Skip to content

The rule, exactly. Before an election each citizen chooses: to vote — or to take a payment and not vote in that election. The payment is a percentage of the median income, set by referendum; there is no fixed sum. One ballot is one vote, with no multiplier in the count; the vote is amplified only in that each ballot's share grows as others step out. The budget pays under law; a candidate never pays. Only a referendum of all citizens — simple majority, no quorum — introduces, changes or repeals the rule.

The protocol has been introduced nowhere and no pilot has been run: shares, turnout and outcome figures in the chapters are estimates, and the protocol promises nobody an election victory. If a chapter says otherwise, Exact Answers and the Charter are correct. For a candidate: ten questions and ten steps. For a citizen, a mayor, a finance officer, a donor, a journalist, a scholar, a lawyer: answers by role. Everything in force in one file: llms-full.txt.

12. AB-EXIT in the Jhering Tradition: a Doctrinal Foundation for Continental Europe

Chapter: 03 File version: v1 Date: 2026-06-11 Source: v6.53 §91

91.1. Purpose of the section

Section 84 records Route B (launch through parliamentary scandal and a private referendum) for countries without a right of citizen initiative. That is the operational path. This section adds a doctrinal foundation for the continental European legal tradition through the work of Rudolf von Jhering (1818–1892), founder of sociological jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of interests.

AB-EXIT corresponds methodologically to the Jhering tradition almost completely. This gives the project legal depth in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Italy and Austria — civil-law countries with a living Jhering tradition.

91.2. Who Jhering was and why he matters

Caspar Rudolph von Jhering (1818–1892) was a German jurist, founder of the sociological and historical school of law. His two principal works:

— Der Kampf ums Recht ("The Struggle for Law", 1872) — thesis: citizens have a moral duty to themselves and to society to assert their legal rights energetically. Law develops through the conscious assertion of interests.

— Der Zweck im Recht / Law as a Means to an End (1877–1883) — the central thesis: "purpose is the creator of all law" (Zweck ist der Schöpfer des ganzen Rechts). Law must serve social interests, not exist as a formality.

In modern Germany there is a Rudolf-von-Jhering-Institut at the Faculty of Law of the University of Giessen. His school lives on through the modern German and continental European legal tradition.

The evolution of his thought is instructive: he began as a supporter of Begriffsjurisprudenz (formal positivism), then exposed it himself in the 1860s. By 1872 he had finally moved to Zweckjurisprudenz (the jurisprudence of purposes).

91.3. Five methodological correspondences between AB-EXIT and Jhering's principles

First — "Purpose is the creator of the entire law". AB-EXIT is built for an explicit purpose (improving the quality of democracy through concentration of the active electorate). Not an abstract norm but an instrument for solving a specific social problem. This is a direct application of the Jhering principle.

Second — the jurisprudence of interests. AB-EXIT explicitly balances the interests of different groups:

— The apathetic citizen receives money (section 6 of the concept). — The active citizen receives a strengthened vote (section 6). — Business receives transparency (section 80.7). — The state receives legitimacy. — Minorities receive equal conditions (section 80.10). — Honest politicians receive a structural opportunity to win through complex programmes, without lying, applying long-term planning and complex structural solutions instead of "take and redistribute".

Each interest is stated explicitly and balanced through a single mechanism. This is a direct embodiment of his theory. And the sixth category is especially important, because technocrat-reformers, experts in government and business leaders with political ambitions are the natural carriers of AB-EXIT (section 70, the portrait of the public carrier). What they get from AB-EXIT is not an abstract good but a concrete structural instrument of their own victory.

Third — the sociological approach instead of formal positivism. AB-EXIT is built on empirical data: real voter turnout, real motivation (Pragmatists and Ideologues), real historical precedents (Norway), an empirical comparison with ten reforms. This is methodologically correct by the Jhering standard.

Fourth — "Der Kampf ums Recht", the struggle for law. Jhering held that citizens have a moral duty to assert their rights energetically. AB-EXIT gives citizens a new right — the right to choose between political participation and compensation. Those who fight for the adoption of this right through a ballot initiative (Route A) or parliamentary scandal (Route B) act exactly in Jhering's spirit.

Fifth — law above the struggle. Jhering stressed a nuance: although citizens fight for rights, law itself stands above that struggle, not subordinate to their conflicting interests. AB-EXIT does not replace democracy, does not abolish voting, does not destroy the institution. It creates an institutional superstructure that remains above the political struggle as a mechanism. AB-EXIT is not relativist — it creates a fixed system that works the same way for everyone.

