Physics is the science of matter, energy, and the fundamental forces of nature. To develop their theories, physicists need to observe matter and energy interact on grand and microscopic levels. For this they use telescopes and atom smashers. Archaeology is the science of human activity and civilization. To develop their theories, archaeologists need to observe evidence of past human activity. For this they excavate sites wher such activity once took place.

Law markets is the science of how people choose their laws. People choose laws through a number of means, including voting in elections, immigration, international trade, and founding or joining private clubs or religions. Another critical way people choose their laws is through revolution - fundamental change in political power and institutions over a short period of time. Going to revolutions helps me understand how revolutions work and how revolution fits into the greater context of the law market.

Like physicists and archaeologists, I observe my domain both to test specific hypotheses and also to discover “unknown unknowns”. Physicists may use an atom smasher to find the mass of a specific particle (eg the Higgs boson) - a specific hypothesis. But they also use atom smashers to “just see what comes out” - i.e. explore unknown realms to develop new hypotheses in the future.

A great example of these two separate but related objectives is Charles Darwin’s two books. Darwin spent 5 years circumnavigating the globe exploring many foreign lands and recording the wildlife he saw there. His first book, which described his findings, was called The Voyage of the Beagle. This book was along the lines of uncovering “unknown unknowns”. Darwin’s second book, On the Origin of Species, described evolution - a particular hypothesis that occurred to him following his voyage of discovery.

Much of what I’m doing at revolutions is in the realm of “just see what comes out”. I go and talk to the participants, activists, leaders, non-activists, non-participants, and everyone in between. I ask open ended questions like “Why are you involved in this?” and I listen closely to what I hear, ideally recording the conversation. This is a lot like a physicist smashing particles together and just observing what comes out. Or an archaeologist digging a site just to see what’s there.

I do have two specific hypotheses in my domain. In particular:

1. That the “law market” exists (i.e. that the methods of choosing laws are substitutes for each other in a way that can be usefully analyzed as a “marketplace”)
2. That the law market is getting more efficient over time (i.e. that it’s becoming perpetually easier for people to choose their laws)

The first hypothesis is that a “marketplace for laws” exists, akin to the “marketplace for labor” (aka the labor market) or the “marketplace for capital” (aka the capital market). This hypothesis depends on the activities mentioned above (voting, immigration, trade, private clubs, revolution, etc) working together. For this hypothesis to be true, there must be a trade-off in an individual’s decision to stay and revolt vs. immigrate or to revolt vs. vote for change, for instance. When I’m at a revolution, I can ask people questions to reveal the existence and the motivations behind these trade-offs.

The second hypothesis is that choosing laws is becoming easier over time. This increased “market efficiency” could be driven by increased competition between the various methods of choosing laws (e.g. if the threat of revolution is real, leaders may modify the lawmaking process in response) or by the ongoing development of more general transaction technologies (e.g. the increase in mobile phone usage helps aggrieved people connect and plan revolutionary activities). When I’m at a revolution I can observe and ask questions that reveal these technology and efficiency trends.

It’s important to note one thing I’m not doing at revolutions - acting as a participant. I am not there to promote any particular group or ideology or viewpoint but only to observe and test my hypotheses. I work hard to survey a broad cross-section of participants and non-participants in every revolution I attend. It’s essential to this work as science to acquire as many diverse data points as possible. I need to hear and record all perspectives with equal diligence.

I am not pro-democracy or anti-democracy. I am not pro-regime or anti-regime. I do not favor faction A over faction B or leader X over leader Y. As a scientist I do not have a horse in the race. I’m only interested in observing activity and testing my models. It’s very important for me to act in this way and to be seen this way. If a group perceives me as being “against” them it will bias their answers to my interview questions and may impede my ability to gather data at all. I must remain neutral at all times.