My favorite scheme is a modular structure like this design:
In my scenario of an individualist state, some individuals would found cities based on political principles and then attract people who like its ideas. This essentially creates a new division of labor, a new job: jurisdiction founder.
This goes back to the cause/effect problem of sociology and data interpretation.
My idea tackles this by allowing pure political expression without opposition. Thus, if you have an idea for a new legal order, simply start a new jurisdiction, attract those into it whom like the idea, and begin building and see what results. There will not be political opposition to water down the policies, and thus no one to blame but yourselff and your members to that jurisdiction who ostensibly wanted to be there and wanted to see it work.
I don’t think you’re going to be able to bridge the two main issues, the causality problem, and the problem raised by Huemer, that gaining political knowledge is expensive and at the same time essentially futile in modern democracies where an individual has virtually no effect on politics with their lone vote.
so regarding children and families here, won’t there be a problem of a child born in a juristiction and not happy with it’s rules or a wife that would have to choose to go alone with the husband or divorse and then the two would have to decide custody of the children? people don’t choose the family they are born into and would not choose the juristiction they are born into and that can cause conflict. what structure would be there to allow children to make and follow choices that they would be happy living under if they feel the parents are too controlling and feel trapped in the choices of the parents? i think we have in politics differences in generations the the choices of parents would be much different that the choices of the children as they grow up. how will child abuse be delt with under these make your own juristiction rules as some parents would like to choose to regard the children as property rather than treat them as sovereing individuals that can make their own choices of how and where to live? if people are going to say they are accidental american citzens and have not signed a contract to be a citizen and feel the law is imposed on them, what is to prevent that from the children in this new seastead setup?
Certainly. Kids are considered under their parents’ supervision until old enough to support themselves financially on their own. They could also sue at a reasonable age to escape their parents’ supervision if they felt particularly strong about escaping their situation.
The only objective way to determine when kids are ready to make their own choices is when they’re also fully financially self-supportive. This is perhaps better than using a static age to determine adulthood. But, individual jurisdictions could have different criteria as they saw fit, within reason.
Children is the only area of greyness when it comes to voluntaryism. At what point should a parent no longer overrule the will of a kid? Certainly after puberty, that’s a biological measure of some maturity, if not total maturity. Then there’s determinations of whether parents are abusing their position and in fact aggressing against their children. Ultimately you need courts to decide on a case by case basis, there’s no pat answer that handles every case.
True, and I fully expect that each new generation of kids would want to start their own jurisdictions and live in cities catering to what they felt were deficiencies in the place they grew up in. Such would be a healthy political process.
The standard of reasonableness and invasion. Is it reasonable to require a kid to work? Most of the time, within reason. Again, I don’t recognize children as sovereigns until they are adults, no one does, it’s not even possible, as kids aren’t mature enough to make their own decisions. After they’re a teenager, a good point is when they decide they want responsibility for their life, when they declare it, and when they move out. At that point, any attempt to hold them would be an aggression.
This voluntaryist society is a truly contractual society, making real the supposed ‘social contract’ of today’s legal system. When a kid turns into an adult in this seastead society, he or she is -not- automatically a member of any jurisdiction nor the larger confederal government itself. They must explicitly choose or apply to the jurisdiction they want to be a part of. Some jursidictions would no doubt take all comers, and some would have conditional entry.
Thus, whatever legal system they ultimately choose is explicitly a choice. They would remain under general police protection (privately provided by that jurisdiction), no doubt, while in any of the member territories, as would any visitor or foreigner, but they aren’t automatically taken under the wing of the local jurisdiction and imposed upon like modern jurisdictions do. Glad you asked that question.
The idea is calculated to allow jurisdictions to both grow and die organically, based on how well they’re serving their members. Generational movement between jurisdictions is expected and welcome as well.
How do you differentiate between “children” and the “elderly” who have about the same intellectual capacity and physiological vulnerability? Are the elderly considered under their adult children’s supervision until they kick the bucket? What about the mentally ill?
Once again, this standard must be applied similarly to those with the similar capacities. Does this mean the eldery shouldn’t be recognized as sovereigns, because they are too frail to make their own decisions? When an elderly person decides they no longer want responsibility for their life, does that mean his adult children are obliged to care for him?
I don’t, necessarily. If the elderly prove incapable of caring for themselves, and not of sound mind, they should be taken in by their family or admitted to a care facility. Likely there would be law enforcement involved and due process to determine soundness of mind and whether they’re a danger to themselves and others.
I assume too that such care facilities would arise as a function of the free market via donation and the like. There would be no state role in social services.
At the same time, I want to create a mechanism to make coordinated action in the absence of government both possible and easy. This is where the web helps a lot, to create communication channels within a jurisdiction, allowing voluntary mass coordination such as we’ve historically used government to accomplish. It’s a new mechanism of coordinated action based on voluntarism. Since it’s a private law society, and anyone can propose laws for themselves and others, and all law is voluntary, anyone could put forth an initiative and themselves as its executor, the purpose of which being to, say in this instance, fund an old age home. Those adopting the intiative could subscribe to it financially and support it either on a continuing basis or lump sums, w/e.
Not unless they’re of unsound mind -and- the family has accepted the obligation to care for them. There’s no automatic assumption that their family must care for them. In practice, and absent state facilities, I expect many families would. I also expect many people would foresee this event and buy long term care insurance. And they’d actually be able to afford it 
Left to themselves unless they become a danger and/or invade another’s rights.
You’ve got to separate the two issues. Firstly, if an elderly person can no longer care for themselves and are of unsound mind, then care should be found for them, if there’s any person or organization willing to take them on. Since human societies have always had such organizations, even without government involvement, I assume such will continue to exist. Those who argue only the state can fund such things–poppycock.
And no, that would not mean their adult children are obliged to care for them. As an obligation must be accepted and cannot be automatic. I’m sure many families would, and again, I’m sure many people would buy long-term care insurance to avoid such a fate in the first place.