Why states are "contracting jurisdictions"... and why not? 🤔To speak the same language, it's worth defining the appropriate terms first.
The state itself is
a political form of organization of society on a certain territory, a sovereign form of public authority, possessing an apparatus of governance and coercion, to which the entire population of the country is subordinated.
However, is it possible to visualize this form of governance differently? For example, as a competing service on the market? This is the alternative that the concept of contractual jurisdictions offers.
Most succinctly, "contract jurisdictions" or "panarchism" can be described as:
"states" or, more precisely, organizations supplying public services that have lost their territorial monopoly
This idea is developed within the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, where the state is perceived as an inefficient monopolist. Instead of mandatory obedience to territorial laws, citizens are encouraged to choose a jurisdiction, just as they choose an insurance company or an internet provider.
Contract jurisdictions (as an idea) recognizes a certain need for violent intervention in the actions of individuals to establish order. It recognizes the importance of institutions, even those based on violence, while identifying the main problem of the state, as a phenomenon in general, not in its violent nature and origin - but in its inefficiency.
What is the inefficiency of the modern state? In the absence of an alternative. These days, it is quite easy to leave the borders of one's country and move somewhere else, if one wishes and is able. Rules and laws vary greatly from "jurisdiction" to "jurisdiction" and you may well choose whichever one you like. Like the freedom-loving, federalized States? How about tolerant and multicultural Germany? How about socially-oriented Sweden? The choice is yours.
The idea of panarchism suggests that jurisdictions become extraterritorial. This means that one's choice of laws and rules to which one is subject is not limited by territory. For example, you can live in one country but be a client of a jurisdiction operating under the laws of another.
On the one hand, states do claim to be contractual jurisdictions. Here are the main arguments:
⎔ Obtaining a passport or citizenship can be interpreted as an agreement with the rules of the game: by obtaining a passport at age 14, a person formally agrees to follow the country's legal system.
⎔ In schools we are taught the basics of law and sociology, forming a basic understanding of the social and legal system. A person knows in advance that there are rules and understands how they work.
⎔ Emigration as an option to change jurisdiction is available to anyone who consciously chooses another country with more suitable laws.
But there are some serious counterarguments:
⎔ In reality, a person does not choose a jurisdiction, but is born into it. There is no alternative within a single territory - you cannot change your "contract" within a single country.
⎔ Legislation is created that is complex and incomprehensible to most people, making voluntary consent to it illusory.
⎔ Enforcement of laws based on the use of force is often unjust and disproportionate.
Each of us can make a conscious choice of another "contractual jurisdiction" by emigrating to one of the 193 countries on the planet or, for example, to Montenegro
(see the article "All Roads Lead to Montelibero"), where the basis of
the extraterritorial contractual jurisdiction of the Montelibero project is based.
The choice and acceptance of the "contract" of such jurisdictions comes with the informed acquisition of residence permit or citizenship.🏔
Montelibero - continuing to build a free society in Europe, starting with Montenegro