For over two hundred years, following the American and French Revolutions, the most successful outcomes of political governance have been achieved through electoral democracy with expanding suffrage, embodied in the state structures of Western Europe, North America, and several other countries. It was built upon the foundation of nation-states, gradually becoming the primary model of state organization after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the situation began to rapidly change. The global community confronted a contradiction between two fundamental principles of international relations: the inviolability of recognized state borders and the right of nations to self-determination. A formal resolution of this contradiction is lacking.

Meanwhile, beneath the asphalt of traditional state forms, the sprouts of new systems of political organization are already emerging. The most active and adaptable individuals increasingly have less need for a territorial state as the organizational framework for pursuing their interests. The individualization of communication is not just the ability to instantly connect with contacts from any corner of the civilized world but also the freedom to choose the means of sustaining their life. The territorial principle of organizing human communities, which was once inevitable due to the limitations of physical reach, is no longer necessary for active individuals. And if some people do not need to be physically together to interact instantly, then national states created based on the territorial principle only hinder these individuals.

In political philosophy, there has been a discussion for several years about new forms of political organization. One highly popular option is the creation of quasi-state systems based on the world's largest corporations. Indeed, Google, Facebook, Microsoft unite hundreds of millions of people worldwide who trust them. These individuals interact with these corporations through electronic networks multiple times a day, much more frequently than with the state authorities of their nationality and citizenship. Why not see the emergence of corporate-based quasi-states that would provide their clients with the same forms of interest representation on the global stage as today's national states?

Yes, it is possible that virtual corporate states will emerge in the near future.

However, no longer bound by the territorial principle like classical nation-states, these corporate quasi-states will not be immune to another ailment that weakens their competitors – political populism. In a majority-rule democracy system, if such voting is preserved within "corporate states", populists can support crazy ideas convenient for their selfish goals but destructive to public life. Today, we already see how Facebook or Twitter are forced to change their policies under the influence of public opinion and pressure from populists.

If the "corporate states" are built on an opposite, authoritarian model of governance, they will be susceptible to managerial degradation and will lose to competitors even in the medium term. In short, "corporate states" will not be able to avoid the fundamental managerial issues of territorial states.

Individual sovereignty is the principle that will enable the creation of a new form of political organization that is adequate for the 21st century with its instant global communications.

What should be primary in human relationships: the interest of the collective or the interest of the individual? The answer to this question cannot be found in discussion, even in scientific debate, as it pertains to beliefs ingrained in each person through upbringing, starting from childhood. Logical arguments on this topic can go on indefinitely, with each side holding their own opinion.

There are many people who consider the collective interest to be primary. This manifesto is not directed at them but at those who consider the interest of the individual to be primary. If you disagree with this perspective, you will likely not agree with what is presented below. That's not a problem; there are numerous texts that appeal to your worldview, but this is not one of them.

We, who consider the interest of the individual to be primary, start from the inherent belonging of the individual to all rights over themselves, their body, and their life, as well as the responsibility for their behavior. Human rights are individual, and sovereignty is individual. However, according to the dominant political theory in our environment, we have transferred our individual sovereignty to the state as a collective entity – this is what the concept of the social contract, developed during the Enlightenment era, teaches us.

It makes sense for us to reconsider the traditional view of the social contract.

The authors of this model 200-300 years ago assumed that every citizen who understood the laws of social existence should willingly yield their individual sovereignty to society. Society, as a "collective subject", then creates the state as a practical governance tool. The theory of the social contract includes a schizophrenic condition in which a free subject must freely, but inevitably, transfer their individual sovereignty to the civil collective. Society, and then the state, becomes the collective sovereign on behalf of all its participants.

Here's what's strange: an individual must willingly transfer their sovereignty to society freely, but they have no choice. Freedom lies in realizing the inevitability and submitting to it. If you haven't realized it, you're considered defective and insufficiently enlightened, and they need to educate you and instill the right understanding of freedom in you.

Strange freedom. Strange Enlightenment.

Let's abandon this schizophrenia. If I, as a free individual with individual sovereignty, transferred my sovereignty to society (even though no transfer act was ever signed by anyone), then I can revoke it back. I don't want to be a member of this society; I want to be a member of another and transfer my individual sovereignty to it. Or not transfer it to anyone, remaining an independent individual, not belonging to any society and not being a subject of any state. That is true freedom.

It may seem that such an option exists today: a citizen can change their citizenship, move from one country to another. This appears to be the transfer of individual sovereignty, right? Not entirely. Firstly, the switching barriers are very high. Changing countries, languages, social environments, and likely jobs – all of this comes at a significant cost to the individual. And in the new state, conditions may not be better or even worse than in the previous one. You won't know until you live there. What, move again and bear the costs? Secondly, all modern states are organized based on one of two fundamental principles of governance: one is authoritarianism, where a leader or a small closed group governs, and the other is electoral democracy, where manipulative populists govern on behalf of the "people". Neither of these options is satisfactory for many individuals seeking freedom. Thirdly, UN policy hinders the increase in the number of stateless individuals, so if you renounce the citizenship of one country, you are obliged to become a citizen of another. Remaining an individual free from all states is prohibited at the international level.

Is there no way out? There is. The 21st century has provided one. Let's make use of it!

