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.

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! 

Stateless Society Proposal Makes New York Times

The New York Times recently featured the latest in blockchain nations, this one based in the state of Nevada. 67,000 acres are being developed next year as an experiment in crypto-inspired governance. It is unclear what legal system will underlie the project. However, many legal transactions will operate on a “distributed collaborative entity,” which is essentially a version of creative common law’s digital network.

Another Stateless Society in the Making

This morning, Coindesk ran a familiar story: the conflict of nation-states rendered a particular region in need of stability and organization, so the leaders turned not to another charismatic military leader, but to cryptocurrency.

To be truly free of oppression, a free market of currency that isnt controlled by governments is absolutely necessary. But then the question comes: why not base governance itself on a voluntary decentralized system? This is the case with Rojava:

Serdem said that blockchain could be deployed as a new governance infrastructure that allows for distributed, democratic control and a high level of transparency….

Serdem emphasized that such change will be achieved not by violent measures, but by demonstrating to the world that another system is possible – one that operates in tandem with ecology, autonomy and self-administration.

“We do not use the force to develop this idea, it’s about evolution,” Serdem said.