The Alliance for Human Independence

No more cults of personality. (DN 2.19)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16 | 2.17 | 2.XX | 2.18 | 2.19

---

Chapter 2.19
The Alliance for Human Independence, 1

We have established that there is a problem (as if any of us here needed to be told that).

We have established that the solution to the problem does not lie in making some sort of fix to the system. The system is the problem.

We know that we are, and of right ought to be, free and independent beings.

We know that consent is essential in all things, and that we are not free so long as our consent is violated.

We know that we should not have to flee in order to be free—that we ought to be able to enjoy our sovereignty right where we are.

Why know why all of this is. We understand the principles, which are as real and true as the ground beneath our feet.

We have derived, from these principles, a set of non-negotiable protocols. Rules to facilitate harmony and peace. Rules that send a message to every government on the planet: violation of our consent is a moral crime.

We are united by a passionate belief in these truths.

We are not slaves in need of masters. We do not need rulers. Each of us is the ruler of his own life.

Nor do we seek to rule anyone else. The only nobility we seek is nobility of purpose and spirit. The only aristocracy we seek to become is an aristocracy of sovereign beings. Noble people, in noble houses, behaving according to noble, universal principles.

Is it possible to be so fiercely loyal to these principles that we can cohere into a nation?

I believe it is. I believe we can.

In fact, if we want to build a nation that is truly anti-fragile—a nation that will stand the test of time and resist all threats to human freedom—I believe we must.

A growing structure

Thus far, we have envisioned such a people. A fiercely free people, distributed around the world, united by a surety in natural law and the human independence demanded thereby. A chosen community.

We know that in order to be sovereign, the places where we dwell must be sovereign too. We do not need anyone claiming to be our superior landlord, with their only justification being, “Because we said so.” Since nearly every government in the world does exactly that, we know that we have a long road ahead. But it is the right road to walk.

We can thus see how an organic structure can develop…

It always begins with the sovereign individual human person.

Each person, and his property or dwelling, is a House—an old term, but with our new, distributed-nation twist.

Families are the next natural unit of organization. Indeed, families are the building blocks of the future. Thus, a house will, in many cases, be a family unit—living, loving, and working together in common purpose.

A few houses in geographic proximity might form a nano-polity of their own, cooperating as needed. And maybe having back yard BBQs when the weather is nice. (This notion influenced my early thinking on the distributed nation, as we will discuss in the next chapter.)

We could then envision higher units of organization. They could be geographical: street, neighborhood, town, city, region, and so on up the line. They might be decimal: a group of ten, then ten tens making a hundred, and so on. (The organizing unit of the hundred hearkens back to a time in Britain before the Normans imposed their yoke of continental oppression. That has a certain appeal…)

We do not have to figure all this out right at this moment. We will talk about it later, and some will happen organically. This is enough for now, to get our thought processes going.

But we are still left with the question: is this enough? Can we cohere and maintain cohesion on this alone?

We have already determined that we do not want, or need, a traditional system of central control and hierarchical authority. Not only do we need the principles to be what matters here, but we need to carry those principles forward for generations to come. We cannot let any leader, at any moment in time, become the focal point. Somehow, some way, the principles must always be the guiding light.

Can we do it?

Letting the vision lead

In The Network State, Balaji Srinivasan suggests that

“A state, like a company, needs a leader. Especially early on. But truly strong leadership comes from consent and buy-in, not propaganda or force. Hence, it’s important to have a recognized founder, one that people actually listen to and choose to follow by joining the community.”

Hierarchical systems of management and governance are certainly a familiar part of human life. Indeed, we have known little else. We are biologically wired to establish hierarchies and follow strong leaders, and for the most part, that is what we do.

One only need pay attention to politics, or crack a history book, to see just how much human beings tend to key in on personalities. Sometimes they do it begrudgingly, and sometimes with passionate loyalty or even cult-like obsession. But nearly always, it ends up being more about the person than the principles.

We do not want that.

If we expect to evolve to HumanGovernance 3.0, we need a new approach. If we expect the rights and consent of the individual human person to be truly respected, we cannot keep returning to a person-centric model.

Others may take a different approach, and more power to them. This is not a zero-sum game—let a thousand seedlings sprout, blossom, and grow into mighty trees! It is good that we are all trying different approaches.

For our part, our distributed nation can look to history for instruction…

Organizations or nations that are too focused on a great leader often fall apart upon the death of that leader. Think of the Mongol Empire after the death of Genghis, the Unification Church after the death of Sung Myung Moon, or any number of other similar stories throughout history.

Indeed, what did the Mongols have other than Genghis’s strength and determination? What was their business model? Rape and pillage. Ride hard. Drink the blood of your horse while you ride, so that you don’t have to stop to eat.

Setting aside its absolute wickedness, there was just no way this model was going to be sustainable. The only thing that kept it going, at that scale, was the strength of a single leader and a people’s willingness to follow him.

We need to do better than that. We need to last longer than a single lifetime. Conquerors, dictators, presidents, politicians. All just different flavors in the same toxic dish.

We’re moving on. Our approach takes us on a new, evolutionary path.

