Preface

This is the first of a series of essays. These are not polished (or likely even proofread). More, they are my attempt at putting into words the thoughts that have been going through my head. Eventually, I hope to coalesce these into a proper book or other means by which to present those ideas to the rest of the world. For now, this will have to do.

This will be my third time trying to write this introduction, but I keep going off deep into weeds rather than sticking to the highlights. So, please bear with me as I try to find the right balance of brevity and detail. There’s a lot to cover. To try to balance my need to expound with the audience’s need for simplicity, I am going to experiment with terse statements here followed (eventually, maybe) by more detailed pages. If/when I get to those, I’ll link them to the relevant sections.

A Quick Disclaimer

I am not a lawyer, historian, constitutional scholar, or in any way really qualified to create a constitution. But, I do have a systems background, a creative mind when it comes to breaking things, a fair amount of free time on my hands, and ChatGPT to bounce ideas off of. I confess, I’m not very good at annotating my sources, but I will try to remember to do it as I can.

Why Constitution 3.0?

In short, the U.S. Constitution has catered to moneyed interests and political incumbents. Everybody else is feeling the pinch acutely, and it has led to violence across the political spectrum (Jan. 6 on the right, Black Lives Matter on the left). Unchecked violence can lead to instability and anarchy. Anarchy is destructive, and I want to have a starting point available to offer if/when the time comes.

Key Concepts

Overview

There’s a lot to cover here, but I’m striving hard to be brief. In short, I set out to create a constitution that balances the following, sometimes competing objectives:

1. Maximize individual autonomy by:
   • Providing a subsistence floor (eliminates constraints based on survival);
   • Providing flexibility in moral regulation; and
   • Protecting against manipulation or coercion by more powerful actors;
2. Reward prosocial behaviors over selfish ones by:
   • Recognizing that contributions come in different forms:
     • Wage work;
     • Care for the young, the elderly, or the disabled; and
     • Military and other civic service;
   • Rewarding those who contribute genuine value with greater status and access to roles of trust and shared resources;
3. Bolster confidence in the government through radical transparency;
4. Substantially reduce the likelihood of capture through dispersed monitoring and oversight;
5. Minimize the burden to comply with radical transparency and accountability rules;
6. Meet these objectives even under conditions of government corruption and public apathy.

Governmental Organization

The government is organized as a federation of Polities mediated by a Central Authority.

Central Authority

The Central Authority (CA) provides common infrastructure (e.g., currency) and services (e.g., an Expert Body). It has extremely limited powers, chiefly to enforce the Tier 1 Rules (see below) and to moderate between Polities when disputes arise. The Central Authority is divided into five branches:

• Legislative Council—works with Polities to make Tier 2 Rules that decompose implement the Tier 1 Rules, can amend Tier 1 Rules with substantial support.
• Executive Council—executes and enforces Tier 1 and Tier 2 Rules, handles foreign relations. Unlike the U.S., the Executive Council does not have rule-making authority (e.g., FDA, FCC).
• Judicial Council—assesses constitutionality of laws and arbitrates disputes involving Polities.
• Expert Body—provides non-binding expert guidance to other branches of the Central Authority or to Polities who ask for it. Consider this like the FDA, FCC, EPA, etc., but without the power to make laws or regulations.
• Oversight Body—provides oversight of the other branches of the Central Authority as well as of the Polities. No enforcement ability other than to make breaches publicly known.

The primary difference between councils and bodies is the number of participants. Councils have fixed numbers of members (based on total population, number of Polities, etc.), while bodies are open to any individual or organization who volunteers for service.

While the “free entry” nature of bodies might seem like a prime opportunity for abuse, all governmental entities—Central Authority or Polity—are subject to strict (albeit largely automated) reporting and transparency rules to expose corruption. More on that at a later date, but the point is that anyone who wants to oversee operations or offer expert opinion should be allowed to—but doing so will subject them to public scrutiny.

Polities

The Polities are a fluid body of largely self-governing entities organized however they see fit. Some could be purely democratic; some republics; some communist or socialist. Some might even be dictatorships, but all are subject to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Rules; a Polity cannot legally create a law preventing someone from leaving (Tier 1) or impose externalities on another Polity (Tier 2), for example.

Polities fall into two groups: Geographic Polities (GP) and Ideological Polities (IP).

Geographic Polities (GPs)

GPs are very similar to U.S. states, but they only manage the infrastructure within their territory. They have no jurisdiction to impose moral rules; however, they can impose taxes to help pay for the infrastructure and impose limitations on externalities (e.g., they can restrict pollution or noise within their borders).

Membership in a GP is compulsory based on existing within its territory.

Ideological Polities (IPs)

IPs have no geographic jurisdiction but have sole moral authority on their members. Some IPs might be theocratic, strictly following a particular religion. Others might be completely liberal, with very few moral limitations. Some might be more niche. For example, a childcare-focused polity might impose taxes on members to provide for common childcare expenses and might independently maintain a list of childcare providers, pediatricians, etc.

