Legal distribution is the right to veto laws passed by representatives by popular vote, not by abolition, but by moving a law to next smallest legal jurisdiction. The distribution (federal United States of America for example) means 50 copies of the law are made (one for each state) and the funding is divided 50 ways as designated by percentage by the original bill. Now each state can change and adapt the law to suit their needs and the funding stream is secure. Even in the case of state abolition funding flow is guaranteed unless the original now distributed law is abolished by lawmakers at the federal level.
This can be undertaken at any scale and be reduced down to the next smallest jurisdiction. Including the sovereign individual.
A legal distribution would trump all contracts with the state. Contracted works would have to be rebid by each distributee. Contracts with individuals would be exempt as no jurisdiction can be lower than a single sovereign individual.
This attacks centrists, power seekers, and the corrupt would be oligarchs who would raid the treasury without the people. It discourages secret deals in lawmaking by greatly increasing the risks as works bribed in secret can no longer be delivered reliably.
It suits the goals of 3 of the 4 sectors on the political compass including the majority of republicans and democrat populations (only the statists suffer)
It addresses the problems of the inevitable collapse of government due to growing corruption, corporate lawmaking outrunning civic players, lack of market data in government regulation (state level competition), it solves scapegoat populism driven by propaganda, and if proven as fact it solves growing psychopath populations hijacking the political process to destruction for short term personal gain.
It is based on the human right to fork, which derives from the inherent human rights (property, currency, freedom, friendship, and investment), which form civilization and from which markets derive. In this it is a direct antidote to the form of propaganda known as the Hegelian dialectic, by always offering a third choice (bad, less bad, localities compete to produce better data) in civic decision making.
It appears superficially socialist, but is actually is a localist antidote to socialism’s observed inequity and graft. It respects and preserves the hard the hard won balance of rights and common good of distributed laws, but returns the power to oversee that law to a smaller more manageable scale.
The reduction of waste and the restored economy of scale should make voluntary type one civilization participation significantly more feasible. The right to veto means unexpected corruption in global agreements can be rapidly retracted, and reworked in a competitive fashion and in time a new law can be passed with the data resulting from variation of the distributed competing implementations.
This does not solve the tragedy of the commons directly but instead solves the problem that causes it, aversion to corruption. The risk of unexpected (to the population of citizens) consequences is near negligible as laws with purposely or unintentionally hidden results can quickly be revoked. In other words the risk that state defectors will do more damage than defectors at large. Power as an end to itself is far less feasible at any scale.
Legal distribution should be compatible with any government type like republic, monarchy, technocracy, communism, etc. Two notable exceptions are theocracy or anarchy.