CCL Version .91 Has Been Released

A handful of important updates:

  1. Clarified the important modification to Enforcer and Adjudicator ownership by establishing the “Equity Decentralization Rule,” which states that corporate Enforcer and corporate Adjudicator entities must be at least 1/3 co-owned by membership clients and at least 1/3 co-owned by the entity’s own employees. This ensures the independence and power decentralization necessary for functionality (i.e., justice obviously won’t occur if a single person or business can own all the court and enforcer systems; recall the scene from Back to the Future II, where Biff says “Kid, I own the police.” )
  2. Adjusted membership table accordingly.
  3. Defined “bribery” and “kickbacks,” the latter of which only applies to immediate interactions with Adjudicators and Enforcers.
  4. Finally added numbers to table of contents, and started Index of Legal Terms.

CCL Version .9 Has Been Released

This roles out the first almost-complete version of CCL. We are behind schedule, but making considerable progress with exciting developments in the law:

Changes include:

  1. New graphic under theoretical framework specifying the body of CCL. This is different than the theoretical framework undergirding it all. This should help readers get a sense of how polycentric systems work by being “embedded” in one another.
  2. As such, “CCL Core” is said to be the ” ‘terms and conditions’ for the ‘terms and conditions’ of all other contracts.”
  3. Countless little revisions and fixes for better conformity and coherence.
  4. New fancy graphic regarding geo-spatial boundaries of CCL.
  5. Readjusted boundaries for orbit-property according to “lowest possible orbit” instead of “Karman Line” (100 km). The benefit here is simply to allow for the possibility of owned-orbits where objects/property occasionally or regularly dip below 100km threshold.
  6. As noted earlier in a post, one of the most significant changes is the move from a single-record keeping system (blockchain of property records, disputes, etc.) to a poly-centric record keeping system. Instead of a “CCL Digital Network,” anyone within CCL can use whatever they want – but are best protected under a “CCL-Ready Distributed Ledger,” with specific terms attached for legal/liability and privacy reasons.
  7. Re-adjusted shapes of Coercion graphic to make more sense.
  8. Gave legal definition of identity theft.
  9. Added netter and fuller definition of “contract.”
  10. Added a prohibition regarding coercing people into adopting CCL (yeah, that would be ironic, indeed).
  11. Completely revised membership because of the inherent category error of the old structure. “Corporate membership” should not have been its own category since almost every membership type can be individual/corporate. This has been re-adjusted.
  12. To make things easier, a full-sized table regarding all the membership properties has been provided to keep things straight. It specifies basic ways in which membership is established/canceled, and specific conditions for each.
  13. Revisions concerning arbitration law now involve mediation (and its definition) as first legal step. The older versions never specified the difference between mediation and arbitration, which is pretty important (for lots of reasons).
  14. One of the biggest and most significant revisions concerns conflict of interest and majority-ownership of Enforcers and Adjudicators. Without question, the most common logical complaint against anarcho-capitalist/decentralized societies is “how will power remain decentralized? How can one keep the state from re-emerging?” It is a given that everyone who is a member of CCL explicitly agrees in a legal contract that they won’t. That should provide at least one layer of protection, But, assuming that this won’t be enough (and it probably won’t), the legitimate Marxist/neoMarxist concern for major corporations owning police and the judicial system – working the system all into their favor and thus compromising much of a “free society” – remains a big concern. What was adjusted to compensate for this is a requirement (i.e., part of membership contract) are two things:
    1. The Three power-groups must be independently owned: Adjudicators (judges/arbiters), Enforcers (“police”; but CCL language is “Enforcers” of two kinds: Executive Guards and Defensive Guards), and single individuals or corporations. CCL now specifies that neither Enforcers or Adjudicators can be majority-owned by each other, and neither can be majority-owned by a single entity. This breaks up the possibility of consolidating power from the start. But it gets better…
    2. Enforcers and Adjudicators (rights-protection agencies and the courts) must be majority-client-owned cooperatives to be legal. While “the consumer is king” in a free society and this ensures some level of protection from centralized corporate power, the best protection from such power is direct or indirect ownership of the producer itself. So while police and judges remain privately-owned and compete on the free-market like any other service, they cannot (for reasons of conflict of interest and power) be majority owned by a single person or entity, but exist to serve the entities legal owners: the private clients they serve. I thought about requiring a certain type of corporate arrangement (e.g., C-corporation with shares distributed, a board, etc.), but that becomes too involved and specified, and it’s not necessary.
    3. Both of the above changes are really quite vital for the whole vision, because as long as private businesses can gain total market control over the means of both justice and law enforcement, there would be no justice or freedom for those who oppose such a business. Ronald McDonald would literally be King.
  15. Added definitions for “warrant,” “bench warrant,” and clarified process involving such contempt of court etc.
  16. Re-adjusted the process by which arbiters and judges are chosen due to the removal of the CCL digital network. A CCL-RDL (Ready Distributed Ledger) involves some means of private communication between Adjudicators.
  17. Finally clarified that CCL decisions by judges (not arbiters) do build through precedent (Stare Decisis). It is to be determined if anything else is necessary for undoing precedent, etc.
  18. Release chapters on judgment/justice, remedies, and….(drumroll), the alternative to our terrible prison system: bondage programs! (not really something to shout about in principle…but, well anyway). Bondage is a program of debt-labor that can be bought and sold like bonds and mortgages. No, prisoners who are assigned (say) a “20 year bondage” term aren’t forced to work, as that would be slavery and unjust. But working will be much more desirable and (probably always) chosen because (a) Criminal Members (convicted aggressors) have the choice of taking bids on bondage providers, all to the monetary benefit (and by the permission from) the victim; (b) that way the person doesn’t rot in a cell and can actually get out in the world to some degree (though monitored and overseen by a custodian); (c) it’s the most efficient way of paying off the sentence and possibly lowering it; (d) the alternative is…rotting in a cell and possibly getting penalized with up to 50% more years of bondage or, if the prisoner chooses, rotting in a cell.
  19. Statute of limitations places criminal sentences – and all contracts under CCL – at 30 years. (Yes, that means an “80-year mortgage” is not enforceable under CCL).
  20. Membership specifications have been made more concise and precise, since Membership Contracts is the next phase after finishing CCL Core (right around the corner).
  21. Financial Membership was unnecessary and eliminated. The main concern – regarding bank runs and fiat currency – could easily be addressed in a paragraph elsewhere.

