“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
- United States Declaration of Independence, 1776
It’s funny how these words, written nearly 250 years ago, still ring just as true today. I wanted to open this chapter with the Declaration of Independence because it perfectly summarizes the point we have reached in our political philosophy. If you don’t believe in the right to life or liberty, then return to chapter five where I discuss the moral case for individual autonomy, for now we are taking this foundational principle as self evident. The founders also assert that governments are instituted among men to secure their rights, and when they are no longer serving this end it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them, a view I expound upon in chapter six. The question of how to evade tyranny is a constant threat, no political system is airtight or can exist in perpetuity, but a step in the right direction could be making the source of political power explicitly identifiable—that way it can be more easily held accountable. This is the formalist, or royalist proposition, which likens government to any other business, to be ran for profit by a prudent president or prince. In chapters seven and eight I detailed how a new territory could be acquired and protected, now we must tackle the question as to what laws should be instituted and why.
Many countries have a constitution which outlines the specific structure and function of government, but such a foundational document is not necessary for our purposes. As the founding fathers said, we care about liberty as an ends, but the necessary means required to achieve it can be context dependant and changeable. The sovereign’s rule is absolute, meaning they have a right to change the constitution of their government at any time—they are not beholden to a piece of paper. A prince may choose to operate by a set of certain principles, by they are by no means bound by them. Ultimately, the internal constitution of an organization should be of little interest to a consumer. If you go to buy an iPhone you’re not concerned with the internal structure of Apple, which departments exist or how they are run, all you care about is having product that works as advertised. The same principle could apply just as easily to governments. As a potential customer, the only document you need be interested in is the nation’s charter, the list of rights and responsibilities that are afforded to and asked of each citizen. The rules of the game that you will be required to comply with if you wish to enter the covenant. That is the topic for today.
Part #1. The Contract
Every social contract will contain two components: the rights (promises that are made to you) and the responsibilities (restrictions that are imposed upon you). In order to secure certain rights you have to surrender certain freedoms and pay for the price of your protection. The government gains its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, meaning any social contract you sign should allow you the right to leave the realm with your person and property and any time. The subject’s ability to exit the contract is what keeps the state accountable, just like how if I take issue with my cell phone provider I can threaten to take my business elsewhere. Competition between services drives progress and improves quality over time, as in any other industry. The question of who will hold your business will depend upon the costs and benefits, what is being asked and expected of you.
A bill of rights is the traditional legal document which lays out the protections a country promises its citizens, the right to life and liberty normally being chief among them. The state cannot take your life, harm you, or force you to do anything you do not wish to do. However even something as simple as this raises meaningful questions. What about when someone must be detained, interrogated, or imprisoned in relation to a crime? As we established last episode, the state must be able to violate the rights it seeks to protect in order to uphold the law. It seems to me that in any legal entanglement a citizen should retain the right to opt out entirely, go home, pack their bags, and be escorted outside of the country. And if somebody is convicted of a crime, why waste the time and resources punishing them when you could just throw them out? Similar to how the British used Australia as a penal colony, sending their unwanted criminals there instead of giving them the death penalty. Issues concerning crime and punishment are too complex to get into today, so we will leave a pin in this point for now.
The rights to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and association all seem too self explanatory to spend much time on, but there are some interesting questions raised around fringe cases. For instance at what point should threats to one’s wellbeing be interpreted as an intent to do harm and thus merit legal intervention? The United States does not protect “fighting words” under the first amendment as they are considered likely to incite violence. Laws against excessive stalking or harassment may also be necessary, at what point can a person file a restraining order against another individual? What about during a viral pandemic? Can the state impose laws dictating where and when people can gather? I raise all of these questions not because I have easy answers to them, but to demonstrate how even seemingly simple principles can get complicated the moment you try to implement them. Ultimately such decisions, where and when they need to be made, will be up to the judgement of the sovereign.
