The American League: A Break-Up Guide

If (or when) the sh*t hits the proverbial fan, this article will be here to offer a sketch of new protocols for self-organization and self-government.

This guide is not perfect. Nor is it the product of a purist ideology. It is an attempt to balance original American ideals with pragmatic considerations.

Why?

There are several reasons the United States might break up (or ought to):

1. Political corruption

2. Federal debt/dysfunction

3. Partisan animus

4. Cultural differences

5. National Security State weaponization

6. Rising authoritarianism

7. Uncontrolled borders

8. Economic malaise

9. Military escalation and proxy wars

10. Socioeconomic complexity

Let the foregoing serve as background as I turn to focus on the guide.

The following is designed to steer Americans in the likely event of economic collapse, social unrest, or some combination of these.

Protocols Over Plans

Rationalistic planning and protocol design are two basic ways to think about such a transformation. When I first started writing this—and I got about a thousand words in before it hit me—I was doing rationalistic planning. I imagined new jurisdictions with a map. I assigned rights, freedoms, and powers in the manner of the Framers as if I were some ex-Madisonian who’d learned his lesson but kept too many of the same structural priors. I tried to imagine the full range of incentives and consequences...

But that’s the fallacy. So, I scrapped that first draft.

Instead, I want to offer a set of protocols designed to empower individuals and communities. Protocols are simply rules, but they are not value-neutral. Even the simplest rules express value and incentives. After all, Drive on the right forbids driving on the left, too. The not-so-hidden assumption is that people value orderly freedom over chaotic freedom. But that’s not a completely neutral value.

In short, the idea would be to take whatever we have now—call it the status quo—and introduce new rules (superlaws) designed to change the character and flow of American power from top-down to bottom-up.

I acknowledge that the adoption of such protocols would have to occur within the context of a) what remains of entrenched power after the fall, b) diverse people with existing baggage concerning what America means and how it should run, and c) relative unanimity about the blessings and benefits of these new protocols. And that’s a tall order.

A man can dream.

Still, as the American Empire approaches its fall, there could be a liminal window where this path seems better than errant factionalism and warlordism.

---

The American League

The American League would be a kind of multilateral contract with five primary functions: economic cooperation within a free-trade bloc, establishment and stewardship of a Common Law Code and Supreme Court, collective, polycentric security, and the High Council connecting to subsidiary levels of authority.

Acting as a dues-paying membership club among those subsidiary levels, as provided in Cellular Representation (see below), the League would be designed to coordinate—but not mandate—military defense on behalf of member states. This league would foster economic cooperation and mutual defense while respecting the member states’ autonomy.

1. The Great Sunset: A Legislative Blank Slate

The Great Sunset means a sweeping reset of all current US statutes, which means that four years after enactment, all current US laws would be set to expire. Any new law would have a, say, sixteen-year sunset cycle. Such a system ensures that legislation remains relevant and responsive and prevents outdated laws—or special interest accretions—from stifling innovation and necessary change. In this future, laws will not be in amber but dynamic, evolving, or expire as necessary for flourishing.

2. Territorial and Non-Territorial Governance

Post ratification, governance would be separated into two distinct spheres: Non-territorial and Territorial Governance. Non-territorial (network) governance pertains to non-territorial goods, services, and associations, while territorial governance addresses proximate externalities or the stewardship of local commons. Certain goods and services are relevant to place. Others are not.

The separation of these forms of governance acknowledges that different bundles of issues require different approaches to governance. For example, if a jurisdiction wanted to implement a certain type of health insurance system, individuals living in that jurisdiction would have an opt-out right if they could demonstrate that health insurance is, on balance, a non-territorial good (say, by joining an interstate health mutual.)

Governments would be prohibited from enacting laws (legislation) overruling non-territorial governance and ensuring respect for individual sovereignty and decentralized, borderless interactions. Non-territorial entities would have to submit to the Common Law Code, however. (See below.)

3. Cellular Representation

Inspired by Fred Folvary’s cellular democracy, Cellular Representation revolutionizes participatory government. This model envisions a series of small, autonomous cells, each with the power to make local (territorial) decisions. Each cell would have the right to send a delegate to any higher-level territorial jurisdiction but retain the right to withdraw from that higher-level body.

