CCL Version .97 Has Been Released

Release Notes:

  1. Added subdivision option for orbital spheres (property boundaries in space).
  2. Added accessory definition in the context of Enforcers who fail to report a known crime.
  3. Added “willing to “Must be capable and willing to transfer member’s data…” for a CCL-RDL (Creative Common Law-Ready Distributed Ledger). This one is quite important since it iterates a substantial degree of ownership regarding personal data.
  4. Clarified than an audit-warrant is required for one’s personal financial data to be viewed within a CCL-RDL.
  5. Clarified that standard of financial fraud are evaluated according to latest version of US GAAP, so long as they don’t conflict with CCL.
  6. Added “Data Ownership Policy” as list of required policies for any seller of goods/services.
  7. Clarified the requirements for Adjudicator’s Policies and Procedures of Justice being publicly available.
  8. Completely removed litigation from the dispute settlement process, and distinguished more clearly between mediation and arbitration.
  9. Redefined “judge” in light of litigation modification (= an Adjudicator that presides over trials).
  10. Changed time requirement for final result of jury trial after negotiations.
  11. Required that the results of any jury trial must be made available to the public.
  12. Clarified that an “Adjudicator” is simply a “lawyer,” and that the other kinds of adjudicators are subsets of this category (e.g., mediators, judges, etc.)
  13. Clarified the conflict of interest between Enforcers and Adjudicators; for example, a person or corporate entity cannot co-own both at the same time, or be a member of both at the same time
  14. Added an (important) policy that makes it illegal for Enforcers and Adjudicators to require third-party purchases from clients or potential clients. This prevents a world where health insurance, car insurance, and countless other good/services are used as a weapon against the general public, compelling them to purchase something in order to obtain (for example) legal representation or property-rights protection.
  15. Similarly, if private Enforcers want to offer additional membership/identification records (e.g., ID card) besides the digital CCL-RDL record, this has to be free and without cost to the “consumer.” This obviously doesn’t entitle anyone to free property-rights protection, but only one’s record of being under CCL jurisidiction.
  16. Clarified access to CCL-RDL records, including the requirement that any conditional access granted to a third-party government (e.g., intelligence or defense department) for the purposes of criminal investigation must itself be made publicly available within 30 days of issuance. (In other words, all CCL members must be able to know that a third-party government entity has accessed CCL records).
  17. Added “blocking witnesses” an example of “obstruction of justice.”
  18. Clarified uses of precedent, including exceptional cases for arbiters that involve the use of third-party law (cited internally to CCL Core).
  19. Established rules for overruling precedent cases.

Spring 2020 Updates

It has been a hideously long time since the last update regarding CCL. This was for various reasons that cannot all be explained here. But here is a series of updates and reflections.

On Rojava

We all continue to grieve over the loss of hundreds of lives, and 300,000 who lost their homes in Rojava this October 2019 because of careless cronyism between Trump and Erdogan. Rojava is perhaps the most successful stateless society project the world has seen. While it isn’t as futuristic as blockchain nations or shiny as Estonia’s governance system, thousands have literally sacrificed their lives to create a peaceful society in the most violent region on earth. (If you have not read Ocalan’s Democratic Confederalismit is worth reading.) It isn’t perfect, and there is huge variety in the anarchism community (from libertarians to socialists to Marxists to feminists), but it should be an inspiration for everyone who desires a better world – a world without the centralized power of the state.

On the Private Governance Space: A Plea for Realism

The private governance space is evolving extremely fast in terms of both theory of platforms. But it is evolving extremely slow in terms of implementation. The same is true, you might notice, for cryptocurrency.

Let’s face the music: Bitcoin was released in 2007. It’s 2020 and no one I know uses bitcoin – or any cryptocurrency – for day to day transactions. (Yes I realize some people do use it for just that elsewhere. But these are the exceptions, not the rule.) The technology is promising and opens many doors. But a revolution in both economics, finance, and governance systems will take more than a public release, hype, and even legality (as we’re quickly learning). 13 years after the Satoshi paper, the Federal Reserve is back to 0% interest, unfazed and with as much power as ever. Nationalism and trust in the state in America, UK, and elsewhere is surging and not subsiding.

How much more this is true for innovative legal systems and stateless social organization: it’s going to take more. More time, more people, more energy – and the rewards cannot simply be viewed as short-term gain. If we can expect as many stateless society projects to be as corrupt and greed-ridden as crypto, then 90% of them will fail and be “uninvestable.” (Do we need to be reminded that EOS’s constitution failed as fast as it was implemented? Of the endless scams and fraud, grab-and-runs, fake Satoshis, internal lawsuits, etc.?) CCL has nothing to do with short-term profits, and everything to do with long-term peace, prosperity, and liberty. That’s why it exists.