The right to hold and acquire property is another important one; the realm protects an individual’s right to the fruits of their labour. Anything you create, purchase, or receive you are entitled to own, use, and dispose of at your leisure. Remember that I don’t believe land itself can be held as personal property, I think it should be kept under the custody of the state and leased to citizens annually. A renter could make rules as to who may enter the premises, but the state can also hold them accountable to certain standards, dictating how much pollution or extraction of resources is allowable. Property rights hold many important implications for the area of commerce and contracts—there has to be a means of determining ownership, certifying authenticity, validating trade, and a whole legal system dedicated to handling disputes. This is going to be the area of exploration for the next chapter, so again I will leave it aside for now.
The right to privacy is another interesting topic to consider. Must someone receive consent before they can record, film, or photograph another person? Issues like this wouldn’t even have existed a few hundred years ago before advances in technology made them relevant. Instinctually, it seems pretty fair to say that one has a right to privacy only in situations where they can naturally expect it. Meaning you shouldn’t need someone’s consent to take their photo in public or record their conversation on the phone. Whereas if someone hides a camera in your house and films you without your knowledge or a third party records a phone conversation between two people, clearly this is a violation of a very natural boundary. However sacrificing some privacy can also dramatically improve security. Keeping satellite or video surveillance of public streets would make locating and apprehending criminals much easier, as would preemptively collecting fingerprints or DNA. People tend to have dramatically different views concerning what personal information they are comfortable with the government having access to. In a patchwork or nested regulations model it would be possible to have systems which accommodate both desires for either stronger privacy or stronger security.
The right to bear arms is something that is considered sacred in the American system but doesn’t necessarily have a philosophical justification for carrying over into a royalist one. The notion that an armed public safeguards against a tyrannical government no longer applies when you’re explicitly designing a government to be as powerful as possible. Without the influence of democracy the character of the state should stay more or less consistent. If overnight the leader becomes tyrannical then the best thing to do is flee, not fight. If you generalize the right to bear arms to simply, “the right to own deadly things” then even more questions arise. At what quantity or concentration should the state step in to regulate the importation or manufacturing of hazardous chemicals, for instance? Can citizens own bombs or tanks or nuclear missiles if they have no intent on using them? Where do we draw the line? All of these are questions that never even had to be considered until the last 100 years. Before that it was physically impossible for a single individual to do much damage before they were apprehended. Now this is no longer the case and the state must be much more vigilant as to what they allow within their walls. There are no easy answers here, aside from probably banning civilian ownership of nuclear warheads, but the patchwork model allows for experimentation. There can be communities coexisting side by side, one allowing guns and one prohibiting them. If one model or the other seriously increases or inhibits crime then it will gain popularity and attract more citizens, demonstrating how market solutions can provide critical insights to what systems produce the most effective political outcomes.
A bill of rights will also normally stipulate certain protections and treatment under the law. For instance the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary arrest, or detainment. If arrested you have the right to know why and seek counsel by requesting a lawyer. When charged with a crime you cannot be compelled to act as a witness against yourself, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and you have the right to a public trial within a reasonable amount of time. All of these principles seem fair enough but other aspects of our legacy legal systems may be questionable, such as how effective a jury is in determining guilt, or how evidence can be deemed inadmissible even though it may be relevant to a case. Regardless of what aspects of our judicial systems should stay or go, suffice it to say that the charter should have a section outlining what is required of and owed to you when you have a run-in with the law. In addition to this, instead of legal judgements being appealed through a supreme court, any grievances with the conduct of the state could be taken up with the sovereign directly. If the prince or princess has good and fair judgement then they will attract and keep good citizens.
As the realm is in the business of protection, any disturbances to the peace can be considered both the fault and problem of the state. It is therefore only reasonable that they should compensate citizens for any damages incurred under their watch. If you are assaulted and need medical bills paid or have property that is stolen or damaged, the onus of this cost should fall upon the state for failing to do its job properly. So the government should also act as an insurance provider for damages resulting from the criminal actions of its citizens. Having skin in the game means the sovereign is incentivized to do everything they can to prevent crime, therefore increasing overall safety and wellbeing.