• Cell — 100 contiguous inhabitants (property or rental occupancy).

• Local Council — 1,000 contiguous inhabitants

• Municipal Council — 10,000 contiguous inhabitants

• State Council — 100,000 contiguous inhabitants

• Regional Council — 1,000,000 contiguous inhabitants

• American League — Everyone

The decision-making process is roughly that each council level has autonomy over decisions that affect their specific geographic area, except for settling disputes between subordinate councils according to the Common Law Code (see below) and the other relevant protocols. Higher-level councils are formed by representatives from lower-level councils, ensuring that local interests are represented at higher levels. Representatives are accountable to the councils that elected them, ensuring a more direct link between governance and the governed.

By decentralizing power this way, Cellular Representation ensures that government is more localized, responsive, accountable, and relevant to each level of authority. Resources accrue at levels of authority where they’re needed.

4. Tax and Revenue Localism

Under a Tax and Revenue Localism principle, which corresponds to Cellular Representation, all tax revenues would be collected at the lowest feasible level of subsidiarity. This approach not only empowers local communities but also promotes efficiency and fairness in the distribution of resources.

Note that some cells might experiment with other mechanisms besides tax. For example, some will use Dominant Assurance Contracts, as economist Alex Tabarrok proposed. Others might use Georgist land taxes.

By keeping revenue collection and expenditure as close to the source as possible, this system minimizes bureaucratic overhead and enhances the accountability of those managing public funds. It also helps to ensure that any revenues accruing to the higher council levels do so according to the will of the lower-level councils, who retain the power to withdraw delegation and revenue for any reason, even though they must calculate the risk of losing access to superordinate goods or services.

5. The Common Law Code

A robust legal framework maintains unity, order, and justice. Establishing a Common Law Code as a qualification for membership provides clear judicial standards regarding property, torts, contracts, precedents, individual rights, and specific prohibitions on government power. This codification ensures that the rule of law is upheld consistently—protecting citizens' rights, fostering a stable and predictable legal environment, and muting judicial activism.

6. Accountability and Punishment

Justices, judges, and Cellular Delegates will have strict accountability mechanisms placed upon them. In other words, if a politician, judge, or bureaucrat violates the Common Law Code—including gross rights violations and prohibited state actions—he or she shall be punished.

7. The Right of Separation

Empowering communities with the Right of Separation (aka governance forking) allows territorial governance affinity groups to break away from existing jurisdictions to form their own, join another, or divide authority. This principle promotes community self-determination and ensures that governance structures remain aligned with the values and preferences of the people they serve. It acts as a lateral check on power and encourages responsiveness and adaptability.

8. Common Law Supremacy

The Common Law, guided by the Common Law Code, would hold supremacy over all statutes except the Common Law Code. Legislatures would be barred from enacting laws that conflict with these foundational principles or work at odds with existing precedents. This hierarchy ensures that the core tenets of justice and individual rights are protected from the whims of transient political majorities, factions, or the excesses of Cellular Representation.

9. American League Neutrality

Adopting a stance of League Neutrality, the American League would default to neutrality in international affairs, altering this position only through legislative declarations of war. Member states would be prohibited from initiating war with one another, ensuring that the League remains a peaceful and cooperative entity. This principle reinforces the commitment to diplomacy and collective security, aligning the League’s actions with the broader goals of peace and stability.

---

In this vision of government, we see a future where laws are adaptable, power is decentralized, and individual rights are paramount. By embracing these principles, we can create a society that is more just, resilient, and responsive to the people's needs. We can enjoy more local flavor and diverse niches of possibility. There will be more opportunities for markets, mutual aid, and self-organization.

Yet this guide is only a start—a draft. I throw this out simply because too few people are thinking about how best to reconfigure America in the wake of institutional collapse.

I want to invite commenters to engage in critical construction. If you see a problem here, please identify it, explain why you think it wouldn’t work, and offer a replacement idea or augmentation. In other words, Criticize by creating.