A contrast in implementation and vision is vividly captured between Chad Elwartowski and Tom Bell. This story is interesting because it takes place within the same project: sea-steading. Chad flew by the seat of pants and built a seastead off the shore of Thailand. He had freedom for a while. But, it wasn’t a good plan, and the government put a bounty on his head. Bell, on the other hand, is a law professor who facilitates special economic zones and jurisdictions around the world with a monograph out by Cambridge University Press on the subject. The SeaSteading Institute turned their focus from Chad to Bell (for obvious reasons).

But it makes me a little nervous, because while Bell is uniquely qualified for developing special jurisdictions and is specialized in creating special economic zones (SEZs) with approval of nation-states, this is much different than creating an actual alternative to the state. The entire vision of the SeaSteading project was autonomy for all, not special favor bestowed by the local crown. I don’t want to be too judgmental. But something that the Seasteaders need to come to grips with is the same as any group with power and capital: what’s in it for the common person? Is it for everyone, or is it just for the ultra-wealthy? As far as I can tell, SeaSteading as it is currently shaping up appears to be an innovative extension of the private Yacht industry. I hope I’m wrong. But, it continue to amazes me how crypto and private governance projects driven entirely by personal gain and not any sense of public good consistently terminate into powerplays,  efforts to monopolize, and fail – that is, they consistently invoke the spirit of the state once again. We often forget that decentralized power means at some point, some people will have to voluntarily give up power.

Anyway, this website contrasts Ulex – a consolidation of extant legal systems generally used for SEZs (as summarized in Bell) – in many ways to draw some of these distinctions for how CCL (amidst others) is different. I won’t copy and paste that material here; just browse around the site and see for yourself.

In the meantime, be sure to check out Algorithmic Governance: Politics and Law in the Post-Human Era if you’re interested in any of these subject. The book has been added to some of our recommended reading.


Current development on CCL has slowed largely because we’re looking at how to publish a book form of v 1.0 and what content to include. It seems that a significant amount of background material and history would be helpful to historically situate the many real possibilities of bigger and better private governance. However, that means extra time for research, writing, etc.

In the meantime, version .97 will soon be released with lots of little changes. We continue to welcome public input through comments, with hopefully more periodic responses in the future.

The project also has not received many voluntary contributions to make everything come together, which is partly expected for something so new and unique, and also for a time where everyone has already put away their cash into crypto or other investments for longer returns. (Everyone is over-leveraged right now!) Nevertheless, this kind of work works better with funds. If you feel led to donate, it would certainly help development; we aren’t promising a 100x return on…anything; we only promise that donations won’t be wasted and are directed directly into the Project’s biggest needs.

How Does CCL Work? (A Quick Summary)

(The following is from our updated “Vision” page.)

CCL works like a voluntary association. What’s a voluntary association? Clubs, churches, academic societies, etc.

Consider the American Economic Association, an academic society for professors of economics. The Association has its own board, different types of membership, different rules, policies, and procedures for governing everything related to the association. Certain people can join (e.g., professors), and they can leave at any time for any reason (can’t afford it, don’t like it, etc.). Members agree to pay an annual fee to receive the association’s benefits (e.g., a hard-copy journal, free access to annual conference, voting privileges, etc.).

The CCL Network works the same way, only instead of being applicable to academic publications and a few conferences once a year, it applies to an entire person and their property, 24/7. It also allows disciplinary action (i.e., law-breaking or “aggression”) to involve physical force (e.g., detainment for trial involving theft). Furthermore, with CCL the association itself is decentralized. There is no governing board or democratic law-making bodies. Individuals specifically pay for Adjudicators and Enforcers to receive whatever level of benefits they want or can afford. The CCL text is the “law” – just like any other terms and conditions of a contract.

CCL Version .5 has been released

An updated draft on Creative Common Law has been uploaded to the site. This version (.5) completed the core of the “membership” section, which outlines the different types of membership on the CCL network. It also streamlined the organization of aggression types. Readers will be familiar with various elements, such as different types of “degrees” pf murder, but might find the distinction between “personal” and “property” aggressions somewhat innovative – especially with relation to the three types of coercion (force, duress, and fraud).

coercion types

The next major task is filling in contract law, which generally shouldn’t be difficult. The major challenge is taking the best of western contract law and harmonizing it with the principle of non-aggression and property rights, as already defined in CCL.