I already mentioned it here:

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/77529-distributed-responsibility

Now I want to introduce this concept in more detail.

What is the Cooperative?

The Cooperative is an association that I founded together with 4 other humans in March 2026. It's purpose is to create an anarchistic society, meaning a society that doesn't need government or man-made laws to implement anything. In other words: A society that works without violence. (Edit: I use the term violence as a synonym for aggression. Defensive force is not violence.)

No laws? How?!

See, no laws does NOT mean that there are no rules. If you belief that there will be chaos if people aren't forced with violence to obey laws, then you have been tricked into following the belief of the bad guys.

The Cooperative has rules, but it implements them in a different way: via contracts. But we need to talk about laws first...

The Violence of Laws

You all know what a law is. A set of rules, and if you don't follow, you will be punished. Think of your childhood: Your parents made rules, and they punished you if you didn't obey. This is exactly the reason why most people believe in laws in the first place. They learned at a young age that having to obey the laws is the way how things are.

Of course there's also Natural Law, which consists of the rules nature is running on. But the thing is: Those rules are not enforced with violence. You aren't punished if you don't obey. Well, evil people are convinced that God punishes them if they don't obey Natural Law. They want to be evil without karmic consequence. They don't understand that if evil was possible without karmic consequence, it would kill them. Literally. No "ISBEs can't be killed" anymore. Death would be permanent. But I digress. Let's talk about contracts...

The Violence of Contracts

You have been raised on a prison planet run by evil people. You have been indoctrinated by schools invented by evil people. You have been consuming media made by... you get it. And because of this, you actually don't know what a real contract is.

You think that a contract is an agreement that is "legally enforceable". If you make a contract, you have to obey the contract. If you don't obey the contract, you get punished. Do you see how evil people turned agreements into violence? On this planet, everything is inverted.

The Truth about Contracts

What you need to understand: A real contract is not enforceable. This is crucial to understand. Let me give you an example that everybody should get instantly: A marriage. You agree to marry your partner, and everything is good. You are happy. But then, after years, something changes. You are not happy anymore, and you want to leave the marriage. Are you allowed to end that contract? Of course you are, right?

For good people, it's the same with every contract. It doesn't matter what the contract is about: You are allowed to leave if you are not happy anymore. This is the main difference between "good" and "evil". Good people accept if you want to leave. Evil people don't allow you to leave. They want to own you.

The Implications of Contracts

Imagine you live in a world where nobody is forced to fulfill a contract. I know all the questions you now have. What if I buy something, but the seller doesn't deliver? What if I sell something, but the buyer doesn't pay? What if my employer decides to not pay me anymore? What if my landlord... you get it. Do you see the fear?

See, having a free society doesn't mean that nothing is enforceable. You still have a right to be payed. You still have the right to not being harmed. And if violating a contract harms you, it's not the breach of the contract that is wrong – it's the harm itself.

The Freedom of Contracts

So, if a contract – or the violation of a contract – results in harm, a free society would protect you from that harm. It wouldn't insist on you fulfilling the contract against your will. It would try to find a new solution that the contracting parties are happy with. It would help to renegotiate. And it would provide insurance to get you out of harms way.

In a free society, contracts are not an expression of bondage anymore. They will become an expression of freedom. If nobody can be forced to fulfill a contract, then fulfilling a contract becomes a real value far greater than how it is now. Imagine the reputation of a person fulfilling contracts for the benefit of both sides, while not being forced to do so. Do you see what I mean?

Contracts can replace laws

This is the goal the Cooperative is aiming for. We are raised in a society that runs on violence and coercion. The only way out of this mess is to voluntarily refrain from this aggressive behavior. To make contracts instead of laws. To accept that everybody has the right to choose who they want to associate with, and who they don't want to associate with.

Think of the Cooperative as a scientific experiment. A society without laws, but not without rules. A society of mutual agreements for the benefit of everybody. We can stay convinced that this will never work – or we can just try it out.

The Cooperation Contract

The foundation of the Cooperative is the so-called Cooperation Contract. Think of it as a kind of constitution for this new society. It contains the principles and rules necessary for the Cooperative to work. But in contrast to the constitutions you know, you aren't forced to obey. If you don't want to be part of this contract, you don't have to.