A community of free individuals can be virtual. Five hundred people living in sixty different countries can share similar views on the proper organization of public governance, methods of interaction, and mechanisms for making political decisions. If they virtually come together and create a small but global community, it will be easy for them to choose their own government because their views on the principles of social organization are very similar. This small government will represent its 500 clients in relationships with other communities, including all existing territorial states today. It will collect taxes from its clients in an amount agreed upon by them to support its functioning and be accountable for their use. Those who join such a community will transfer their individual sovereignty not abstractly and passively, but specifically and actively, by signing a membership agreement, being of sound mind and memory.

Entering such a community will require an individual to incur significantly lower costs than changing their citizenship from one territorial state to another. No need to relocate, learn a new language, change one's social circle, job, or meet the cumbersome and challenging requirements for obtaining new citizenship. Yes, when transitioning to the citizenship of a virtual community, legal and financial terms for interactions in the physical environment may change, but the fundamental parameters of daily life will remain the same. A person will become like a foreigner or expatriate on the territory of their regular, familiar residence.

If the quality of the government's work, conditions, or atmosphere within the community no longer suits a specific individual, they can exit (following established procedures and fulfilling their obligations). If the government becomes too poor, and dissatisfied members of the community cannot re-elect it according to its internal legislation (for example, due to a power usurpation by current leaders), it may lose all of its clients, and it would have no means of existence.

It is challenging to imagine the physical exodus of all citizens dissatisfied with their authoritarian government from the jurisdiction of territorial states because the costs are too high. Moreover, the majority of citizens in territorial states are an inert majority that would rather endure than bring about changes in their lives. However, active proponents of individual sovereignty are different. We will leave. Especially with such low exit costs!

Today, the dominance of territorial forms of political organization enslaves us, the active minority who could and would like to break free from the yoke of authoritarian leaders and irresponsible populists. Extraterritorial sovereign jurisdictions of the 21st century are the form of political organization that will help untangle many knots of social development that have hindered progress for many decades.

"This has never happened before! It won't work!" – such reactions to the idea of extraterritorial sovereignty have been encountered for the past 15 years.

– Lies, ignorance of history and the modern world. This has been the case throughout all epochs of human history. This continues to exist today.

In the ancient world, foreign mercenaries serving all-powerful rulers of vast states existed within their own jurisdiction, not subject to local laws (though they did not violate local customs). Their commanders were responsible for their unit members and could judge them according to their internal rules, while being in contractual relationships with their patron-ruler, whose safety they ensured.

In the Middle Ages, craftsmen belonging to city guilds were subject to their own laws and regulations. They were judged within the guild, but the guild as a whole was accountable for their actions. If a client caught a craftsman cheating, they had to hand them over to the guild, not to some "city court of general jurisdiction".

Monks and monasteries across Europe existed within their own jurisdiction, being subject to bishops or the Pope directly. Feudals or secular aristocrats had no right to judge them.

The coexistence of different jurisdictions on the same territory persisted for centuries without constant conflicts among people.

The emergence of absolute monarchy in 17th-century France did not mean turning Louis XIV into a tyrant with unrestricted power. The term "absolutism" signified a different process: the elimination of autonomous sovereignty within France by the Catholic Church, city communities, and craft guilds in cities, as well as the sovereignty of individual feudals and aristocrats. Henceforth, the coexistence of different jurisdictions on the same territory was no longer permitted. No one's authority could stand on equal footing with that of the king. The rise of absolute monarchies marked the beginning of the era of sovereign territorial states, initiated by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Since then, there have been far fewer examples of the coexistence of different jurisdictions on the same territory, though this order has not entirely disappeared. For example, diplomats working in the territories of other states are outside the jurisdiction of local authorities. They can be expelled but cannot be punished under local laws.

And another glaring example, which is not as specific as the status of diplomats: in today's era of territorial states, there exists an extraterritorial "hobby club" that is recognized as a sovereign entity by most countries around the world. It had been granted the status of a United Nations General Assembly observer; it issues passports and vehicle registrations to its members, all without owning a speck of land under its jurisdiction but having real estate holdings on the territories of classical states. This is the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta, famously known as the Order of Malta.

Why do these few hundred people who have come together to form a small community based on common religious beliefs and engage in charitable activities have the right to extraterritorial sovereignty today, while all other individuals on the planet do not?

Let's achieve the same right for ourselves!

By creating sovereign communities, we, the most active and ideologically driven citizens of territorial states, will break free from the domination of the inert majority and their populist leaders. This loss is minimal for them – at most, 5% will dare to do it. Within traditional social relationships, passive and ideologically uncommitted citizens will remain, those who prefer to say, "I don't care about politics". Manipulative populists will continue to play the same games with them revolving around universal suffrage, games that satisfy both the rulers and the silent masses. Tax revenues to the budgets of territorial states will change little. Exempting the unruly benefits everyone.

The future outlined above has many "pitfalls", but they are surmountable. Answers to most of the questions that may arise when reading this manifesto have already been provided in the book Beyond the State, which was published 15 years ago. Please familiarize yourself with its updated second edition, where specific structures, mechanisms, and steps are described, enabling all of us to find ourselves in a new world by 2030.

Alexei Shoustov