Polities are permitted to levy taxes, and they are permitted to withhold benefits to new members until a minimum period of time has elapsed; however, all polity rules and decisions are subject to radical transparency and accountability: they must be publicly documented, consistently enforced, and all decisions must be publicly available for review by anyone.

Membership in IPs is voluntary.

Polity government structure is left to the polity; however, all Polities are themselves subject to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Rules. A Polity could not, for instance, legally create a Tier 3 Rule that no one is allowed to leave the Polity.

Rule Tiers

There are three tiers of rules (laws) that govern entities (people and organizations) within Constitution 3.0.

All rules, regardless of tier, are subject to radical transparency and accountability: they must be publicly available, consistently enforced, cited specifically in decision-making, and all decisions must automatically be made available for public review.

Tier 1 Rules

Tier 1 Rules are the sole purview of the Central Authority. They can be considered like the U.S. Bill of Rights: they bind the Central Authority, all Polities, all people, and all organizations within the country, and no lower-tier laws may contradict them. Because of their broad nature, they are few in number and establish minimum standards. They fall into two categories:

1. Basic rights; and
2. A guaranteed civic floor.

Example Tier 1 Rules include:

1. No person shall be denied:
   • life, bodily security, or freedom from coercion,
   • legal personhood and equal protection under law,
   • freedom of thought, belief, expression, and peaceful association.
2. No person shall be subjected to punishment without:
   • clear rule,
   • stated cause,
   • evidence,
   • and opportunity for appeal.
3. No polity or institution may:
   • restrict exit,
   • impose collective punishment, or
   • deny access to basic civic protections.
4. Every person is guaranteed access to:
   • food,
   • shelter,
   • basic healthcare,
   • education,
   • legal representation, and
   • communication access sufficient for civic participation.
5. The state shall maintain the capacity to deliver these goods, not merely declare them.
6. These guarantees shall not be conditioned on productivity, status, or conformity.

This list is not exhaustive, but it provides some of the flavor.

Tier 2 Rules

Tier 2 Rules share authorship between the Central Authority and the Polities. They largely fall into two categories: decompositions of Tier 1 Rules (i.e., “how are we going to meet the Tier 1 Rule?”) and rules that are applicable to more than one Polity (e.g., how to determine what constitutes an externality in a particular circumstance).

Because these rules apply across Polities, they hold more weight than Tier 3 Rules, but less weight than Tier 1 Rules.

Tier 3 Rules

Tier 3 Rules are the sole purview of the Polity that creates them. As discussed above, Ideological Polities may vary radically in their rules, with some having many strict ones and others having very few broad ones. A prohibition on eating shellfish is one example. Others include an elevated minimum contribution (e.g., for a “go-getter” polity) or a prohibition on working certain days. Taxes above those imposed by the Central Authority also fall into this category.

Radical Transparency and Accountability

All government entities—including the Central Authority, all Polities, and all officeholders or affiliates of their government (e.g., the Expert Body and the Oversight Body)—are subject to Radical Transparency and Accountability rules. These rules require, among other things:

• Public posting of all laws, rules, processes, tests (e.g., tests for whether an externality was imposed), thresholds, service level agreements, etc. prior to their enactment.
• Prompt public disclosure of all decisions made, including for each:
  • All non-confidential supporting evidence;
  • Specific statues invoked;
  • Arguments for and against the decision as well as any alternatives;
  • Precedents referenced;
  • Decision-makers identified; and
  • The result of the decision.
• These postings are to be made to a centralized digest in a standardized format suitable for automatic traversal.

The goal here is that, by making all of this information publicly available in a timely manner, anyone interested can scrutinize and bring objections. Much of this documentation should be generated automatically. The goal is not to create a bureaucratic mess but to make it easy to search for similar cases, especially if prejudice is suspected. “An informed public is an empowered public.”

Distributed Monitoring & Oversight

Radical transparency and accountability (above) makes it possible for anyone to monitor a situation of interest. A centralized digest with categorized entries makes automated trend monitoring easier, as well. This allows detection of slow creep over time.

Central Authority’s Levers

As enforcer of Tier 1 Rules (and particularly the subsistence floor), the Central Authority has both the responsibility and the authority to cause compliance. Generally speaking, the Central Authority should favor incentives over coercion but may—under documented processes subject to radical transparency and accountability—exercise the latter when the former fails.

Subsistence Floor

As alluded to in the Tier 1 Rules above, Constitution 3.0 guarantees a subsistence floor for all citizens. The Central Authority has the authority to levy taxes to pay for these as well as to incentivize (preferred) or mandate (in extreme cases) the provision of these services. For example, if there is a housing shortage, the Central Authority has the authority to offer funds for housing to be constructed or to work with Polities to facilitate favorable zoning and regulations.