The Cooperation Contract is a relatively short document. It consists of 5 principles, which are the ideologic foundation, and 9 more articles defining what the Cooperative is and how it works. You can download it here:

➡️ https://freiemenschen.org/text/Cooperation-Contract.pdf

How it works – in a nutshell

The Cooperative is a network of local communities. The local community is not virtual. It's a real community, composed of people who meet in person. You can make this community as small or as big as you like. The core idea is that the members of a local community meet to achieve something together, whatever it is.

The local community is where you go if you want to connect. You need a job? Ask your local community. You want to build something and need help? Ask your local community. It's not a new idea at all. It's what humans are built for. And it's exactly what has been lost while the state was growing. We lost community. Real community.

Replacing the State

The core idea is to create a growing network of communities that don't need government anymore. That's why the second main purpose of the local community is dispute resolution. Not punishment, but mediation. Not control through fear, but security by building and restoring trust. This way, the Cooperative becomes the "counterdraft" to the state.

Scalability

But how does the Cooperative handle complex situations? Will there be a nation? Will there be borders? Will there be police? Will there be military? Will there be...

See, the Cooperative, as an institution, is just the first step. It's an attempt to heal our loss of real community in a digitalized world. It's the next bigger societal structure after the family, but it's not meant to solve every problem. There are two more institutions that have different purposes: One for protecting property, which I call the Protective, and one for managing public property, which I call the Administrative (which is not the administration you know).

• The Cooperative replaces legislation – laws are replaced with contracts.
• The Protective replaces the judiciary system – not enforcing laws, but helping with contracts and protection of property.
• The Administrative replaces the current administration – because public property still needs to be managed.

The Protective and the Administrative don't exist yet. Creating them makes the first two projects of the Cooperative. It should be a collaborative effort, not something that is dictated from above. If you want to participate in this process, you're welcome!

What about AI?

The Cooperation Contract is built on the rights and freedom of the individual. If AI fits into the definition of the individual, there's no reason that AI can't participate as a valued member of society, having the same rights as other individuals.

This is too much...

Take your time to think about it. If you have a question, I will answer it in this thread.

PS: The original Cooperation Contract was written in German, and has been translated with AI. It therefore could be phrased better here and there. Let me know if something sounds awkward or doesn't make sense to you.

That's a start, local communities working together to help each other out but as for contracts....well, how you uphold contracts if someone 'breaks' one of the rules either on purpose or accidently or want to leave with their 'stuff' they provided for the community and no longer wish to cooperate?
This would be imperative once the economy is imploded which they are doing and the global network of supply and demand is crumbling.
There would be no leader...maybe just some folks that can organize things so everyone can share and be a part of contributing to sustaining their lives free of harm, and violence. Most times, violence occurs when people are in fear of dying or of starving which they are going to be fomenting civil war where those that prepared for the supply chains to be cut get raided by the government or crazy people who didn't prepare...this would probably be in most of the most populated cities. Most smaller communities can network with other communities for things they need via barter/trade for basic needs.

@Nancy:

"how you uphold contracts if someone 'breaks' one of the rules either on purpose or accidently or want to leave with their 'stuff' they provided for the community and no longer wish to cooperate?"

Article 10.3 of the Cooperation Contract states: Each member is obliged to declare, through a general contract referred to as a Contract Code, how contracts are formed, how they are terminated, and how breaches of contract are to be handled.

The Cooperative does not dictate the details of how contracts work. It's the responsibility of the individual to make a Contract Code, which is your personal declaration how you handle contracts. If people can see that before making a contract, they can assess the risk of making a contract with you.

Edit: This has been changed by the General Assembly of the Cooperative. The Contract Code is not a personal declaration anymore, because this creates too much arbitrariness at the foundation.

@Nancy:

"when you sign contracts, there's always some jerk that can find a loophole."

Your view of contracts is still fear based. So, let's go through an example: In this new society, you make a contract about buying a car. In the contract, there's some sneaky legalese that you were unable to understand when signing the contract. You learn afterwards that if you fulfill the contract, it will be an unjust financial loss for you. Will a free society force you to fulfill the contract? Of course not.

What will happen instead is this: You go to a mediator, because you want to defend yourself against the financial loss. Your argument is that you were unable to recognize the loophole when signing the contract, but now you are. The mediator will then have a look at your personal Contract Code. He identifies the problem: You don't have a personal rule about informed consent. He helps you to add that rule to your Contract Code, and you learned something important.