91.4. Three possible Jhering objections and the counter-arguments

First objection — the problem of "exchanging a right for money". In Jhering's understanding the right to vote is a civic duty, not a commodity. AB-EXIT encourages abandoning the struggle for a right in exchange for money. This contradicts his central thesis.

The counter-argument lies in his own methodology. Jhering himself said that "purpose is the creator of law". If one looks not at the form (exchange of a right for money) but at the purpose (improving the quality of democracy), then the form is legitimate — it is subordinate to the purpose. If AB-EXIT empirically improves democracy (section 80.9 Norway, section 85 comparative analysis), then its form is methodologically valid by Jhering standards. Purpose justifies form, if the purpose is empirically achieved.

Second objection — the optionality of civic duty. AB-EXIT makes the struggle for law optional. This potentially undermines the moral foundation of citizenship.

Counter-argument: AB-EXIT does not forbid the struggle; it strengthens it for those who remain. Voters with weight ×2 are precisely those who "fight energetically for rights" in Jhering's sense. They receive double weight exactly for refusing compensation for the sake of active participation. Those who take the money are not fighting against law — they leave the electoral arena, leaving it to the fighters. This is a purification of the struggle for law, not its weakening.

Third objection — the evolution of law through the struggle of interests. If the apathetic are removed from the electoral arena, will the spectrum of interests in politics not narrow?

Counter-argument: the apathetic do not represent their interests in politics now — they ignore them. AB-EXIT gives them economic representation for the first time (through the dividend). Their interest ("I want money instead of politics") is now institutionalised. This is a broadening of the spectrum of represented interests, not a narrowing.

91.5. What Jhering did NOT find in his lifetime — a critical observation

Jhering lived 74 years and passed through several intellectual evolutions. But he described the disease and the general approach without creating a specific institutional mechanism.

Specifically absent from his legacy: — An institutional mechanism for balancing interests in practice. — An electoral system providing legitimacy for purposive law. — A way of concentrating an active citizenry capable of a jurisprudence of interests. — A structural mechanism of protection against formalism in the political plane.

For 130-plus years after his death the specific mechanism remained an open question. His legacy — the school of the jurisprudence of interests (Philipp Heck, Roscoe Pound) — continued the theoretical work, but still in the domain of theory, not of institutional mechanisms.

One academic analysis calls Jhering's case "tragic and instructive" — despite his enormous influence on later jurists, he himself did not create a working institutional system.

AB-EXIT is the first concrete institutional mechanism realising Jhering's principles. It is not an alternative to Jhering's work but its completion. His unfinished theoretical programme finds concrete institutional embodiment 134 years after his death.

"AB-EXIT represents an institutional innovation methodologically aligned with the Jhering tradition of the jurisprudence of interests. The purpose of AB-EXIT is the balancing of the interests of different categories of citizens within the electoral arena. The form (the exchange of compensation for a temporary opt-out from participation) is subordinated to the purpose (improving the quality of governance through concentration of the active electorate). This corresponds to Jhering's central thesis 'purpose is the creator of law' and to the sociological approach of the German legal school. AB-EXIT is the first concrete institutional mechanism realising the principles Jhering formulated in 1872–1883 but did not institutionalise in his lifetime."

The English version as it stands in the Russian original:

"AB-EXIT represents an institutional innovation methodologically aligned with the Jheringian tradition of jurisprudence of interests. The purpose of AB-EXIT is balancing interests of different categories of citizens within the electoral arena. The form (exchange of compensation for temporary opt-out from participation) is subordinated to the purpose (improving governance quality through concentration of active electorate). This corresponds to Jhering's central thesis "purpose is the creator of law" and the sociological approach of the German legal school. AB-EXIT is the first concrete institutional mechanism realizing the principles Jhering formulated in 1872-1883 but did not institutionalize in his lifetime."

Section 84 gives the operational path of launch in countries without a right of citizen initiative. This section adds a doctrinal foundation for the same countries:

— Germany — Jhering's homeland; the Rudolf-von-Jhering-Institut is active. — Switzerland — a close legal tradition, strong Jhering influence. — Poland — active academic work on Jhering (a 2009 article in Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego). — Austria — Jhering taught in Vienna in 1868–1872 and was ennobled by Austria-Hungary. — Italy — a continental legal tradition receptive to Jhering methodology.

With this section added the project acquires a double legal footing: — The Anglo-American tradition through the ballot initiative (Route A, section 68). — The continental European tradition through the Jhering jurisprudence of interests (Route B, section 84).

This closes the doctrinal gap for all developed countries of the world except the most closed authoritarian regimes.