If you and they don’t know each other, why assume that what laws or frameworks you live by will be relevant to each other?
Part of this sounds like not being accustomed to government being less geographical. Consider the bOING bOING BBS, for example - there might be users who you are more or less familiar with. Perhaps a few you email and are on more intimate terms with. Perhaps some you might feel better or worse than neutral about. Some who you may not even be aware of. Yet we participate here under a shared identity and focus of bOING bOING.
Like any real group, the laws are relevant to others in the group, that’s why they are members. Membership equals jurisdiction,
That is an obvious either/or as things have been. What I propose instead is making that non-coercion the foundation of people’s authority to create such groups in the first place. The less coercive their feedback is, the more cohesive their organization is. If people complain that they are experiencing or witnessing coercion, then their feedback suffers and the charter of their organization is at risk. This makes not creating problems for other people the law of the land, so occurrences such as your examples of drunk driving, speeding, punishment, and others such as pollution would be disincentivized.
In all probability, their ten-year-old would either share similar values to the parents, or have too much fun having sex with other ten-year-olds to care what some creepy geezer wants! Predation is nearly impossible when things are open.
Only if it was completely informal - in which case one could also argue that there was no such thing organized in the first place.
It sounds like you are still working from the assumption that the same values, goals, and rules need to be shared by everyone. What I am talking about is simply the means to associate with who you choose. So people who choose to compete with each other are welcome to do so - provided that they don’t make it anyone elses problem. The traditional systems encouraged people to increase control of resources and people alike because this has been empowering. It has made a disaster not only of human agency but also of ecology. So a node-based network of groups where authority is reenforced by having minimal influence upon others and minimal impact upon environment with the return of otherwise total autonomy shifts the focus from a captive audience, towards wealth which is actually what people want, and how they choose to live. The main reason why people would need to “game a system” is because, by default, they could not create their own system before.
What a group can consist of is determined for and by the participants. The only condition to this is that everybody are likewise free to create or or join their own groups as well. A mechanism to reduce coercion is to use a dynamic reputation-based system to determine how successful they are. Also it keeps track of “conditionals” for the members. For instance, if I was a member of a group which agreed to no marriage, and I decided to marry, I would need to resolve the conflict. I can choose as I like, but groups I am a member of are not obliged to accommodate my choices, so I could choose myself out of a group. In practice, I suspect that like modern social networks, most people would belong to many kinds of groups simultaneously anyway. Some might not be members of any, but they would not get their benefits either. No coercion, no impact - is not a realistic ideal to work towards. Rather, it is a dynamic assessment of a workable minimum. So, putting out a fire in someone’s house could be allowed as having less impact than letting a village burn down. Polluting an area would invoke a penalty, and need to be fixed, otherwise a state or companies charter would lapse. After all, the very charter they were founded upon was authorized upon the basis of minimizing their impact.
The balance of the charter authority / reputation scheme is what regulates the interactions between smaller groups. Along with their conditionals. For instance, if one group requires members to do a thing, and another forbids members from doing that same thing - one would need to choose. Otherwise, your membership might dissolve on the basis of not participating in good faith. But this doesn’t stop one from joining a different group, or devising whatever other system they can.
