The Two Realms



	When thinking about the future of human society and the conflict between
	strong states and strong individuals the possible outcomes we think about tend
	to be extremes. Either the states rule completely, or the individual does.

	This article presents a third option - “The Two Realms”. One for the state, 
	the other for the individual.

	The Stage
	At opposite ends of the spectrum we have the strong state and the strong 
	individual. I use the word “strong” to emphasize the position taken. A strong 
	state has the objective to stay strong. That means it mainly follows any lead 
	to justify its power and control.

	It is important to see that the main definition and the basic justification of 
	the state is the “monopoly of violence” over a certain territory and all 
	people living in that territory. This monopoly is the intellectual reason why 
	to have a state, and this monopoly is also the source of anything any state 
	can do.

	There is no taxation without the monopoly of violence, there is no police, 
	justice system, parliaments, etc without the centralized control of violence.

	The state’s objective is always maintaining a monopoly of violence.

	Everything that questions that monopoly is a danger to the state itself - and 
	a danger to those people that are part of the state apparatus: Politicians, 
	bureaucrats, public services employees (police, firemen, part of the health 

	On the other side of the spectrum we have the strong individual. By definition 
	the strong individual seeks to rule himself. He/She claims a monopoly of 
	violence over himself by himself. As soon as a person refuses to accept the 
	exclusive monopoly of the state on the exercise of violence, that person turns 
	into a strong individual.

	In today’s society we have several groups of strong individuals, most of them 
	calling themselves anarchists of some kind. But there are others, such as 
	radical religious groups, that do not accept the state as the sole ruler.

	One of those groups I would like to call “libertarian”. For the sake of this 
	discussion, we will state that libertarian groups consist of strong 
	individuals that seek freedom of person, communication, commerce and 
	lifestyle. This categorization is not an attempt to define a party or an 
	organization, but to classify a group of individuals.

	There is a third group to talk about: The people.

	We will call the vast majority of humans on state territory “The people”. 
	These are individuals not employed by the state and not opposing the monopoly 
	of violence. Most of “The people” are just fine with the existence of the 
	state, taxes, welfare, etc. They do not oppose the status quo. Certainly they 
	have details to complain about, but they do not question the concept of the 
	state itself.

	For a large number of people the state really brings great advantages. Just 
	imagine that 40% of all Germans get 50% or more of their income through state 
	wealth redistribution. That includes not only welfare recipients or government 
	officials but also construction industry, health care industry and others.

	The people and the state build some kind of power exchange market formed by 
	legislative bodies, unions, NGOs etc. These are mainly focused on protecting 
	the status quo, even if painting it in different colors each other year.

	The people are subject to the state. The desire of the state to maintain this 
	subjugation is the reason for the state’s desire for the monopoly of violence.

	There is no state without the people, but there are people without the state.

	It is important to realize that most people do not oppose libertarian Utopia 
	because they think that it is morally corrupt. The main reason for opposition 
	is simply fear. Fear to leave the status quo without knowing how things would 
	work out.

	Many of the people are interested in experimenting with libertarian concepts, 
	at least those people that are used to being self-responsible in the market 

	Some examples of potential libertarians are freelancers, consultants, the self 
	employed and executives of Small/Medium Sized Enterprises (SME).

	The Two Realms
	When thinking about the future of society one of the central questions is 

	Can those three groups coexist on the same territory?

	It is clear that “the state” and “The people” can co-exist as The people are 
	essential for the existence of the state. But what happens if you add a few 
	thousand strong individuals?

	The standard answer is that the state will try to suppress these individuals; 
	that the only way for the strong individual to live freely is to separate from 
	the state and The people and to find territory that is not controlled by a 
	monopolist of power.

	The arguments for this conclusion are convincing: The state cannot accept the 
	questioning of its authority or its monopoly on violence. Any disobedience and 
	dissent is opposing the justification of the state and therefore a threat to 
	its existence. Questioning endangers the state’s monopoly.

	On the other hand the exercise of violence against political enemies is a 
	danger to the state itself. We can see from history that oppression has often 
	led to an uprising of The people against the state apparatus. The destruction 
	of several socialist or autocratic regimes in recent history shows that open 
	oppression can lead to the people rethinking their view on the current 
	political system. (Never has this been a threat to the concept of the strong 
	state itself but a threat only to the current implementation and to the people 
	currently in positions of power.)

	If the state is too harsh in its defense against strong individuals this may 
	cause the agents of the state to threaten the state’s existence.

	But this is not the only threat the state has to keep in mind. It’s merely the 
	most extreme.