So far I have only spent time enumerating the rights of citizens afforded by the state, leaving aside the difficult legal questions as to what this could or should look like in practice. Now we will turn our attention to the corollary responsibilities, what is asked of you in order to afford these protections. First and foremost is simply the silver rule: you cannot violate the rights of others, meaning no theft, murder, or assault. This is self-evident and self-explanatory. Hopefully. I think it would also be reasonable to impose a sort of golden rule concerning matters of protection specifically. If you happen to identify someone in a situation that threatens their livelihood you have a legal responsibility to alert the local authorities as soon as possible. For instance if you happen upon someone who is drowning in a river, you don’t necessarily have to jump in and try to save them yourself, but you do have an obligation to contact emergency services on their behalf. The same principle would also apply to reporting crimes you have witnessed, as failure to do so would make you an accessory to the offence.
However the primary responsibility of the citizens is paying for the price of their protection, also known as taxation. The sovereign could collect this cost in a number of different ways; they could offer their services for a flat fee or labour, or they could tax an overall percentage of wealth, as is our current system. The economic justification for taxing at a percentage rather than a flat fee is quite simple—the more value added to the state the more costly it is to protect. If a bunch of high earners are flooding to this new nation then this makes it more vulnerable to bad actors, requiring increases in security and protective measures. The poor should not have to foot the cost of these added expenditures as it is not their wealth that is necessitating it. If the prosperity of some citizens indirectly threatens the livelihood of others then it should be their responsibility to bear the cost.
Additional revenue could also come from annual rents on land and charging more for areas that demand higher regulatory standards. Part of the political model I envision is that you are purely paying the state for power which can be implemented in any number of ways. If smaller communities wish to have stricter rules regarding which substances they allow, who can enter, or how they conduct themselves within the community then that’s fine, but they must also shoulder the cost that comes with stricter policing. Kind of like a gated community or home owners association, the residents and environment are held to a higher standard and collectively they pay the price for these rules to be enforced. This is how you can have a fundamentally libertarian system which still allows for other political and social philosophies to coexist. So long as people are free to move between communities no freedoms are being violated.
The final responsibility of the citizens are their dependents, this is any person who enters the state under the guardianship of another citizen due to the fact that they cannot legally care for themselves. Children, the elderly, and those who are severely physically or mentally disabled would all fall under this category. These are people who are reliant upon the care of another person for their protection, and if their designated guardian fails then it is the responsibility of the state to step in. Therefore there needs to be certain standards of care to protect against the possibility of neglect or abuse. This brings us to…
Part #2. Children & Dependents
Now we have two types of subjects in the state; citizens and dependents. Citizens are responsible for paying taxes, following the laws, and ensuring any dependents under their care do the same. As the dependents are at the mercy of their guardians, there need to be certain legal protections in place to ensure that they are being cared for properly. They must receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and access to medical care. A parent should be allowed to raise their child more or less as they see fit, but it is sometimes unclear where to draw the line between acceptable and alarming practices. For instance, to what degree should corporal punishment be allowable before it is simply considered abuse? Our moral standards now are very different than they were one hundred years ago. What about the concept of free range parenting, where children are encouraged to be independent and act with minimal parental supervision? Should a mother who leaves her 10 year old child unattended at home for a few hours be considered neglectful or admirable? Is a child who is not allowed to leave home or see friends outside of school hours the victim of strict parenting or psychological abuse? There are an endless number of scenarios you could concoct that call into question where we should draw the line, and our cultural norms of what we consider socially acceptable are constantly changing.
One of the easiest ways for the state to ensure the wellbeing of its dependents is to institute annual wellness checks. Once a year any guardians would bring their dependents to their local community centre for a simple interview and checkup. This would ensure that they are safe, being cared for properly, and that children are developing appropriately. This sounds foreign in comparison to our current norms, but it would be a simple way of ensuring that you don’t have kids growing up in basements without basic reading or writing abilities. The state is not obligated to provide public education, meaning that the usual apparatus used to ensure the welfare of children no longer exists, and annual check-ins are an easy way to rectify this.
