of how governors might behave, but on a recognition of the
burgeoning technosphere we now inhabit. In my new book The
Social Singularity (Social Evolution), I argue the age of exit isn’t
so much a choice but an inevitability given our current tech-
nological climate. The world is becoming too complex to be
organized by hierarchies of power. Nimble nodes within flexible
networks will replace more and more of humanity’s outmoded
top-down mediating structures. Superior collective intelligence
is on the way.
Cypherpunks have already created systems of monetary
self-government. Digital nomads are quietly migrating to spe-
cial economic zones (SEZs) that offer healthier legal institu-
tions. Seasteaders are tokenizing the first floating platforms
off the coast of French Polynesia. Innumerable options are
appearing on the horizon that promise to drive the cost of exit
down. Once enough of us adopt this innovation frame, there’s
no turning back.
The Belgian liberal Paul Emile de Puydt foresaw this coming
way back in 1860. It would be simple enough, he wrote in Pan-
archy, “to move from republic to monarchy, from representa-
tive government to autocracy, from oligarchy to democracy, or
even to Mr. Proudhon’s anarchy—without even the necessity of
removing one’s dressing gown or slippers.” Thanks to subversive
innovation, de Puydt’s system is upon us.
As technology grows in power, political theory is dying. The
age of exit will be a post-ideological age, as people test their
ideas in the petri dishes of programmable incentive systems
and porous communities.
Voice cannot be dispensed with altogether. Some variant of it
will be required to draw people into the newly created systems.
But for those wanting a freer, richer, more varied world, there’s
still too much investment in voice as a strategy, and far too little
investment in exit.
NEGATIVE:
Voice Leads to Real
Political Change in the
Here and Now
ROBERT W. POOLE JR.
LONG BEFORE I’D heard of Hirschman’s famous essay, I was enthu-
siastic about “exit”: creating freedom-respecting enclaves out-
side the United States. Like many young libertarians in the early
1970s, I subscribed to Mike Oliver’s New Country Project news-
letter. I also oversaw Reason’s
December 1972 special issue
on the subject. From 1974 to
1976 I even served part-time
as a consultant on two of Oli-
ver’s projects: Abaco in the
Bahamas and Na-Griamel in
the New Hebrides islands in the
South Pacific.
Both were attempts to assist local movements
attempting to secede from impending post-colonial regimes
that seemed likely to go socialist. Unfortunately, both well-
meaning efforts failed, and by the late 1970s I had become dis-
enchanted with the idea of creating a freer country outside the
United States.
What remained was an exit option within the United States:
My 1980 book, Cutting Back City Hall, helped inspire many
unincorporated suburbs to “secede” from county governments,
incorporating as new cities with mostly privately contracted
public services. And in 2000–01, Reason Foundation provided
much of the policy ideas to support the proposed secession of
the San Fernando Valley from the City of Los Angeles. (Valley
voters supported the measure, but it failed to pass citywide.)
I continue to see great value in competition among the 50
states, in terms of taxation, regulation, and personal freedom,
which is driving significant exoduses from high-tax/high-regu-
lation states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Califor-
nia. My wife and I joined this trend in 2003, relocating from Los
Angeles to South Florida, and never looked back. We’ve subse-
quently been joined by several Reason colleagues.
But despite all this, for decades now I have primarily been
concerned with making good use of the “voice” option to
advance liberty. Charles Murray’s landmark 1984 book, Los-
ing Ground, provided the intellectual underpinnings of federal
welfare reform legislation during the Clinton administration.
Decades of work by the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation,
along with activist groups like the Marijuana Policy Project, laid
a basis for the growing wave of decriminalization and legaliza-
tion, first of medical and then of recreational marijuana.
During the 1990s, Reason Foundation’s Privatization Center
greatly expanded support for competitive contracting of state
and local public services. We sought and found “customers” in
the public sector—elected officials who embraced these ideas
and were happy to have free hands-on advice and assistance
from our expert staffers. These customers included political
leaders from both major parties, such as Democratic mayors42 OCTOBER 2018