In the paradigm of consent-based society, new generations of persons which are continually born lives within the model of nation-state or consent-based society from the beginning of their life. The continuing history makes the situation that people are not so much aware of the concept which had been put in practice. As time passes, the influence of the concept may become less powerful. Even if so, people of not aware continue to be born and live in the world. For this issue, it matters how they are put into the model of the previous generations. Even if the state is surely founded on the notion of consent for example, a few groups of people such as intellectuals would be well aware of it, and others would not care that much. The paradigm of the consent which can apply to the peoples of the later generations would be required, which could include them indirectly or any other ways. The consent from the following generations would be necessary to justify that paradigm if trying to persist in it.

In thinking about that mechanism, there will be certain people who do not (want to) join the community. If nation-state is particularly the model representing the theory of consent, there’s a border among people, between those who gave consent and not. The boundary between people who are member and not, that is to say that it has the framework of inclusion and exclusion. When not a member of community means that they are not under the authority of the community. If one wants to care the reluctance of persons who do not want to join, creating the situation that a person needs to belong to a state by which the benefits one gets needs to be more than his reluctance. If the difficulties caused by not being a member of a state is greater, people would be more likely to join it.

In terms of the internal governance of the community, the paradigm of consent might work better. Looking at the specific case, election is to give consent to representative who is going to represent the opinions of persons. Representatives are those who are authorized to represent, agreed by people. The political power is transferred from ordinary citizens to representatives. In the domain which requires expertise giving own consent is common in the daily life, for example, one who has private land and wants to build a house would ask those who are professional in building house. It is often that they do not build by themselves without having expertise and skills, or do not ask others who are not skillful. Giving consent to those who are expert and ask them to do the best in the domain is often seen.

Even in the context of empowerment which the Internet gave to the persons, the paradigm of consent seems powerfull in its concept. Though some have argued closer to the sense of direct democracy before, given the dense population and the expertise which is required in each specific domain, asking every citizen to participate in each decision directly is not that much desirable. It is also vulnerable to when the public is hugely influenced by the temporary ups and downs of the popular movements, and the society may lose their stability. Before diving into the descriptions on consent which would work in the technologically advanced society, the following paragraph look at the concept of decentralisation.

When it comes to decentralisation which has been often paid attention to often with the appearance of the Internet,  decentralisation is to distribute the power from the centre to the edge. It empowers people and is not the traditional top-down structure. Traditionally in political context the distribution of powers is famously a topic of US politics. In earlier days, the “regular distribution of power into distinct departments” was believed to work(5) since “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”(6). In terms of liberty too, “the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct”(7). The distribution of power is beneficial to the preventive effect of abuse of the power. Apart from the political and in economic and innovative sense, it may better work that just creating the framework and let people do their work at the edges, that is to allow them to generate innovation without strict regulation.

Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO) has been getting focused with the rise of web3. DAO is more to enjoy the process of decision-making by letting people who are curious be involved. It entertains the process of decision-making. In this sense, DAO may have potential in creating small communities within a large one, and ideally creates the culture of political participation of the members. Plus they can try experimenting the new methods of governance which are harder to implement in national scale. Even if one supposed the community is decentralised, not necessarily all decision-making have to be direct democratic. For example, as explained previously the domain which requires expertise in the decision-making, it would be better to create the architecture in which those who represents the people who gave consent to him have responsibility to represent them. Decision-making which requires technical knowledge can be depended on experts as people authorise them to represent their ideas. And it is a sort of opinion leader who takes care of the opinions of the people. This structure makes small communities within a large one. That can even make a small society by which one’s imagination would better work, which is against the idea that in democratic governance it is often said that it is difficult to keep society work well when its population becomes dense. The population and the size of a community has been a topic discussed for a long time. If it becomes too large, people in the same community cannot comprehend the community enough to make democracy work. It is to create a small community in which people are more aware of each other than being in a large community where their imagination doesn’t work. In small community, people recognise each other more often, and may strengthen the tie of people. By that practice, the potential of taking care of each other would more frequently happen than the larger nation with dense population.

(5) Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J., 2008. The Federalist Papers. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 45.

(6) Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J., 2008. The Federalist Papers. New York: Oxford University Press. p.239.

(7) Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J., 2008. The Federalist Papers. New York: Oxford University Press. p.239.