Let’s Design A Network State — Part IV: Forking, Redress, Ostracism, Dissolution and Merging

Network States are subject to all of the problems of previous governance structures for the last 10,000 years. For this reason, I have outlined here a list of design challenges the Network State is designed to avoid.

However, there must be a redress mechanism in a sufficiently problematic network state. A Network State must have mechanisms to address structural problems and problematic individuals. In this article, I will explore some of the potential remedies.

Ostracism

I believe, from the beginning, Network State designers and architects must be transparent that Network State Citizenship comes with conditions. There may be numerous Network States with different conditions, but we should be transparent that the benefits of network states will not all be without responsibilities attached.

Ostracism is a potential mechanism, where citizens submit a call which enables a proposal to remove someone from the Network State via a vote. Once removed, the person can be re-instated later. But their Citizenship is revoked and all benefits including Citizen Share of Economy and voting are revoked.

Ostracism is reserved for individuals.

Forking

If there is a significant disagreement about direction, strategy, philosophy, spending or other such discussion: It should be possible to vote to “Fork” a Network State.

Citizens who vote one way move into a new Network State which forks the treasury and attached finances. This forking process is a method for preserving the structure while enabling further innovation and philosophical differences.

Merging

A vote to merge network states should also be possible. The way this works is all citizens from one Network State recieve a Citizenship from another, perhaps in exchange for some nominal payment. The two groups are then merged into one.

Dissolution

A vote can be made to dissolve the state entirely and return funds to individuals.