Why do hierarchies embrace secrecy?  To lower the risk to hierarchy, both real and imagined.  The problem is there is no way for the citizens of the hierarchy to discern between the real and imagined risk with the secrecy blocking reasonable analysis of the distortion of identity, justice, and some or all of the facts.  This is a direct result of amoral agents being imperceptibly embedded among moral ones.  The result for the hierarchy is even greater graft and corruption.

Unfortunately secrecy is also necessary.  Those same amoral agents will always seize perceived (sometimes real) golden opportunities and they will always, with time, occur with complete transparency.  Since making mistakes is necessary to both emotional development of empaths and to social cohesion, the same things that make moral people grow, present amoral ones with opportunities to accumulate and grab power.

Emapths who push for a more compassionate society or civilization often run into a wall.  A wall of skepticism of erected by those who recognize that some people are amoral as described above.  They recognize part of the equation.  That some people are not reasonable and see power as an end to itself.  They don’t know how to accommodate required mistakes without adding vulnerability.

It is a human right to fork.  This is where some basic human rights (like freedom of religion) derive from.  Forking should happen early and often.  Forking solves the issue of opportunistic taking of power derived from hopefully minimal but required mistakes, by assigning the secret to the most interested moral party.

This is the rational basis for organizational forking, or at a governmental scale legal distribution.  Since power can be leveraged and projected, this also suggests a mechanism for successful legal distribution.  A petition to fork a legal authority (a law) should be completely democratic (direct citizen voting) with no secret components.

For the ultimate authority the person or persons proposing the vote only need to demonstrate interest beyond denial of government services.  For example it might be required present a petition of one tenth of one percent of the voting population to set the proposed distribution to ballot.   A simple majority vote of ‘no confidence’ in the larger bodies ability to manage their secrets without corruption should immediately distribute the challenged law and it’s apportioned funds to the lower jurisdictions.

In the case of a non legally binding entity, no formality is required whatsoever.  Simply a decision by anyone that trust is not possible at the current scale.  That a hierarchy with a smaller scope and fewer more accessible leaders is needed.

If a distribution or fork is initiated by an amoral or incompetent agent, it can be forked (or distributed) again until corruption and waste is brought under coherent control.  Success in preserving identity, justice and ready access to accurate facts will be modeled by lateral organizations or governments through competitive pressures.  The feasible scope has been found.

Since to err is not only a common attribute of moral human society, but a prerequisite, it is a basic human right to distribute laws by majority in the face of corruption.  Denial of that right is denial of freedom itself.  Freedom is a fundamental attribute of the conscience.  Denying this right is a psychopathic behavior.

Edit 4/7/15 10:50 EST:  Sorry for all the changes. (title, image, some structure) This was a sudden inspiration last night that exhausted me before editing was complete.  Please reread it at your convenience.