A long question came in from Georgy Nemov:

I was discussing private jurisdictions with a friend, and when we got to the freedom to leave an association, he threw out the argument that this is impossible because, in such a case, the police wouldn’t even be able to detain a suspect until the circumstances were clarified.

I replied that the freedom to leave stems from the NAP, and therefore the jurisdiction agreement could certainly stipulate conditions under which a suspect of aggressive violence may be detained. And that there is no contradiction in this.

But his answer made me think. He said that in such a case, communities would use suspicions as a pretext for the forced retention of members. And that the freedom to leave either exists or it doesn’t.

How do you think this can be combated? Or will it be necessary to outsource the execution of punishments and searches to various bounty hunters?

Well, let’s figure this out.

Jurisdiction is “legal authority.” If a person is within someone’s jurisdiction, it means that the norms established by whoever exercises that jurisdiction apply to them. These norms concern both the measure of responsibility they must bear for their actions and the measure of protection they can count on while being in that jurisdiction.

Let’s imagine a world in which jurisdiction can be changed within the framework of explicit voluntary agreements. Let’s also imagine the worst-case scenario, in which the norms of different jurisdictions diverge significantly.

Anna, who is in the jurisdiction of the Ancap company, interacts with Boris, who is also in the jurisdiction of the Ancap company. Within the regulatory field of Ancap, Boris’s actions toward Anna are qualified as a violation of her rights, and Anna calls Ancap employees to handle the matter. While the employees are on their way, Boris contacts the Bandits company and agrees to switch to their jurisdiction, and notifies the Ancap company that he is terminating his contract with them.

Anna explains to the arriving Ancap employees that she suffered damages as a result of Boris’s actions, and she demands compensation from Boris. Boris claims that there were no damages, and in general, he is already in the jurisdiction of the Bandits. The Ancaps contact the Bandits, and the latter explain that in their jurisdiction, Boris’s actions, even if Anna is not lying, are not considered an offense, but if anyone outside should apply any sanctions against their client, they will certainly consider that an offense and will pursue it harshly.

The Ancaps conduct a quick investigation and are convinced that Anna’s testimony is quite credible. Now they face a dilemma. They can pay Anna the compensation for damages themselves and then forward the bill to the Bandits. Or they can shrug their shoulders and state that their competence ends here since Boris is not in their jurisdiction, so there will be no compensation. In this case, Anna contacts the Bandits, switches to their jurisdiction, and demands that they deal with Boris. Now the Bandits have to stand by their words, because even if Boris manages to slip out of their jurisdiction, they just promised that the violation of their client’s (Anna’s) rights by an outsider (Boris) must be harshly pursued by them, the Bandits.

Scenarios can be varied this way or that by changing the relative power and degree of ruthlessness of the jurisdiction providers — and different pictures will result. It is known that historically on Earth, jurisdiction providers with forced entry based primarily on place of residence became dominant. To erode this dominance and move toward extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions, an increase in the decentralization of money, easing of migration, and an increase in the armament of individuals are required. In other words, a movement toward the sovereign individual, who agrees on norms with equals, rather than receiving them from above.

We are working on this.

Forgive me that the answer turned out to be on a broader topic than the one indicated in the question.