I was trying to look through the US Code to see where it says what I would consider to be the axioms of a country and its law, something like:
- There is an entity called “The United Stated”
- This is the land that defines it: (territory)
- The country is also defined by people who constitute the country; they are called “citizens”. Who is a citizen is determined in a way described later.
- The United States can make laws, or statements about what citizens must,can, or can not do.
- There is a body / group of people - called the “government” - they have more ability than other citizens to create or change the laws. (There are laws to be described later about how it is determined which citizens are in the “government”.)
- The United States enforces laws on its citizens. That means, there is a law that says that the government has the ability to require citizens to follow laws; and what ways it can respond to anything forbidden by law, is described later.
I think I did find roughly that under “Organic Laws - Articles of Confederation” in the US Code, but I think what I did not expect is that it appears to be the document that was written in the 1700’s, without there being a sort of modern rephrasing, and collation of all laws into one single document, rather than a library of different ones. Maybe the nature of law is it’s very hard to change an essential law’s phrasing, so it remains word for word over time?
What my real question is, is in our time, it seems that almost all “space” is owned / controlled by a “country”. It’s like a default assumption of our time that the world divides into countries. I’ve been thinking about how it could be useful and upright research to design different “human systems” - mechanisms, guidelines, rules - starting with small groups and exploring larger ones slowly - to try to explore “government” or political philosophy actively and empirically, like scientific research. But it just occurred to me that if someone wanted to try to explore a small society based on certain rules, there is an extent to which it might feel limited so far as it was limited by the country the research was happening in. Also, it’s like humans don’t have the right to live in a society of their choosing. We didn’t choose the countries we were born into. Governments control land with force. It’s almost like a philosophical basis is lacking for how an entity like a government can declare that you are its subject. It’s almost like we’re lacking a natural freedom but it isn’t one that’s been widely recognized yet so people do not even realize they don’t have it.
Is there any country with a legal code / constitution that is perhaps based on a completely modern, modernized, and recent philosophy of what the rules of a society should be, and on philosophical grounds alone, consider that the natural human right to freedom means you are not required to be a member of that state, and you can opt out - but furthermore that it is wrong for the country to claim complete dominion over certain areas of land. In other words, a person can opt out of their country and has the right to some land within that country. Maybe the region would still be regulated by international standards like basic human rights, but other than that they are no longer part of their state.
The only example I can think of is Christiana, a district in Copenhagen, Denmark where the people declared themselves an anarchist community that is not part of any country or the EU. For some time it seemed the government respected it, until crime and other issues caused more police control, I think.
So, which country comes closest to actually preserving people’s right to opt out of the state and have a natural right to at least some land?