Major Updates to CCL

Two major (and exciting) changes are occurring in future versions of CCL.

First, the “CCL Digital Network” – the required single record-keeping system for all transactions, property titles, judicial records, etc. – is being replaced by a set of rules that simply determine whether a digital network is CCL compatible. In other words, it is now up to CCL members for how they store their CCL relevant data; there is no longer a single system of record keeping for CCL. “The” CCL Digital Network is replaced with “a” CCL-ready distributed ledger.

This subject has always been a subject of debate in anarcho-capitalist discussions: the legal system should be polycentric with a common core. Fine. But what about the record-keeping system? At first, I imagined it would be easier to ensure and enforce a single record-keeping system – which was also the digital interface that judges used for arbitration. After all, how can mass fraud be prevented if just anyone is responsible for keeping track of other people’s legal records? Wouldn’t it be more effective to have a single ledger with all CCL data on it? However, after more thought about the possibilities and the need for simplicity, conformity to a single record-keeping system (for transactions, property-titles, court cases, etc.) may actually be less effective than simply requiring, per CCL contracts, that one simply use the distributed ledger of their choice and attach conditions to those. How and why? 

For the same reason people ought to have a choice in who changes the oil in their cars and what computer operating system they want to use on their computer and what language they want to speak. It is always in the interest of the user/member and that person or group’s adjudicator to maintain accurate records – and to use a system that others recognize – for their own legal protection. Systems of data storage that are notorious for unreliability will be (and are) avoided like a plague by anyone who values their own integrity. So instead of erecting an entire digital network and requiring all CCL members to be participants in it (yes, I confess this was bureaucratic!), future versions of CCL will leave it up to individuals’ freedom to use their distributed ledger of their choice. There are only a handful of necessary conditions attached (e.g., that the distributed ledger be accessible to CCL adjudicators for legal purposes, etc.). Thus, members can choose any distributed ledger system they want, it simply has to be “CCL-ready” or “compatible.” 

Second, the CCL Text is maturing into its more formal status as “Core” and “Contracts” (CCL is thus going to feel more like the open model of Tom Bell’s legal systems). “CCL Core” is the underlying theoretical framework as it already exists: property rights, non-aggression, and contract law. It is the terms for the terms of any CCL contract.  How CCL Core applies is governed by the more specific terms of one’s membership contract. (After all, membership is nothing more than simply signing a contract saying that one is a member and agrees to those particular terms). It therefore makes sense that, in terms of documents, the features and requirements of membership comprise an actual, form-contract for each particular level of membership. 

All of this will also make it far more easier to implement in coming years. There is no digital network that has to be up and running for CCL to take off. And people don’t have to understand exactly how the network “works.” People and businesses can simply begin to use and sign CCL contracts, with CCL Core operating in the background, and live their lives freely without interruption from political entities insofar as that is currently possible. 

All of this isn’t a massive change of philosophy or approach, but it is enough to require some revision to the website and to future documents. Patience and support appreciated!