Peer-to-Peer Liberty: Generating Freedoms in an Era of Rising Controls

Starting a Freedom Movement

Let's suppose we wanted to start a freedom movement that would grow and become a worldwide political force within the next five to ten years. Today, we do not have a freedom movement. We have freedom discussions; we have freedom publications; we have freedom conventions. But what if we wanted to start a freedom movement?

To start a freedom movement, we will have to understand two ideas: (1) Peer-to-peer liberty, and (2) Polycentrism.

As private citizens, we do not currently employ peer-to-peer liberty, nor do we have a polycentric legal order. However, a freedom movement will not be able to emerge without them.

What is Peer-to-Peer Liberty?

As laws and regulations continue to mount, the things we used to do, and the things we do today, eventually become illegal. Let's take speech as an example. We used to have free speech, and we are trying to keep free speech, but as laws and regulations continue to mount, we will eventually have regulated speech.

Peer-to-peer liberty is a political alternative to the legislative process. Here's how it works between private citizens. In our relationship—the relationship between you and me—I will grant you an exemption from speech regulations, and in return, you will grant me an exemption from speech regulations. Other people can join our agreement too.

In the relationship between us, we will have free speech, while those who choose not to join our agreement will have regulated speech. Thus, a polycentric legal order will be established. There will be two overlapping political arrangements in the same geographical area. There will be our peer-to-peer group in which there are no speech regulations, and there will be a second group that is subject to speech regulations. There will be no geographical separation between these two groups; only political separation.

Peer-to-Peer Liberty in Government

As private citizens, we do not currently employ peer-to-peer liberty and therefore, we do not enjoy the benefits of a polycentric legal order. But in government, peer-to-peer liberty is being employed as we speak, and a polycentric legal order has been established.

Please allow me to explain.

Let's assume I'm a government official and I want to bring millions of people into the United States. There are two legislative obstacles to my doing so. First, existing legislation prohibits millions of noncitizens from immigrating to the United States. Second, existing legislation obligates me to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

Remember: peer-to-peer liberty is a political alternative to the legislative process. Here's how it works between government officials:

In my relationship with the people who want to immigrate to the United States, I will unilaterally grant them an exemption from U.S. immigration laws. That is, I will grant them "liberty" from U.S. immigration laws.

Next, in my relationship with other government officials, other government officials will unilaterally grant me an exemption from my legal obligation to enforce U.S. immigration laws. That is, they will grant me "liberty" from my legal obligation to enforce U.S. immigration laws.

This is "peer-to-peer liberty," the same technique that we just discussed a minute ago, but in this case, practiced by government officials. Peer-to-peer liberty is a direct, person-to-person, granting of an exemption from existing legislation.

I, the government official, have now created two distinct groups with two distinct legal statuses: (1) the group that I have exempted from U.S. immigration laws and (2) the group that is still subject to U.S. immigration laws.

My fellow government officials have also created two distinct groups with two distinct legal statuses: (1) me, a government official who has been exempted from enforcing existing immigration laws, and (2) those government officials who are still legally obligated to enforce existing immigration laws.

A polycentric legal order is thus established. There are two overlapping political arrangements in the same geographical area. Some people are exempt from immigration laws while at the same time others are subject to immigration laws. Some government officials are exempt from enforcing immigration laws while other government officials are legally bound to enforce immigration laws. There is no geographical separation between these two groups; only political separation.

Conclusion

Thus, peer-to-peer liberty and the resulting polycentric legal order are already occurring in government. Peer-to-peer liberty is an alternative to the legislative process. It's a sign that laws, regulations, and the legislative process have become so burdensome that legislators themselves are forced to use an alternative.

Peer-to-peer liberty, and the polycentric legal order that results, are the unavoidable means of functioning within a highly regulated society.

When freedom-loving people understand and apply these same principles, a freedom movement will emerge.