C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility
Human Autonomy. Does the system maximize human freedom and self-determination?
Pass threshold
Exit feasible within 3 months without material penalty, no differential treatment, geographic mobility maintained
Clause by clause:
- Exit feasible within 3 months without material penalty
- no differential treatment
- geographic mobility maintained
What it asks
Participants can opt out without penalty and relocate without losing essential benefits; freedom of association is measured in C2.6.
Why it matters
Systems forcing universal participation become totalitarian regardless of ostensible benefits. Ability to exit, form alternative communities, and organize based on preference rather than necessity represents crucial freedom distinguishing voluntary cooperation from imposed uniformity.
How it is measured
Ease of exit (time and resources required to leave the system). Penalties for non-participation (differential treatment of non-participants). Capacity to leave for alternative arrangements, including forming or joining alternative communities. Geographic mobility (freedom to relocate without losing essential benefits).
How scores are anchored
1.0, pass
Individuals can opt out without penalty and the system continues functioning at partial participation. CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): "System viable at 30%+ participation, enabling opt-out without penalty... can exit to the traditional market economy while the system continues functioning."
0.5, partial
Formal exit rights exist but are constrained by real economic costs (job/healthcare/housing lock-in) not imposed by the system's own design. Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): "High exit barriers from job mobility costs, healthcare tied to employment, housing market barriers."
0.0, structural failure
The system's own funding or coherence structurally requires near-universal participation, such that a meaningful opt-out rate would collapse it. Nordic Social Democracy (0.0): "Systems require near-universal participation for funding sustainability. Cannot function with 30% opt-out; tax base would collapse." Degrowth Economics (0.0): "Cannot function if a significant population chooses a high-consumption lifestyle."
Read carefully: the failure mode is almost always funding or coherence dependent on near-universal participation, not an intent to trap individuals. v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K7; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.
Normative roots
From N9 (Partial Deployability) + N3 (Coercion Minimization).
How the systems score
0.5, partial
Participatory Economics, Integral, Degrowth Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Market Socialism, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, Georgism / LVT, Ostrom Commons, Islamic Finance, Mutual Credit / LETS, State Capitalism / Singapore, Universal Basic Services, MMT + Job Guarantee, Status Quo Market Capitalism, State Capitalism / China, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Stakeholder Capitalism, State Capitalism / Qatar, Doughnut Economics
0.0, structural failure
Sources
Definition: Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V). Anchors: Paper Appendix H.7.