To prevent gaming the system, the process shall be publicly documented (see Radical Transparency and Accountability) by which the Central Authority offers incentives—including the duration (if time-based) or number of recipients (if recipient-based), ramping up or down, and termination—and transitions into mandates, including scope, selection criteria, quotas, thresholds, etc.

While making the process public might seem like it would make gaming the system easier, a well-crafted plan can incentivize early compliance (e.g., by offering the most subsidy to the earliest adopters) and enforce high quality (e.g., by making subsidies contingent on “goodness tests” [see Multi-Factor Tests below]). And, everybody knowing the process upfront levels the playing field.

Multi-Factor Tests to Confound Gaming the System

Many aspects of governance require determining the presence, absence, or extent of something. Rather than using a single factor, multiple factors should be favored to make it difficult to game the system.

For example, suppose one Geographic Polity accuses another of polluting an upstream river, resulting in toxic waste entering the plaintiff’s jurisdiction. A simple test might look for contamination levels being above a certain concentration at a certain point in time. Such a test could be circumvented by briefly shutting off the source of the pollution on the day of the test. A more comprehensive test might look for:

• Trends in pollution over time;
• How long the problem has persisted (and why it is being brought up now);
• Evidence of discriminatory pollution (e.g., systematically imposing on marginalized communities);
• The actual impact of the pollution to people, organizations, plants, and animals;
• The value of the polluting activity to the community at large (e.g., mining rare resources);
• Viable alternatives (stopping, containment, compensation, relocation, time limitations, etc.).

Such a multi-factor test can also cut both ways: for instance, if the plaintiff complained repeatedly about the toxic waste, but its effects were actually minimal, that could be used to prevent the plaintiff from bringing more harassing suits.

Least Onerous Option

Decisions made to solve a problem should favor the least onerous option—that is, the means of fully addressing the problem that imposes the least hardship on the defendant. As suggested in the previous section, entirely ceasing an activity desirable to the defendant might not be necessary. For example, if someone complains about noise, it might be possible to either limit the noise to certain times of day, to relocate the noisy activity, or to contain or soundproof the noise.

Escalating, Graduated Enforcement with Opportunity for Appeal

Harm reduction and compliance—not punishment—are the goal of sanctions under Constitution 3.0. Enforcement therefore takes a two-pronged approach: 1) contain the harm as quickly as possible until the facts of the case can be determined, and 2) if necessary, apply gradually escalating sanctions until compliance is achieved. Then, once compliance is achieved, reduce sanctions proportional to the amount of residual deviation. This means that where harm is claimed, automatic injunctions can be issued to halt an activity temporarily. Service Level Agreements (see below) guarantee a prompt response to the issue so that if harm is not present, the defendant can resume quickly.

Automatic vs. Manual Escalation

Constitution 3.0 is designed to “just work”, even if the general public is apathetic or government officials are corrupt.

Radical transparency and accountability generates a digest that can be monitored for both egregious noncompliance and for trends (e.g., a pattern of discrimination) or drift. As described in the previous section, harm reduction and compliance are the chief goals of Constitution 3.0. As a result, detection of these patterns (subject to multi-factor tests) can result in an automatic injunction to cease harm while the facts are determined. Service Level Agreements (see below) ensure prompt attention to the matter so that if there is no harm, operations can resume.

Automatic actions can also occur as a result of following a documented process. For example, if a warning is issued and the process under which it was issued dictates that if no response is received within 14 calendar days, a summons is issued, then issuance of the summons can occur automatically.

However, any escalation involving punitive actions (fines, incarceration, or—in the case of Polities—dissolution) requires human involvement.

This organization—automatic vs. manual actions—minimizes the overhead associated with low-risk, well-defined procedures, freeing up humans to focus on the higher-risk, potentially punitive activities.

Service Level Agreements

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Minimizing feedback loops is important to ensure that the government continues to function as it should and to prevent the wider economy from grinding to a halt under the influence of frivolous or harassing lawsuits.

Service Level Agreements stipulate the turnaround time for particular governmental interventions, such as the maximum time for an automatic injunction to be reviewed. Failure to meet a Service Level Agreement can result in enforcement actions being taken against the offending government entity—yes, the government can, and should, hold itself accountable. As with other enforcement actions, sanctions start out as minor warnings and gradually escalate according to the severity and breadth of the failure. Entities under such sanctions can and should work to bring on additional resources to meet the requirements, or they should—formally and publicly—move to have the requirements relaxed.

Outro (for Now)

While there is still so much more to cover, I think I will stop here for now. I think this should begin to give a good outline of what I’m trying to accomplish. Constructive feedback would be appreciated. In other articles, I’ll talk about how polities are formed, run, and dissolved; protections in place to get people out of harmful situations (e.g., harmful Polities); and how the Central Body can confidently promise subsistence to everyone despite there being a non-zero population of free-riders who want to take and give nothing in return.