The Zero State holds to the Rule of Law, in accord with the Principles of Social Futurism (specifically, Principle 2.4). At the heart of that commitment is the idea that individual liberty must be preserved, but not at serious cost to the community. In other words, a fair balance must be struck.
The mechanism which ZS employs to this end is a kind of heuristic called Fractal Law, as described in seven points, below.
Aside from the meaning explained under “Four Levels, One Rule”, below, the term “Fractal Law” is intended to evoke “Natural Law”, which is to say Law which transcends capricious human rule or mere convention, by virtue of being in accord with the demands of nature and necessity. In particular, the system outlined below reflects a balance between the natural human needs for personal liberty, stable community, and a clear sense of fairness and consistency.
Holarchy
Multiple levels of ZS community and organization exist, nested inside each other like Matryoshka Dolls, with any two adjacent levels acting as ‘culture’ and ‘subculture’ relative to each other.
It is important to understand that complex relationships between different entities at the various levels make this a nonlinear structure, and direct connections between entities at the “top” (Level 1) and “bottom” (Level 4) mean that this is not a hierarchy, but a Holarchy. Accordingly, entities (i.e. Houses, organizations, groups, individuals, affiliates) at any level may be accurately described as “holons“.
Therefore we must understand that in the deepest sense there is no “top” or “centre” to the system, but there is pervasive functional unity (i.e. a single rule which unites the entire system). On the most pragmatic level, if anyone doubts that the system is non-hierarchical, they should note that the apparent “top” level (L1) may – as appropriate – pass the responsibility of decision-making “up” the chain to appropriately-qualified affiliates who are at the “lowest” level (L4). The four-Level system is thus an infinite loop, with no beginning or end.
Rule of Law and Core Documents
At any given level of community, the Rule of Law must be observed. If an individual, group or organization does not wish to be subject to the Rule of Law, then they have the right of Free Exit as guaranteed by the Principles (2.1).
In order for the Rule of Law to be observed, every organizational level within ZS must have a core document clearly stating (or linking to statements of) its rules, including any necessary explanation of their congruence with the Principles. As is explained below, this is necessary at Levels 1 and 2, but may be adopted voluntarily at lower levels.
Four Levels, One Rule
Any entity at any level making the choice to remain must abide by the Principles, the rules at their level, and the rules of relevant entities at all levels above them. For example, an organization within a House (@L3) must be in accord with both the Constitution and all other rules of that House (@L2), and the Principles of Social Futurism (@L1).
In the simplest expression of this structure, it has four levels as described below. Each of the levels has a position regarding the need for core documents, and a mechanism for resolving disputes. If an issue cannot be properly resolved at any given level, then it passes to the level above.
L1 decision-making, arbitration or adjudication is reserved for issues which affect the entirety of ZS, inter-House disputes, and intra-House disputes which cannot be satisfactorily resolved @L2 (i.e. at the House level). There are two types of L1 judgment, known as Directive and Resolution. Both forms of judgment @L1 are final, with no recourse to appeal.
Directive is the quicker form of judgment, made entirely by the Teacher, Leader of House Sem-Bhu. Directive is the default mode of judgment for L1 decisions, which may be outsourced to L4 entities entirely at the Teacher’s discretion.
Resolution is a slower, more democratic mode of L1 decision process, which may be requested by any entity asking for L1 arbitration or adjudication. Resolution involves consideration of the matter at the next meeting of the twelve House Leaders, who collectively vote on decisions requested via this channel. Meetings of the House Leaders are irregular, so petitioners may have to wait for a decision. Any House Leader directly involved in a dispute is excluded from voting on that matter.
L2. The Twelve Houses
Level 2 (L2) is any one of the twelve Houses within ZS.
Each House must have a Constitution as its core document, however minimal. The Constitution may be of any nature as long as it is in accord with L1 (i.e. the Principles), and may or may not have attached laws or House rules.
Founding members (i.e. those twelve in the Core and Key roles) outrank subsid members in all matters, and any dispute between founding members should ideally be resolved by all founding members of that House collectively, in accord with rules or guidelines in that House’s Constitution.
Any intra-House dispute which cannot be satisfactorily resolved in that manner (and all inter-House disputes) must be resolved @L1.
L3. Organizations, Groups, and Citizens [Internal]
Level 3 (L3) is any organization, group, or individual within that House.
L3 entities do not require core documents, but must be able to adequately explain how their behaviour is in accord with L2 upon request, if they wish to maintain House membership.
Adjudication of lower-level (i.e. @L4) issues may be handled by such L3 entities (i.e. organizations, groups or individuals directly and formally attached to the House) insofar as they do not contravene the House Constitution or rules (@L2), or the Principles (@L1).
L4. Affiliates and Networks [External]
Level 4 (L4) is the sum of all outside affiliates and networks connected to the House.
L4 entities also do not require core documents, but will have their affiliation with ZS suspended (along with all agreements and privileges) if their activity is formally judged to be contra-Principle at any point.
Dispute @L4 is something that ZS avoids interfering in, except where explicit claim is made that one or more parties are acting contra-Principle, and one or more others are not. In such event, the entities (@L3) affiliated with the parties involved are expected to adjudicate as appropriate.
Appeal in affiliate matters may be made to L2, which is to say that direct adjudication by the relevant House(s) may be requested by any ZS-affiliated parties directly involved.