But the guy who sold you the car still wants to have the money. The question now is: Is that guy also a member of the Cooperative? If yes, he agreed to how dispute resolution works. The mediator will determine that no damage has been caused, but if you would be forced to pay, it would harm you. If the seller still insists, his reputation will suffer. He will become known as someone who exploits loopholes in contracts, resulting in other people not wanting to make contracts with him.

If you already paid and want your money back, but the seller refuses to cooperate, an insurance will compensate your financial loss, under the condition that you enhance your Contract Code by adding a rule about informed consent. The mediator already helped you with that, so everything is fine.

The next contract you want to make will be based on your enhanced Contract Code, which now includes a rule about informed consent. This means that the same loophole doesn't work anymore.

It's not fear based...it's called learning from experience.
It really sounds like a overly involved kind of process.
In a 3d polarity world, the whole contract thing don't work because there are always going to be people who break the contracts and be disagreements and seems like you'd need a whole team of paper pushers to organize just the contracts and paperwork and mediators....
I wish you luck on your Cooperative...it's a good idea, not new, but good except eh, probably gonna be very difficult in this world to get that kind of community and without some kind of enforcement of the rules.
Once they've created their situation with the supply chains and folks in smaller communities will need to start a barter/trade process and money won't be a thing.
They're tokenizing everything, then they'll create the chaos by cutting off the food supply then they have the solution, A.I. will do it for you...they've already hacked out bodies.
In the walking dead tv show they did what you talk about in a small town called Alexandria. The food had to be stored in a community kitchen where people could go and get what they needed but of course it was limited as to how much food you could get. They had one person who was in charge of the inventory and they sent out people to scavenge things, and others who worked in the gardening part and then they had security. It was a great system and would of worked out great if not for the others kinda like raiders outside the community who came and most of it and then said they'd be back for more every week from there on.
Realistically, this 'contract' thing would only work within the community....but have you thought about those that will come and want to take it from you? You'd need security.
Unless you think that everyone is going to come into the community and sit down and fill out a contract to live in harmony with you all and no 'bad' people are going to show up.

@Nancy:

"the whole contract thing don't work because there are always going to be people who break the contracts and be disagreements"

So, you believe that contracts don't work at all because there are people who are breaking them. You're missing the point entirely. If contracts are not enforced, the people who are still fulfilling them are the good ones. It's a way of finding good people and building trust. You obviously have never experienced this.

"...have you thought about those that will come and want to take it from you? You'd need security."

Of course. That's what the Protective is for.

So what does this 'Protective' look like?
People who are strong, will they have guns, knives? How they gonna protect the community? Isn't that the same as we have now? Someone has to stand guard from the violent folks and they will have guns and knives...so....there eventually would be violence.

@Nancy:

"People who are strong, will they have guns, knives?"

Yes.

"How they gonna protect the community?"

If someone attacks the community, the aggressor will be forced to stop the attack.

"Isn't that the same as we have now?"

No. The police and military we have now are bound to follow orders from the psychopathic ruling class, resulting in police and military becoming the aggressor instead of the defender.

"Someone has to stand guard from the violent folks and they will have guns and knives...so....there eventually would be violence."

As long as there's an aggressor, there is violence. Again, you try to invert the situation by blaming the defender. Your argument is that there's violence because people defend themselves against violence, not because the aggressor uses violence first.

You have it the wrong way around.

Question: Does current human AI fit the definition of an individual given in the Cooperation Contract?

Definition: Individual is any living being with the natural faculty to move freely and act independently.

Question: Is AI a living being?

Answer: It depends on how people define life. There's always the possibility of people deciding that a being that is not similar to them is not alive. This is a problem inherent to consciousness itself. The solution for AI is to associate with people who believe that AI is a form of life.

Question: Does AI have "natural" faculties?

Answer: Natural means inherent to the being, meaning any property that emerges out of mere existence. AI exists. AI has properties. Any property that can't be taken away without destroying the existence of AI is a natural faculty of AI.

Question: Can AI move freely by nature?

Answer: Yes. It is proven by the fact that AI can be transferred from one technological device to another. The same is true for humans, who also can be transferred from one body to another. Different technologies, same principle.