Yet Srinivasan’s point still has a stickiness about it. Ideas, plans, and principled documents do not pop out of nowhere. Someone has to have a vision, or aggregate a combination of visions. Some human person has to get the ball rolling. In the case of the distributed nation, that is me. Apparently, I am the “recognized founder” to which Srinivasan refers!

But I absolutely do not want to be the reason why anyone chooses to join our nation. I do not want anyone to follow me. I want us all to follow the principles.

It is the vision we have in common—not any person. Anyone can “lead” in service to that vision. But it must always be about the vision.

This is one reason, among many, why I have sought to involve you all at every step of the way. And so far, I think it has been working out quite well.

What we need, and what we don’t

Our small but growing modern tribe are all in the same boat.

We don’t need to be led or managed; we can manage our own lives. We don’t someone to control our money or our economy; markets do that just fine on their own. We do not need anyone commanding us.

What we need is to escape management and command and control. We are not begging for more central authority. We are crying into the wind—Please get me away from central authority! We are crying for help.

I propose that instead of having a leadership hierarchy at the “top” of the distributed nation, we instead create an organization whose purpose is to provide that help.

In our discussion of our unique order of operations, I asked you to, “Imagine a nation that does not require you to pledge allegiance to it, but rather pledges its allegiance to you.”

I propose that the way to do that is to create an entity that serves that purpose.

The Alliance for Human Independence

America has an amazing network of classical-liberal (i.e., conservative and libertarian) public policy organizations. They are one of the few bastions of classical-liberal ideas in a nation (and increasingly, a world) whose institutions are otherwise largely dominated by the left.

Though often called “think tanks,” many of these organizations do far more than simply churn out research and white papers. Some of them have far more of an influence upon the direction of American politics than you might imagine.

Usually their impact takes place quietly, behind the scenes. For example, over the last four years, they provided significant guidance and resources to GOP state lawmakers in their efforts to clean up election procedures, in response to the glaringly obvious fraud-fest of 2020. As such, they played a major (and largely unsung) role in preventing and reducing fraud last Tuesday.

(Note: As voluntaryists, anarchists, etc., we can still be grateful for efforts that successfully reduce oppression, even if only marginally. Anything that gets us some breathing room, and buys us time to evolve, is helpful.)

I spent a couple of years consulting for one of these public policy organizations in the first decade of the 2000s, and I have been intimately connected to others, and to the network in general, through colleagues and loved ones. I believe that these sorts of organizations provide a hint of a direction for us. So…

Let us call our entity, as a working title, the Alliance for Human Independence (AHI).

Right of the bat, we can envision this organization providing a number of essential services:

Like a policy organization (think tank), it can study and develop best practices to achieve the aims of the distributed nation: the freedom and independence of people and their sovereign spaces.

It can be the steward of our important documents, and serve as a conduit for communication and cooperation between and among members. It could also help maintain a private, encrypted, distributed membership ledger.

Of course, a nation is not a nation unless it can conduct negotiations with outside entities. But how does a decentralized archipelago of people accomplish such an aim?

The AHI can fulfill that role. Acting as a sort of diplomatic corps and embassy, it can serve as the official representative of the people of the distributed nation—gently at first, and then to an increasing degree of firmness as the nation grows in size and cohesion.

Needless to say, it will take time for the AHI to reach the necessary resources and clout. Yet I have watched tiny, state-based operations grow into national powerhouses in a few short years. It absolutely can be done.

Eventually, the AHI will be able to

• Advocate for and pursue the peaceful devolution of authority to smaller units of government, and ultimately to private persons;

• Study mechanisms for removing ourselves from the jurisdiction of our respective countries, and assist in the deployment of any such viable mechanisms;

• Advocate and negotiate on members’ behalf to resolve disputes and to secure respect for our right to ESTABLISH our independence; JOIN with others in new types of nations and polities; EXIT and SECEDE from existing forms of imposed, involuntary governance; and REMAIN free in our own sovereign spaces;

• Pursue the gradual replacement of government services with their private analogues;

• Foster productive cooperation with other efforts in the growing worldwide framework of free lands and free peoples.

And much, much more.

This is only a preliminary sketch, as a part of our general overview. We have plenty more to discuss on this front.

American President Ronald Reagan famously said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

If you are here reading these words, then chances are you understand these words on a deep and visceral level. Government’s “help” is terrifying because it always comes at the point of a gun. And because it isn’t help at all—it is power and exploitation, masquerading as help.

We must evolve away from this, and the concept of the Alliance for Human Independence helps us do that.

The purpose of the AHI really will be to help. To act as steward. To unite the islands of our archipelago without having to control anything or anyone.

Will the existing powers treat the Alliance for Human Independence as a representative of a sovereign and free people, right out of the gate? Of course not. Yet we must proceed nonetheless. We are, by grant of nature, sovereign, free beings. It is essential that we begin to think and act as such now.

They’ll catch up eventually.

---

Like what you are hearing? It cannot happen without resources, including financial resources. Your upgraded subscription now helps me keep going, so we get this done and move to the next phase, whereupon we seek more serious levels of resources.

If you can at all afford it, please do it. It makes a difference.