So what happens if a guardian passes away or is otherwise incapable of caring for their dependent? Custody may be offered to next of kin before going on to broader society, in what would essentially be an adoption or a foster care system. Any person or organization would be free to take on the responsibilities of a dependent as a matter of mutual agreement, and the state will continue to check in to ensure that they are being cared for adequately. When I say organization here I essentially mean a charity, we can assume that there will generally be a public interest in funding things like orphanages, senior living facilities, and medical or psychological wards. A person who is incapable of caring for themselves and has not been accepted as a dependent by any other guardian or institution will become a ward of the realm. I doubt there would be many of these in a healthy society as most people would be cared for by friends, family, or charity. However ultimately I am never opposed to a social safety net, if only because it appeases our moral sensibilities as consumers. The state is a profit making enterprise, meaning spending the required funds annually to ensure that the poorest and most unfortunate members of society have a safe place to stay is a small price to pay to fulfill a sense of ethical duty. I don’t think anyone would want to live in a society that throws those who are most vulnerable out to the wolves. We are inherently caring creatures, it is only logical that our political systems should reflect this.
As a parent, there are certain additional responsibilities you have towards your child. First and foremost is the legal obligation to register all newborns at the local community centre or hospital so they can receive a birth certificate and other such legal documentation. It is the duty of the state to keep track of all new children so they can be accounted for and protected should the need arise. Every newborn child clearly ought to have their legal name, date of birth, next of kin, and general features documented. In exchange, the state issues the child with a unique ID, essentially a social insurance number that can be used for authentication purposes, as well as a birth certificate and potentially even a passport.
Rather than having a compulsory education curriculum, as is the current norm, parents would have much more freedom in how they can raise their children. A common core learning standard is not only too specific, but becomes outdated too quickly, especially with recent advances in technology. Whether we like it or not, computers have revolutionized how we learn and what types of knowledge are most valuable. Nobody benefits from a state that requires every child knows what the pythagorean theorem is by age thirteen. Such learning outcomes are ultimately arbitrary and completely removed from the day-to-day requirements of reality.
Instead, the state should require that children are educated to a set of much broader and more general principles. Namely, the ability to communicate (meaning read, write, and speak effectively, as well as do basic arithmetic). Outside of these minimal standards, any child raised in a home where they have access to information and learning materials such as books, videos, and the internet, should be more or less able to educate themselves. Obviously this is not the ideal, and the vast majority of children would be sent to school for a much more rigorous and conventional curriculum. But the state should only be concerned with the cases in the margins; what is the lowest possible education standard that a child can receive without ruining their ability to be a capable and prosperous member of society? A family of farmers who homeschool their children and spends the majority of their days working should have no legal requirement to teach their kids random facts about biology or the history of the french revolution. So long as the child is raised in a way that means they can educate themselves further if they desire to, any unconventional parenting tactics must be more or less acceptable.
The one domain where I would insist that a specific education be required is on matters concerning the structure and function of the state itself. Not to indoctrinate a bunch of children through political propaganda, but because such an understanding is necessary in order to become a citizen. Rather ironically, this is the one thing that is not currently required learning in public schools. Knowing the reasons why government exists, the principles it was founded upon, as well as the rights and responsibilities of each citizen seem like they should be essential learning. In fact, I don’t think children should be able to graduate into citizens until they demonstrate a basic understanding of the role of the state and their relationship to it.
Part #3. Becoming a Citizen
Every well thought out social contract will have two components:
1. The conditions under which a first generation citizen or new immigrant can enter the covenant (what I have just described).
2. The conditions through which a child born under the new regime buys into it (in our case both literally and figuratively).
