I think given that, it is reasonable for local jurisdictions to act as they see fit.

For everyone to act as they see fit, I believe.

You mean as a Freeman of the Land? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

As an ideological position it has some interesting points to make, but in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing.

My personal position is informed by Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) ) in that we have to make compromise with our individual liberty to bring about a greater good.

> "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

> in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing.

Freemnan-on-the-land is totaly quackery in a comptemporary legal setting. It's like homeopathy, but for laws. It's Creationism, it's snake oil. Fundamentally it presumes/assumes that laws work differently from how the organs of the state think they work.

Law ≠ Science. It's an interesting thought experiment. It's not like homoeopathy or creationism in that legal precedent emerges by evaluating any reasonable legal argument and their counterpoints and determining which among many is 'right'. It is not hard to conceive of a "freeman" society but what's important is to point out why isn't a realistic aspiration, rather than just shouting "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong".

I am not talking about separation in meatspace. Or at least, only in subtle ways. Attracting attention is just stupid.

You're always in meatspace - cyberspace is just another dimension to it. Unless you're Job from the lawnmower man.

True enough. What I mean is that I don't wear disguises, have multiple sets of IDs, hang out at anonymous exchange sites, and so on. But one can compartmentalize cyberspace substantially from the rest of meatspace, and then compartmentalize within cyberspace. Or at least, that's my experience. Maybe I'm just not interesting enough ;)

Well, that's the Internet, isn't it?

I mean this: https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/declarationseparation.html

Interesting. I think it boils down to a freeman argument though - you're basically issuing refutation of your implicit social contract. While the sentiment therein is laudable it is somewhat premature. Though one has a great deal of independence in the cyber realm one is can still run afoul of limitations of the real world and her laws (as demonstrated today in Brazil).

I think cyberspace currently is best categorized as a distinct estate rather than realm in a similar vein to the press and the judiciary. Each functions with more or less autonomy but can occasionally be subjugated to the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate

One can always be subjugated. By robbers. By terrorists. By ISPs. By governments. By whatever. So one does what one can to be left alone. And helps others following the path.

But in meatspace, one blends in, doesn't attract attention. As in Vinge's True Names. Ultimately, authoritarian states may wither. Or not. But in the meantime, one can manage, under occupation.

Yeah but you can't "declare independence"

I can act as if I were independent. And as long as I can manage that, I am independent. Until I'm not, or dead ;)

:)