	More likely is the radicalization of the strong individuals if they are able 
	to organize themselves to follow their common objectives.

	Since strong individuals tend to be well educated, well funded and creative, 
	they can be a strong enemy. Especially their creativity and their independence 
	from the restrictions of state laws and rules of conduct. All of this makes 
	them a difficult adversary to fight. Strong individuals would very likely 
	target the central infrastructure, instruments and people that hold the state 

	The state has much to lose in such a battle.

	An alternative could be the concept of “two realms”. If a strong state and a 
	strong individual try to stay out of each other’s realm it is less likely that 
	a bloody conflict might arise.

	The Two Realms Explored
	Let us examine what those realms could be, how they can co-exist in parallel 
	and where they would likely clash.

	The state’s realm is where the state rules exclusively and where the people 
	are ruled.

	This will be public places, public transportation, public welfare, public 
	health care, and the state’s justice system, including courts, police and 
	prisons. Furthermore all activities taking place in any of these areas are in 
	the state’s realm and solely under its control.

	We call this “The first realm”.

	The other realm would consist of privately owned space, such as certain shops 
	and houses, as well as certain communication systems that already exist. This 
	is the realm of the strong individuals, which we will call “The second realm”.

	Both of these realms would have their own economic and monetary system and 
	would both try to stay out of each other’s business.

	Examples of separate territories within one nation state already exist. Just 
	think about those quarters that the police won’t enter at night. What is 
	crucial for such a concept to succeed is that both realms try to stay out of 
	each other’s business as much as possible. Both realms need to be as separate 
	as possible. This, first and foremost, means that the intersections of both 
	economic and money systems need to be avoided as much as possible.

	Working in the realm of the strong individuals? Don’t use the state’s banking 
	system to conduct transactions.

	Working in the realm of the state? Don’t use the strong individual’s money 
	system to launder your proceeds.

	Separating the realms is crucial. But also having physical space to meet, 
	trade, exchange, follow your lifestyle. Coffee shops, restaurants, “free 
	houses” that are exclusively for the use of strong individuals. There is no 
	substitute for sitting together to cooperate and collaborate.

	And these dedicated physical spaces build bridges for effective commerce. What 
	about settling your transactions by exchanging real physical gold (or whatever 
	medium of exchange you prefer)?

	Or physically delivering goods to your customer?

	Those “free zones” don’t have to be huge and protected by gunmen. Any coffee 
	shop run by a strong individual can become such a place.

	Immigrant communities are an example for effective working structures of this 

	Furthermore the realm of the strong individuals consists of unrestricted 
	digital communication systems. Even today we already have the means to 
	exchange any data freely, unregulated and anonymously. Systems like Tor and 
	I2P are only the better known ones. The states have long realized that they 
	will not be able to control those advanced communication systems. This is why 
	they focus mostly on wide spread “The people” technology like Short Messaging 
	Service, telephone, client-server VoIP, standard email, web surfing and so on.

	When putting the picture together, we soon notice that these two realms cannot 
	be completely separate. For a long while the second realm will be too small to 
	be economically sustainable. People that work in the second realm must still 
	go shopping at a supermarket in the first realm. But the volume of cross-realm 
	commerce can be massively reduced if there are physical bridgeheads that allow 
	for physical commerce. The cost of transactions would be greatly reduced, 
	barter and the enforcement of contracts would become easier etc.

	But we also have to admit that there is a big problem attached to those 
	physical bridgeheads - the coffee shops, free houses and rural communities 
	where strong individuals connect. We would need to come into the light. Many 
	of us are too paranoid to do so. The state could send agents that would get to 
	know our faces.

	This is a very valid counter argument. But we already know ways to protect 
	ourselves. Separation of physical identity, communication identity, physical 
	proxies, etc already exist. And such things existed before and have been 
	successfully used before by other underground movements that were much more a 
	target than we are currently or may ever be.

	End notes
	We often discuss the possibilities of forming new states:- To colonize the 
	seas, the solar system or to take over islands to form new societies. I don’t 
	want to wait that long. Waiting for a better world, a perfect place, turns the 
	place into Utopia. Reality works by dreaming big dreams but building with 
	bricks and mortar.

	Do not get me wrong, - I also have these big dreams. I look forward to my 
	personal floating platform on the high seas. But today I would like to have a 
	glimpse of this Utopia in my real life. We have so many tools that we are 
	already a power by ourselves.

	But to become more effective, to implement more of our dreams today, I believe 
	we need to claim our realm.