At what point must a child turn into an adult and adopt the responsibilities of citizenship? We usually think of adulthood as occurring at age 18, but why is that? Why not 15? Or 25? Our prefrontal cortexes may not be fully developed until our mid twenties, but plenty of 16 year olds have already adopted the responsibilities of working a job, raising a child, or caring for a sick parent. We all know that maturity varies by the individual so any age of adulthood that is defined is ultimately going to be arbitrary.
My proposition is that instead of having a set year where children must become citizens, they instead have a five year window ranging from ages 17 to 21. This would allow people with all sorts of different lifestyles and living arrangements to make judgement calls according to what is most appropriate for their circumstance. Those who have matured more quickly will have the opportunity to adopt autonomy a little earlier than is currently conventional, while those who rely upon their parents for support would have a few extra years before they need to start fending for themselves.
But what does adulthood mean exactly? Outside of having to pay taxes, becoming a citizen means that the subject can be held legally responsible and criminally prosecuted for all of their decisions. They also gain total independence and autonomy. They are able to rent land, get married, sign legally binding contracts, enter the military, and consent to surgery and other forms of body modification such as tattoos, hormones, or piercings. Since the state is not a democracy there is no legal voting age. Issues such as when a subject can buy drugs, alcohol, pornography, and lottery tickets should be left to the discretion of the sovereign and relevant retailers. It could be citizenship dependent or standardized to a consistent age, I could see persuasive arguments being made in either direction.
I do think that the age of consent in relation to sex in particular is something worth exploring in greater detail. This is due to the complicated relationship between sex, sex work, and pornography. Nowadays (again, because of advances in technology) people can subject themselves to sexual scenarios which are unprecedented in human history. Consenting to sex with somebody within the privacy of your own bedroom is dramatically different than consenting to sex which will be filmed, distributed, and stored online indefinitely. I think it is therefore entirely reasonable to have higher age of consent laws for things like sex work and pornography, preferably around 21. Otherwise the age of consent could be set at 17 with legal exceptions made for young people within a few years of one another.
So between the ages of 17 and 21 a dependent has the opportunity to become a citizen. Instead of magically gaining a new set of rights and responsibilities on your 18th birthday, this would be an active process where the subject has to demonstrate an understanding of the laws and the contract they are signing. Thus reviving the social contract into a living document based on consent that is explicitly expressed rather than implicitly accepted. Acquiring citizenship would become a meaningful event just as it is for new immigrants. Subjects would be required to take a simple test that demonstrates their knowledge of the rules of the realm. If for some reason the child rejects the conditions of the contract then they are welcome to leave the patch and live elsewhere.
Anyone who reaches 21 years of age and is either mentally or physically unable to pass the citizenship test would remain a dependent and become the legal responsibility of their parents or some other friend or family member. If nobody is willing to care for them then they would become a ward of the state who will find appropriate living arrangements for them. So there is a small social safety net but it’s only available to those who actually need it. Hopefully as modern medicine and technology develops the proportion of the population with severe disabilities will continue to diminish. The state will also have an economic incentive to fund programs looking into treatment and prevention. If disabled dependents can be rehabilitated this is the best outcome both for them and also the sovereign, who now has another potential customer.
It’s important to emphasize that all of the principles I’ve laid out here represent just one possible set of solutions from a minimalist, libertarian perspective. Obviously competing patches or even sub-communities and cities within the realm could abide by different rule structures that support more communitarian values. My goal was to lay out what I believe to be the minimal requirements for a successful state, which still allows for additional layers of complexity or regulation to be added over top. This chapter was concerned with the relationship between citizens and the state. Next time I’ll be tackling the legal relationships between citizens, which take on the form of commerce and contracts. Now that we have established the philosophical and practical foundations for a free society, what implications will this have on trade and agreements between individuals? That’s what we will be exploring in the final chapter of this series.
Continue to Part 10: Commerce & Contracts
Wonderland is a free publication that outlines a philosophy and political vision for the 22nd century. To support my work and receive updates on new posts, sign up for a free or paid subscription.
1.9 Rights & Responsibilities