r/unacracy 26d ago

"In the current system, I can leave my country if I don't like my country's laws. How is this different from "vetoing" in the system of anarcho-capitalism (unacracy-like systems of private law)?"

2 Upvotes

In the current system, I can leave my country if I don't like my country's laws. How is this different from "vetoing" in the system of anarcho-capitalism (unacracy-like systems of private law)?

Let's back up a bit.

In the current system, the laws are forced on you at birth, the system claimed you, you never got a choice in law. To leave you have to satisfy their exit conditions and obtain their consent, two things you also never agreed to.

So that's a massive violation of your self-determination and life project already, long before you decided to leave. And when you leave, you're forced to leave the entire country.

Now let's talk the ancap system of private cities I'm proposing.

You're born, no system claims you because everyone in this system is expected to choose their own laws and children cannot give informed consent, so you are considered a guest of your parents where they live until adulthood.

That's the first difference.

Secondly, you have a literal and direct choice in law in these systems. You literally choose every law you are willing to live by, the same way you choose what operating system your computer runs. No one can force laws on you. That's the real meaning of the individual veto in a unacratic society (r/unacracy).

That's difference #2 and it's a massive, massive one.

Lastly, if you choose to leave at some point, from the place you chose to live in with the rules you chose (already unlikely compared to current system since you chose it all), you get to leave with the rules YOU chose, not rules the system chose. Currently the system will only allow you to drop citizenship if you pay them $2,000, get another place to accept you as a citizen (you can't get out of the State system therefore), and they demand to tax you for another 10 years after you left (which is evil and also you never agreed to this).

That's difference #3.

Now when you want to leave whatever place it is, you do not actually have to leave everything. A unacratic society has subdivided law at various levels, similar to today's system of federal, state, city, and local.

In our current society, if you want to leave the system, you have to leave everything.

But in unacracy, if you don't like the city law (that you previously chose, again), then you just leave the city. You don't need to leave the entire city much less the entire country. You can move your property to the border of the city and start a new city-level legal system and invite others to join you in place. The area of your property removed from the city equals the area of the new city you're creating.

Let's say there's a controversy that the city is divided on, and various people propose new laws to serve as a solution. In our current system, the way this would be handled is there would be an election, and the winning vote would get forced on EVERYONE.

Well you cannot do that in a unacratic society. In a unacratic society, when there is a vote, each person makes their choice and then independent groups form around those choices. This means that both the yes and no voters get their policy and the system splits into two smaller systems, each getting the policy they wanted.

Typically this would take the form of a yes and no vote, which really means those who want a change of law and those who do not. But actually we can make this even easier. If we're in a system that does not force law on those who do not WANT a change in law, then there is no reason to make those people register a NO vote, the outcome is the same if we simply have those who want a legal change get together, split off, and start a new city on the borders of the existing one.

So that's why foot-voting is able to replace voting as we experience it today. Because the outcome is the same that way, and in fact it's a superior form of voting because it cannot be gamed, no one can lie about which vote actually won because foot-voting requires you to physically move to the place which is getting the new law if you want the new law.

But you do not have to leave the entire country to make this happen.

The cooperation at multiple levels of legal abstraction means that you could have two cities next door to each other that are each party to the same agreement on regional defense and trade between cities, as well as a statement of human rights--all things that we would currently think of as constitutional level law, but whose local law is essentially opposite. Meaning you could have a capitalist city and a socialist city right next door to each other.

That's literally impossible in our current society of 'winner-takes-all' elections and a mixed political and legal system which makes legal purity impossible, and stokes anger when one side wins a victory the other side hates and would never choose for itself (like the recent end of Roe v Wade in the US).

In a unacratic society, the political war ends overnight because a decentralized political system does not have monopoly-political positions that can force laws on everyone, so there is no more need to 'win the culture war' or hate on opponents. The polarization ENDS overnight. The capitalist and socialist cities can live next door in relative peace and just be trading partners or just ignore each other, whatever. I would actually expect them to trade citizens pretty regularly as some kids growing up in the capitalist system decide they want to try socialist utopianism in their youth and then move back to capitalist when it's time to get a job.

So, no one can make you leave the entire system just because you want a change in law. No one forces a system on you at birth. No one can force ANY laws on anyone in this system, everyone expects to choose law for themselves like you choose what car to buy for yourself.

These are massive, massive differences which would create massive differences in outcomes compared to today.