CCL Version .68 Has Been Released

Lots of little fixes and modifications:

  • Lots of formatting issues (italics, fonts, etc)
  • Revised section on easements, including conditions for abolishment.
  • revised footnote regarding duress of another’s property to include “AI entities” as well as robots.
  • Clarified general membership procedures and rules.
  • Clarified conditions for legitimate bail-out of a defaulted financial institution.
  • Added new section on “judicial guards” (similar to bailiffs) and their role in settling disputes.
  • Clarified conditions for judicial repeal.
  • Removed assertion that guilty party paying for legal fees is part of their sentence.
  • Clarified what it is adjudicators are paying for when pursuing a search/audit warrant.
  • Revised chronological requirements and majority rules for when jury and judge cannot settle on a verdict.

CCL Version .67 Has Been Released

  • This version implemented alot of the material from Ulex 1.1, including three portions regarding product liability, financial institutions, and contract law. Basically, ALI’s superior resources are used wherever CCL might potentially be deficient or simply says nothing in disputes – but only if those relevant portions don’t contradict CCL to begin with. Think of it as this: you’re building a house and have all the manufacturer’s specific materials to use. But you begin working and then realize something is missing. These portions in CCL basically say “go the lumberyard and get the standard materials, but only if they fit.” This prevents a huge amount of emendations for CCL down the road, and implements the best legal frameworks in existence without compromising CCL’s core (libertarian) principles.
  • A draft section on easements; it needs some work yet, but it’s generally in place.
  • Some procedures have been modified regarding settling disputes. Arbiters are required to implement “pendulum arbitration” when settlement through mediation fails – since it is the most effective procedure.
  • Also another caveat for arbitration: instead of going straight to subpoena if a defendant refuses to participate in arbitration for an aggression – aka by refusing to jointly choose an arbiter, they can choose to have their own arbiter choose with the plaintiff’s arbiter and third arbiter, who will then settle the case. This is a very effective method of judicial procedure since it mitigates arbitration bias.
  • “Addenda” are now “modules.”
  • Because of size, I also moved the entire definitions of “consent” to the chapter on contract law.
  • Also, provided an image of the degrees of consent (express – implied – hypothetical), and specific that CCL does not enforce hypothetical consent.