Where does justice end?
Jurisdiction has come to mean territorial control—the reach of law limited by borders, governments, or the consent of existing powers. A person could cross an invisible line and suddenly find themselves outside the protection of rights they carried moments before. Justice, in this view, was something granted by geography, revocable by relocation, negotiable at borders.
But this makes no sense. If dignity is inherent—if it arises from consciousness, care, and relation—then it does not stop at borders. It travels with the person. It exists wherever they are. A law that protects fundamental rights in one place but abandons them in another is not protecting rights at all. It is protecting territories.
True jurisdiction follows persons, not land.
Wherever there are conscious beings in relation, the principles that make justice possible apply. This is not imperial reach. It is moral consistency—not one system ruling all, but one standard applying to all systems.
This is why a law rooted in dignity, consent, and regeneration does not require permission to take effect. It does not wait for existing powers to validate it, because those powers may themselves violate the principles it upholds. Permission is not the source of justice. Truth is. A law takes effect not because someone in control allows it, but because it aligns with the conditions that make flourishing possible.
This does not mean one system governs everywhere. It means the standard of justice applies everywhere. No border, institution, economy, or digital space can suspend dignity. No structure—public or private, physical or virtual—can claim exemption from care. Justice is portable. It moves with persons because it arises from them. And where it is violated, the violation does not become lawful simply because it occurs beyond a line on a map.