XVII — Protecting oneself without community
Chapitre XVII
PROTECTING ONESELF WITHOUT COMMUNITY: CHOSEN DELEGATION
Autonomous Collectives offer a powerful solution: the group takes charge of what the individual cannot manage alone. But not everyone wishes—or is able—to join a community. Between total autonomy and community membership, there is a middle way: voluntarily delegating certain decisions to a chosen third party.
17.1 — Why Delegate?
The daily management of one’s administrative, financial, and insurance life requires time, attention, and skills. This observation is not pathological—it is anthropological.
Cognitive limits. The work of behavioral economics, notably by Kahneman and Tversky, has documented the systematic biases affecting our financial decisions [??:economie-comportementale-kahneman]. We procrastinate on complex tasks, overvalue the present at the expense of the future, and avoid unpleasant decisions even when necessary. Our welfare states suffer from the same flaws.
Time limits. Managing insurance, optimizing savings, tracking bills, anticipating retirement—all this takes time. Some prefer to devote that time to other things: their work, family, passions.
Technical limits. Financial and insurance products have become complex. Comparing contracts, understanding clauses, anticipating tax scenarios—skills that are not equally distributed.
Moments of vulnerability. Illness, bereavement, divorce, job loss, aging—these situations temporarily or durably reduce one’s capacity to manage. Delegating is not abdicating: it is recognizing a limit and responding to it.
These limits do not justify State intervention. They justify the possibility of freely choosing who helps us, how, and for how long.
17.2 — The Principle of Chosen Delegation
Chosen delegation rests on a contractual mandate between an individual and a provider—natural person, company, or specialized organization.
Explicit scope. The mandate precisely defines what is delegated: bill payment, budget management, insurance choices, administrative follow-up, investment decisions. What is not delegated remains under direct control.
Revocability. The principal can terminate the mandate at any time, without excessive penalty. Freedom of exit is constitutive of the arrangement.
Responsibility. The agent incurs professional liability. They are accountable. In case of fault, negligence, or conflict of interest, recourse exists.
Transparent remuneration. The service cost is explicit: flat fee, percentage, hourly fees. No hidden commissions, no undisclosed kickbacks.
This is not guardianship. The term “self-guardianship” is sometimes used to describe these arrangements, but it is misleading: guardianship implies a legal incapacity declared by a judge. Here, the individual retains full capacity. They choose to delegate certain tasks, as one chooses an accountant or lawyer.
17.3 — What Can Be Delegated
Delegation can cover various domains, according to each person’s needs and preferences.
Budget management. A manager receives income into a dedicated account, pays fixed charges (rent, energy, insurance), transfers a “living allowance” to the personal current account, and alerts in case of drift. The principal retains control over daily expenses.
Bill payment. The agent receives bills, verifies their consistency, pays them on time, archives receipts. The individual no longer has to think about it—or suffer late penalties.
Insurance optimization. A broker or advisor regularly compares offers, renegotiates contracts, adapts coverage to evolving situations. They act in the principal’s interest, not the insurer’s.
Automated savings. An automatic transfer to a savings account or pension fund, calibrated to income and objectives. Willpower effort is replaced by a mechanism.
Wealth management. For those with significant assets: asset allocation, arbitrage, tax optimization, transmission. The manager applies a strategy defined with the principal.
Administrative support. Tax returns, benefit applications, correspondence with administrations, file tracking. The agent interfaces with bureaucracy.
Each function can be delegated separately or as a package. The principal composes their own “basket” of delegations.
17.4 — Position on the Solutions Scale
Chosen delegation sits between two poles.
Autonomy pole. The individual manages everything themselves. They assume the consequences of their choices, good or bad. This option suits those with time, skills, and discipline.
Community pole. The individual joins an Autonomous Collective that takes charge of a large part of their economic and social life. In exchange, they contribute to the community and accept its rules.
In between. Chosen delegation allows remaining outside a community while benefiting from structured support. It is assisted autonomy—not dependence, not isolation.
This intermediate position can be:
- A lasting alternative for those who want to stay independent but recognize their limits
- An intermediate step before joining a community, or after leaving one
- A complement to other mechanisms (insurance, automatic savings, occasional advice)
There is no hierarchy between these positions. Each responds to different situations, preferences, and capacities.
17.5 — Essential Safeguards
Chosen delegation must not become a new form of dependence or exploitation. Several safeguards are indispensable.
Total transparency. The principal has access to all accounts, all operations, all documents. No shadow zone. Regular statements are mandatory.
Separation of assets. The principal’s money is in separate accounts, never mixed with the agent’s. In case of provider bankruptcy, the principal’s funds are protected.
Licensing and supervision. Financial delegation providers are subject to professional obligations: training, liability insurance, oversight by a regulator or professional body.
Prohibition of conflicts of interest. The agent cannot receive commissions from suppliers they recommend—or must fully disclose and remit them to the principal.
Effective freedom of exit. The principal can terminate at any time. The agent must transmit all documents and access within a short period. No abusive loyalty clause.
Accessible recourse. In case of dispute, mediation and judicial recourse mechanisms are available. Abuses are sanctioned.
No coercion. Delegation is always voluntary. No authority can impose it. No relative can force it. Consent is verified.
17.6 — Who Are the Agents?
Several types of actors can fill this role.
Daily Money Managers. A structured profession in the United States, these daily managers handle bills, budget, administration. They often work with elderly or overwhelmed people.
Wealth management advisors. For those with significant assets, they offer a global vision: savings, investment, taxation, transmission.
Insurance brokers. Independent of insurers, they compare offers and negotiate on behalf of their clients.
Specialized associations. Some structures support specific populations: people with disabilities, isolated elderly, people in financial difficulty.
Formalized relatives. A family member or friend can also play this role—but within an explicit contractual framework, with the same transparency and accountability obligations.
Automated systems. Budget management apps, programmed transfers, robo-advisors. Delegation can be to an algorithm, not just a human.
17.7 — What This Is Not
This is not guardianship. Guardianship implies a legal incapacity pronounced by a judge. Here, the individual retains all rights. They delegate voluntarily, they take back whenever they want.
This is not curatorship. Same distinction: no judicial intervention, no declared incapacity.
This is not abandonment. The individual remains master of their life. They choose what they delegate and keep control over the rest.
This is not infantilization. Recognizing one’s limits and responding is an adult act. Delegating to an expert what one cannot do is rational, not shameful.
This is not a universal solution. Some do not need it. Others will prefer an Autonomous Collective. Still others will combine several approaches.
17.8 — Continuity and Trajectories
Chosen delegation fits into a continuity of solutions, not a binary opposition.
A young worker can start with total autonomy, then delegate their accounting when they start a business, then join an Autonomous Collective after burnout, then leave and resume partial delegation.
An elderly person can delegate progressively: first bills, then budget, then health decisions—or the reverse, resume responsibilities after a period of fragility.
A couple can delegate certain functions together and manage others separately.
There is no typical trajectory. The system offers tools, not destinies.
What matters: that each individual can, at each moment of their life, find the level of support that suits them—without state coercion, without stigmatization, without irreversibility.