people come to the area and homestead adjacent land to the airport. The company has created an easement—the right to emit airplane noise—through the people’s land and is therefore not liable to committing a nuisance.) If the adjacent property is owned, this kind of easement comes into existence under the following conditions (a) after three years of appropriation; (2) the easement is either with or absent the permission of the landowner; (3) it is observable; (4) it is continuous and uninterrupted; (5) the (potential) servient estate owner has not complained of nuisance. If these conditions are fulfilled, the easement must then be documented in the title records in the CCL Digital Network.

[5] Definition: An “easement in gross” is not appurtenant to any estate in land. It arises when a servient piece of land exists without a dominant piece being affected. This type of easement is ordinarily personal to the holder.

CCL Version .65 Has Been Released

This was a hefty one.

  • Tons of typo fixes and formatting errors.
  • Completely new section on the rules regarding search warrants and audits. That’s a really touchy one, but it follows a strict property rights and non-aggression vision: if the search warrant ends up empty, the one searching and who ordered the search are guilty for trespass, theft, or whatever.
  • Corrected incoherence about geospatial frontier and “homestead ready” property beyond Karman Line.
  • Streamlined a number of titles.
  • Corrected example errors regarding excessive responsive aggression. This involved specifying that “torture” and “enhanced interrogation (ie water-boarding)” constitutes an excessive personal aggression.
  • Clarified some things regarding “bondages,” which are like bonds and mortgages – the debt owed by perpetrators of an aggression to the victim. There still needs to be some clarification there: should criminals be able to transfer their bondage? In other words, if someone was willing to serve 30 years labor bondage on behalf of (say) a convicted third degree murderer, would this be just?
  • Paragraph on presence of Enforcement officers added to section on dispute settlement (sort of like saying guards/bailiffs have to be present not only to ensure things are safe in the courtroom, but that stated CCL procedures are, indeed, being followed).
  • An important exception was added regarding the four step process of dispute settlement for those serious crimes of personal aggression: they skip reconciliation and go to arbitration or if they want, a jury trial right away. It makes no sense to require (for example) a rape victim to make contact with her abuser before being able to proceed to arbitration or a trial.


CCL Version .61 Has Been Released

  • Cut out descriptive graphic of cash flows and membership (now posted on website); this was mainly to help readers understand the monetary flow of things.
  • Corrected an error of examples of duress. Added torture and “enhanced interrogation” to list of examples of excessive personal aggression.
  • Added an important exception to the process of settling disputes. Cases of serious crime (personal aggressions with the use of force or duress), like murder, rape, etc., now go to arbitration or jury trial right away. The reasons for this should hopefully be obvious.

Binance CEO Asked About “Blockchain-Powered State”

Changpeng Zhao is one of today’s most courageous and accomplished entrepreneurs. He is the CEO of Binance, the fastest growing, highest volume, and arguably the most successful cryptocurrency exchange today. When China cracked down on blockchain technology, he packed his bags and moved to Japan. And when Japan cracked down on blockchain technology, he packed up again and moved to the island of Malta, where he has been since early this year. The message to governments is clear: if you want to be left in the stone age of technology, fine, but you can’t stop the world from changing!

In his most recent interview, the popular interest in stateless societies emerging from cryptocurrency once again arises to the surface. His response is filled with important counsel about all of the “stateless society startups” and “DBVN”s (Decentralized Borderless Voluntary Nations). But, if only he was aware of how far along CCL is in this endeavor!

Dreams of a blockchain-powered state

While the idea of blockchain-powered state sounds enticing, CZ says the logistics of such an endeavor is far more complicated than it sounds:

CZ: I think it is definitely possible, but it’s not easy. Establishing a country is not an easy feat. Establishing a company is among the last. Making a new country, and having all the foreign affairs is a lot of work. Establishing legal systems, establishing community service, public service systems, education, hospital, roads – that’s just a lot of stuff. I think most people, when they think about the concept, they think about a very symbolistic, idealistic view of it. When that rumor was circulating that Binance or I have already bought an island, even Justin Sun from Tron asked me, “Hey, is that real?” A lot of other very famous people asked me. That also shows that people are seriously interested and thinking about it. But currently I have no plan to do so, it’s too much work.