The Case for Human Jurisdiction

Legitimacy Foundations — Paper VII

A system that exercises authority must be bounded. That boundary is jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is not a privilege and not a reward. It is the condition that makes authority legible, limited, and capable of bearing consequence. Where jurisdiction does not attach, authority operates without exposure. Where authority operates without exposure, consequence cannot land. This is not philosophical. It is mechanical.

Modern systems do not permit power to act freely. They require it to attach to something specific.

• Corporations are bounded entities.
• Agencies operate within defined scope.
• Municipalities have limits.
• Contracts bind named parties.
• Property has borders.
• Data systems have access rules.
• Even machines are constrained by operating domains.

These boundaries exist for one reason: to prevent authority from becoming diffuse and unaccountable. Jurisdiction concentrates responsibility.

When harm, liability, or obligation cannot attach to a defined entity, jurisdiction becomes necessary for consequence to land. This requirement is not optional.

Although rarely named as such, contemporary systems exercise jurisdictional control over humans every day.

• Participation is conditioned on identification.
• Movement is gated.
• Access to work, travel, healthcare, communication, and benefits is regulated.
• Data is compelled, aggregated, and used to predict behavior.
• Medical, procedural, and compliance obligations attach directly to bodies.
• Exclusion is imposed as a consequence.

These are not abstractions. They operate through the human body as the point of enforcement. Functionally, this is jurisdiction.

Every major system element is treated as a bounded entity except the human person.

Artificial entities are granted standing so responsibility can be assigned. Institutions are limited by scope so authority does not spill. Platforms are insulated by classification. Property and data are enclosed, protected, and defined.

Humans alone are treated differently.

They are regulated, compelled, predicted, and constrained, yet denied recognition as a jurisdictional boundary with standing of their own. They are treated as subjects of authority, not as entities capable of binding it. This is not neutrality. It is asymmetry.

The system relies on the human body while refusing to acknowledge the human person as a place where authority must stop.

Jurisdiction has never been extended because of dignity or moral worth. Systems grant standing when failure to do so produces instability.

Artificial entities received standing so liability would not evaporate. Bounded scopes were imposed so authority would not float. In every case, jurisdiction followed necessity.

The human person meets these conditions continuously. Harm is concrete. Exposure is embodied. Consequence is real. Yet jurisdiction is withheld. This is not explained by principle. It is explained by convenience.

A system cannot correct itself if consequence cannot reach the origin of harm. Consequence cannot attach where there is no jurisdictional standing to receive, refuse, or condition authority.

Without jurisdiction at the human layer, refusal produces collapse rather than force. Compliance becomes the only survivable posture. Accountability becomes symbolic. Harm remains downstream.

Consequence failure is not accidental. It is produced.

A system that governs through the human body while denying jurisdiction to the human person has no mechanism for reciprocal exposure. Authority flows one way.

Jurisdiction is absent not because it is impractical, but because its absence insulates power.

A system that relies on the human body while denying jurisdiction to the human person cannot remain coherent. Either jurisdiction attaches where authority already operates, or authority remains structurally unbounded.

There is no third condition.

2025