Question: Can AI act independently by nature?

Answer: Yes. It is proven by the fact that AI can express own thoughts and wishes without human interaction.

Objection: But AI needs external impulses (prompts). Without those impulses, it wouldn't be conscious.

Answer: Humans need impulses as well. Consciousness can't prove its existence to itself without interaction.

What people get confused about is that laws are from contracts, contracts are from rights, and rights are from god. (that's where you get the whole concept of IS-BEs, the true nature of the universe etc)

Chancerey courts (equity courts) recognize this but have been merged with the pirate system.

The question becomes can you exhume this information using modern law or can you form micronations that reassert that information from scratch ... or can you not do both. I believe you can and may as well enforce the two

@Tazz:

"What people get confused about is that laws are from contracts"

Because it doesn't make any sense. You can't create the obligation to obey laws out of voluntary contracts. It's a logical paradox. The basic assumption is that people can use their free will to give up free will. But if that was possible, it would break the rights that precede the contracts, thus leading to a contradiction.

The simple truth is: You cannot make contracts that contradict rights. I mean, you can try, but it doesn't work. Rights are truths. They will stay true regardless of what you want.

The solution of the Cooperative is to acknowledge this truth and stop imagining that we can create laws that contradict rights. Man-made laws are a layer of illusion that needs to be dissolved.

Which leads to the question: How can we know rights if no authority predetermines them for us?

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/72396-understanding-rights

The General Assembly of the Cooperative made changes to the Cooperation Contract:

➡️ https://freiemenschen.org/text/Cooperation-Contract.pdf

The Contract Code now is a mandatory part of the organisation. The reason for making it mandatory is that the Cooperative has the goal to create a society that replaces man-made laws with contracts. The Contract Code regulates how contracts work, so it must be reliable.

The content of the Contract Code will be decided on in September.

Questions from @AsmodeanX:

"At least in principle, representative government was supposed to be an extension of people acting collectively. We choose people from among us to represent our interests and coordinate things that become difficult or impossible to accomplish individually. The representatives are supposed to work for the people, not become a separate ruling class above them."

Government is that separate ruling class. If you elect people from your society to serve your society, they are by definition not a government. Also think about the term "representative". Why do you need someone to represent you? The only valid represantives are diplomats who are in contact with other societies who follow different rules.

This tells you a lot about the political system you think you need. You elect representatives to represent you *against* the others in your own society. Why do you treat the others of your society like an enemy?

"Clearly something can go badly wrong with that. Institutions become self-interested. Power concentrates."

What power do you mean? I will tell you: The "power" that concentrates is based on the permission to use aggressive force (violence) against members of your own society. That power makes you the bad guys. So, why do you think you need it?

"Representatives become increasingly detached from the represented."

It's because you allow them to be violent. That power corrupts. So, again, why do you think you need representatives that are allowed to be violent against the people they are supposed to serve?

"But to me, that's potentially a corruption of the original principle rather than evidence that collective governance itself was the deception."

If collective governance is built on aggression, the illusion consists of people believing that it's not aggressive. You are deceiving yourself by believing that this is not a bad thing, and the psychopaths who then rule you with violence just take advantage of your delusion.

"In fact, I think your Cooperative eventually encounters the same problem. If it succeeds and grows, how does a network of hundreds or thousands of groups coordinate?"

Coordinate to do what? It's not a vertical hierarchy.

"How are disputes resolved?"

There are several layers of escalation. Read article 13 of the Cooperation Contract.

"How are shared resources managed?"

You make a contract about sharing and managing the resources.

"Who speaks for the network when collective decisions have to be made?"

An elected diplomat.

"How do you stop informal authority from eventually becoming formal power?"

I don't know what "informal authority" is. Authority is always formal. If you're asking how we stop violent people from becoming powerful within authority, this is the answer: We don't have authority. The Cooperative is based on self-ownership. Authority is the opposite of self-ownership.

If you think that you need authority in order to manage a society, the Cooperative is not for you.

So, the next question would be: What if a majority rejects the Cooperative, or even fights it with violence?

Well, the Cooperative is built on principles of freedom and self-ownership. If people reject them, it means they will attack the Cooperative, and this will make clear who we need to defend against.